It’s not unclaimed, either. Title has been transferred to the government.
Well, it’s a little odd. Private individuals buying up these guns are likely to end up with some illegal ones. After all, that’s what buyback programs target. I don’t particularly want to buy someone else’s stolen or illegally modified property, and I’m not sure why even the most pro-gun private citizen would.
I suspect it might be presented as a public policy argument (although no one aside from Bricker has yet msade that argument, to my knowledge) , but that this is not the real argument. They’ve had an enormous number of opportunities to make that argument in the past at countless prior buybacks, but I don’t recall any of these making the news. This is a new objection, and I suspect it’s inspired by the “slippery slope” situation I cite in the article above.
How many guns did they get for a $20 gift card? Geez, if that’s all it takes, they should totally re-sell the guns to the NRA. Win-win!
I just noticed that the buyback is financed by private donors. The OP mentioned it but I missed it. So, it’s not even a public policy issue.
Then the police might do with them them the same as they do with all their other legally transferable guns they no longer need. As far as I know in Arizona, they typically sell them.
That’s not as bad then. So now were just dealing with lost revenue, rather than an expense and lost revenue.
They might, but they’re not required to. According to the news this morning the police wanted to destroy them.
I imagine someone one the police force would rather destroy older police Glocks as well, but my guess is that some regulation makes them sell them.
When come back bring cite. No one has said anywhere that the police are required to sell anything but seized material.
Sure. I assume that NRA representatives would decline to purchase contraband, such as illegally modified weapons, and I further assume that they would not risk the liability of possessing stolen goods, so they would do something to insulate themselves from that – providing serial numbers to police, perhaps, and surrendering any stolen item, much like a pawn shop owner does if a pawned or sold item turns out to be stolen.
I don’t know how to find the cite. Can you find a cite that says Arizona police can destroy valuable and legal property at will? You claimed they could, I’m was just speculating.
It’s not even lost revenue, since I assume the donors of the gift cards did so with the condition that guns be acquired and then destroyed. If the city is required to sell them, the donors won’t donate, so the revenue won’t be realized either way.
The NRA is, in my view, on firm ground if they offer a counter-buy-back with higher prices. They’re on very shaky ground with the claim that the police must sell, unless I’m missing some key point.
But I haven’t read the law yet.
Cite that they aren’t required to?
Maybe they just wanted to get rid of them and wanted the gift card. One lady in the article just wanted them out of her house cause her husband who died. There wasn’t an indication that she would be displeased if they went to another law abiding citizen.
The fact that you, or anyone else so far, cannot find any evidence that they are.
They certainly might. Then again, they might not. As I’ve already pointed out, the NRA is free to take it up with the legislature if they feel this is an unwise use of the city’s resources.
I think it’s safe to assume that this would constitute the vast majority of anything turned in during a buyback. If the guns aren’t stolen or otherwise illegal, the owners would sell them at a dealer for their market value, rather than selling them to the cops for a Safeway coupon.
You’re the one making the argument that they are.
Nothing in any news report I’ve seen or heard says that they are. more to the point, none of the NRA proponents are saying that they are, except as required for “abandoned property”.
So who gives a fuck what she wants? She agreed to turn in the gun for a gift card, once she makes that exchange it is no longer her property and her pleasure or displeasure is as irrelevant as mine.
Holy Christ, the NRA and its apologists are starting to make the Teabaggers look almost intelligent by comparison.
No I just said I would not be surprised if they were. Pretty much all government property that isn’t wanted but has value ends up at auction. I can’t imagine there isn’t a policy on it. If you are sure the contrary is the case, I would like to see your cite.
The definition of “property” for the purposes of that statute are also defined:
Guns bought by the police aren’t being held for safekeeping, they are not evidence, they were not found, they were not abandond, unclaimed, or awarded by a court. That statute does not address the police buying something.
Personally, I might wonder if the police department has the legal authority to accept donations from private sources in order to purchase things. Agencies of the federal government are generally prohibited from doing that, though exceptions do exist.