# NRA to Sue Arizona over Destroying Buyback Guns **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 9, 2013, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-to-sue-arizona-over-destroying-buyback-guns/646623 "2013-01-09T13:17:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-to-sue-arizona-over-destroying-buyback-guns/646623/41 "2013-01-09T15:19:15Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > 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. Well if she agreed to turn it in with the contingent agreement that it be destroyed I could see her having a gripe. If not then it’s government property with value, and auctioning it to the highest bidder might be the best way to do right by the tax payers. Who knows, those guns could still save lives. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-to-sue-arizona-over-destroying-buyback-guns/646623/42 "2013-01-09T15:22:42Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 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. Safekeeping kind of applies. Language is a tricky bugger though. > [@](#): > > 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. The whole thing sounds kind of sketch to me. I’ll be interested to see how the case turns out. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-to-sue-arizona-over-destroying-buyback-guns/646623/43 "2013-01-09T15:23:20Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > 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. Hair splitting at its easiest. “I was only asking questions”. None iof the news stories suggests this is any sort of requirement, so there’s no reason to assume it to be the case. As you’re the only one suggesting it, you should be the one to bolster your case. You’re making the argument, even if you don’t call it that. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-to-sue-arizona-over-destroying-buyback-guns/646623/44 "2013-01-09T15:24:11Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Who knows, those guns could still save lives. News flash bucko- guns take lives, not save them, in spite of the fantasies that gun enthusiasts engage in. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-to-sue-arizona-over-destroying-buyback-guns/646623/45 "2013-01-09T15:24:22Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Well if she agreed to turn it in with the contingent agreement that it be destroyed I could see her having a gripe. If not then it’s government property with value, and auctioning it to the highest bidder might be the best way to do right by the tax payers. Who knows, those guns could still save lives. Or take them, which seems to be why the ;police want to destroy them. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-to-sue-arizona-over-destroying-buyback-guns/646623/46 "2013-01-09T15:25:30Z")
It is the NRA’s positition that gun buyback programs don’t work, which ties in perfectly with the NRA’s policy to make _sure_ they don’t work by sabotaging them whenever possible. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-to-sue-arizona-over-destroying-buyback-guns/646623/47 "2013-01-09T15:26:14Z")
NRA member checking in. This does seem a bit aggressive on the part of the NRA. I’d like to see a link to their position on the issue. I bet they’ll mention it as a blurb somewhere in this month’s magazine. But it doesn’t surprise me too much. One repeated theme that annoys gun owners and NRA members is the wastefulness of some anti-gun and anti-hunting programs. There have been instances where hunting is banned somewhere and then when the population of animals predictably grows to be a problem. Then government money is spent hiring sharpshooters to cull the herd when instead hunters would be happy to be paying for the privilege of hunting those animals. These sorts of policies come across as very wasteful and offensive to gun rights activists. The roots of this difference in opinion is the concept of guns or hunting being inherently “bad”… To many anti-gun people or even apathetic people the concept of “guns” is bad and removing guns from society is a desirable thing. But hunters and shooters see it as wasteful. The attitude is: Why would you melt down a bunch of guns that you bought for $20 when you could sell them at a slight markup to us? For instance, the government already runs the Civilian Marksmanship Program, which sells lots of government owned guns to the public as long as they meet certain criteria. I’m not saying I fully agree with the NRA on this one, but hopefully this helps shed some light on where gun owners are coming from. I’d like to see the NRA’s actual position on this from the source before I made up my mind. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-to-sue-arizona-over-destroying-buyback-guns/646623/48 "2013-01-09T15:28:04Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > News flash bucko- guns take lives, not save them, in spite of the fantasies that gun enthusiasts engage in. This is just not true. Defensive gun uses far exceed the lives they cost. Unless you have a cite that proves otherwise? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-to-sue-arizona-over-destroying-buyback-guns/646623/49 "2013-01-09T15:28:33Z")
Well, now I’ve read the law – SB 1108, signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer, may inform some of the discussion here. The law changes the procedure police must follow for confiscated guns. Prior to the passage of SB1108, police departments were permitted to destroy a firearm upon the conviction of the person who had used that firearm in commission of a felony. Now, police departments must sell such confiscated guns back to the public, as long as they are legal for sale. This doesn’t directly address the surrendered/donated gun issue, but I suspect the NRA wants to argue that the intent of the legislature was to ensure that police must sell, and not destroy, valuable firearms. This is backed up by State Senator [Pearce](http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/10/26/20101026arizona-gun-law.html#ixzz2HUZiWaCx): > [@](#): > > Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, who proposed the law, said that in the next legislative session he plans to fix the “loophole” that agencies are using to “skirt the law” and destroy “perfectly good weapons.” > > He said the idea was to “prevent destruction of legitimate, lawful weapons which can be sold to licensed dealers.” The law in question is Sec. 3. § 13-3105, Arizona Revised Statutes. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-to-sue-arizona-over-destroying-buyback-guns/646623/50 "2013-01-09T15:29:15Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > It is the NRA’s positition that gun buyback programs don’t work, which ties in perfectly with the NRA’s policy to make _sure_ they don’t work by sabotaging them whenever possible. I’m sure you have a cite for both of these accusations? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-to-sue-arizona-over-destroying-buyback-guns/646623/51 "2013-01-09T15:31:45Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > 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. But that doesn’t make sense, either. The NRA cannot be demanding the police sell illegally modified weapons. Nor would the police sell or destroy a stolen weapon they received; they would return it to the owner. I’d like to see some figures on this issue in place of duelling assumptions. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-to-sue-arizona-over-destroying-buyback-guns/646623/52 "2013-01-09T15:33:06Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > NRA member checking in. > > This does seem a bit aggressive on the part of the NRA. I’d like to see a link to their position on the issue. I bet they’ll mention it as a blurb somewhere in this month’s magazine. > > But it doesn’t surprise me too much. One repeated theme that annoys gun owners and NRA members is the wastefulness of some anti-gun and anti-hunting programs. There have been instances where hunting is banned somewhere and then when the population of animals predictably grows to be a problem. Then government money is spent hiring sharpshooters to cull the herd when instead hunters would be happy to be paying for the privilege of hunting those animals. These sorts of policies come across as very wasteful and offensive to gun rights activists. > > The roots of this difference in opinion is the concept of guns or hunting being inherently “bad”… To many anti-gun people or even apathetic people the concept of “guns” is bad and removing guns from society is a desirable thing. But hunters and shooters see it as wasteful. The attitude is: Why would you melt down a bunch of guns that you bought for $20 when you could sell them at a slight markup to us? > > For instance, the government already runs the Civilian Marksmanship Program, which sells lots of government owned guns to the public as long as they meet certain criteria. > > I’m not saying I fully agree with the NRA on this one, but hopefully this helps shed some light on where gun owners are coming from. I’d like to see the NRA’s actual position on this from the source before I made up my mind. I suspect the real intent is what I pointed out in post #12 above – they’re afraid of a “slippery slope” situatio n where voluntary buyback probgrams might turn into compulsory ones, like the one in Australia cited there. If that was their concern, it would msake sense to do their best to discredit buyback programs in the first place, so that they could not “turn into” anything. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-to-sue-arizona-over-destroying-buyback-guns/646623/53 "2013-01-09T15:33:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, now I’ve read the law – SB 1108, signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer, may inform some of the discussion here. The law changes the procedure police must follow for confiscated guns. Prior to the passage of SB1108, police departments were permitted to destroy a firearm upon the conviction of the person who had used that firearm in commission of a felony. > > Now, police departments must sell such confiscated guns back to the public, as long as they are legal for sale. > > This doesn’t directly address the surrendered/donated gun issue, but I suspect the NRA wants to argue that the intent of the legislature was to ensure that police must sell, and not destroy, valuable firearms. > > This is backed up by State Senator [Pearce](http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/10/26/20101026arizona-gun-law.html#ixzz2HUZiWaCx): > The law in question is Sec. 3. § 13-3105, Arizona Revised Statutes. A purchased gun is not a confiscated gun. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-to-sue-arizona-over-destroying-buyback-guns/646623/54 "2013-01-09T15:36:17Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > This is just not true. Defensive gun uses far exceed the lives they cost. Unless you have a cite that proves otherwise? Let’s see. [31,347 firearm deaths in 2009.](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm) Cite for number of lives saved by guns in 2009? I mean, besides yahoos that say “oh I got really scared, good thing I was packing heat or I would have been killed.” ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-to-sue-arizona-over-destroying-buyback-guns/646623/55 "2013-01-09T15:40:28Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Let’s see. [31,347 firearm deaths in 2009.](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm) Cite for number of lives saved by guns in 2009? I mean, besides yahoos that say “oh I got really scared, good thing I was packing heat or I would have been killed.” I don’t even know where to start with you. First of all your number is wrong. It includes suicides. But it doesn’t matter. Defensive gun uses run into the millions of times per year. Even the lowest estimates are in the hundreds of thousands. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-to-sue-arizona-over-destroying-buyback-guns/646623/56 "2013-01-09T15:41:52Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I don’t even know where to start with you. First of all your number is wrong. It includes suicides. > > But it doesn’t matter. Defensive gun uses run into the millions of times per year. Even the lowest estimates are in the hundreds of thousands. When your lot applauds the murder of an unarmed teen as a defensive use, one doesn’t have common ground to debate the point. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-to-sue-arizona-over-destroying-buyback-guns/646623/57 "2013-01-09T15:42:58Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > Hair splitting at its easiest. “I was only asking questions”. None iof the news stories suggests this is any sort of requirement, so there’s no reason to assume it to be the case. As you’re the only one suggesting it, you should be the one to bolster your case. You’re making the argument, even if you don’t call it that. No I’m not, you are. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-to-sue-arizona-over-destroying-buyback-guns/646623/58 "2013-01-09T15:43:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, now I’ve read the law – SB 1108, signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer, may inform some of the discussion here. The law changes the procedure police must follow for confiscated guns. Prior to the passage of SB1108, police departments were permitted to destroy a firearm upon the conviction of the person who had used that firearm in commission of a felony. > > Now, police departments must sell such confiscated guns back to the public, as long as they are legal for sale. > > This doesn’t directly address the surrendered/donated gun issue, but I suspect the NRA wants to argue that the intent of the legislature was to ensure that police must sell, and not destroy, valuable firearms. > > This is backed up by State Senator [Pearce](http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/10/26/20101026arizona-gun-law.html#ixzz2HUZiWaCx): > The law in question is Sec. 3. § 13-3105, Arizona Revised Statutes. There’s no “section 3”. The text, for those playing at home: > [@](#): > > 13-3105. Forfeiture of weapons and explosives > > A. On the conviction of any person for a violation of any felony in this state in which a deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or explosive was used, displayed or unlawfully possessed by the person, the court shall order the article forfeited and sold within one year after its forfeiture to any business that is authorized to receive and dispose of the article under federal and state law and that shall sell the article to the public according to federal and state law, unless the article is otherwise prohibited from being sold under federal and state law, in which case it shall be destroyed or otherwise properly disposed. > > B. On the conviction of any person for a violation of section 13-2904, subsection A, paragraph 6 or section 13-3102, subsection A, paragraph 1 or 8, the court may order the forfeiture of the deadly weapon or dangerous instrument involved in the offense. > > C. If at any time the court finds pursuant to rule 11 of the Arizona rules of criminal procedure that a person who is charged with a violation of this title is incompetent, the court shall order that any deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or explosive used, displayed or unlawfully possessed by the person during the commission of the alleged offense be forfeited and sold within one year after its forfeiture to any business that is authorized to receive and dispose of the article under federal and state law and that shall sell the article to the public according to federal and state law, unless the article is otherwise prohibited from being sold under federal and state law, in which case it shall be destroyed or otherwise properly disposed. It seems Sen. Pearce should draft his bills more carefully if he intended this one to cover buyback guns. > [@](#): > > I’d like to see some figures on this issue in place of duelling assumptions. I don’t think there are dueling assumptions here, are there? I’m assuming you don’t believe people are turning in legally owned, above-board firearms for $20. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-to-sue-arizona-over-destroying-buyback-guns/646623/59 "2013-01-09T15:45:01Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Defensive gun uses run into the millions of times per year. Even the lowest estimates are in the hundreds of thousands. I hereby estimate the number to be 5,432. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-to-sue-arizona-over-destroying-buyback-guns/646623/60 "2013-01-09T15:45:06Z")
To better understand the NRA’s position on buyback programs, here is an NRA supported law being proposed in Mississippi if anyone is interested: "[House Bill 627](http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/2012/pdf/history/HB/HB0627.xml), by state Representative Gary Chism (R-37), would prohibit state and local participation in gun “buy-back” programs unless the agency or governmental entity offers all surrendered firearms for sale at auction to federal firearm licensed dealers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-to-sue-arizona-over-destroying-buyback-guns/646623.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-to-sue-arizona-over-destroying-buyback-guns/646623.md?page=4)