I saw this story today:
Can someone explain the rationale behind this law to me? I am generally a gun control supporter, but I can usually understand the thinking behind laws that expand the rights of gun owners. I might disagree, but I understand.
But this makes no sense to me. Why should anyone care if the police decide to destroy a gun from a buy back program? It smacks of gun fetishism to me.
Because the guns are valuable property, and if sold at auction can provide needed funds.
I assume, if you heard that police were taking cash seized from drug dealers and burning it after the trial was over, you’d be in favor of stopping the practice.
That’s the obvious practical rationale, using the taxpayers’ money to pay people to destroy valuable property is simply wasteful.
There’s also a less tangible aspect, which is combating the idea that firearms are inherently wicked devices that should be destroyed whenever the opportunity arises.
Is it possible the law was meant to dissuade agencies from holding buy back programs in the first place? If they’re buying guns to get them off the street, having to sell them puts them back on the street.
I’ve objected to Australian hoon laws for much the same reason. It’s bloody stupid to destroy perfectly good cars just to spite the criminals, when you could sell them or just give them away.
They shouldn’t be buying guns to keep them out of the hands of the public, they should be buying guns to keep them out of the hands of criminals.
Sometimes member of the public later turn into criminals. In fact, all criminals were once law abiding citizens.
I’m sure that’s possible, but it seems like a law prohibiting law-enforcement agencies from holding buybacks would be more direct and effective, and probably politically feasible in North Carolina.
Also, the law doesn’t require that the firearms be sold, the police have the option of:
So, if they are determined to keep the firearms out of the hands of new owners, they can store them in the basement or give them away to non-individuals.
The law seems to only apply to judges, district attorneys, and law enforcement agencies, so in theory one of them could strike a deal with a local museum or historical society (possibly one newly-established for that purpose, even) wherein all unclaimed firearms were donated, with museum-worthy pieces being kept and the rest destroyed, or even all of them destroyed.
Another reason is that some of the guns may be antiques whose owners are not aware of their value (“Hey, let’s get rid of that old gun we found in grandpa’s attic”). It would be a shame to destroy them for no good reason, just as it would be a shame to destroy a restored classic car if it somehow ended up as the property of a police department.
Enterprising private citizens have run rival “buybacks” down the street from police ones to pick up valuable pieces on the cheap.
Any act of desecration of the Holy Gun is an act of blasphemy which must be forbidden by the full force of the law, lest the Smith, the Wesson, and the Holy Colt turn their backs on our nation.
But that’s impossible to enforce. How can you know that the guy turning in a gun is a criminal when it’s set up as a don’t ask don’t tell program?
This all exposes the ridiculousness of gun buy back programs. Criminals generally aren’t going to turn in a gun unless it’s evidence of a crime and they want to dump it. (though turning it in to the authorities, even with a DADT policy, is pretty stupid).
It isn’t only about criminals, yanno - there are plenty of deaths caused by “law-abiding citizens”, and there are plenty of people who know and fear that and want to get the damn things out of their homes before something tragic happens. A police buyback program is a fine way to do that, especially if those guns cannot get back in circulation.
And doing so puts the same gun back on the street again, which the police don’t like, generally speaking.
Show me significant data that indicates a majority of law enforcement officers oppose law abiding citizens from obtain a firearm in a lawful manner.
No cite, but I am thinking that from a cop’s POV, the fewer firearms there are in circulation the better, no matter who owns them or how they got them.
There is little basis in fact for this thinking.
Well, I believe you’re an ex-cop, aren’t you? How do most officers view this issue? (Bearing in mind anything you say there will still be anecdotal evidence, not statistical.)
Actually, no. I retired from a large dpeartment in 2007 and then took a part-time patrol gig with another agency to supplement my pension. So while I now only work 16-24 hours a week, I’m still on the job.
The important thing to remember is the difference between street cops and chiefs/sheriffs. A chief or sheriff is a politically controlled ontrolled office and they are going to say what their masters tell them to say.
Polls routinely show street cops oppose gun control measures.
But everytime some pol tries to ram through another restriction they inevitably will say one of it’s benefits is safety to police. They couldn’t possible care less what cops think or they’d realize the majority don’t support these laws!
That’s exactly what it is, gun worship.
Putting them in the hands of the public means putting them in the hands of criminals.