Arizona lawmakers want cities to sell guns from buyback programs

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

Arizona lawmakers want cities to sell guns from buyback programs

By David Schwartz
PHOENIX | Tue Apr 16, 2013 10:50pm EDT

(Reuters) - Arizona lawmakers, stepping into the contentious national gun control debate, approved a controversial measure on Tuesday mandating that cities and counties resell firearms turned in during gun buyback programs rather than melt them down.

The Republican-controlled Arizona state Senate voted 18-12 to no longer allowed firearms to be destroyed by local municipalities, saying it was a waste of taxpayer money. The state House approved the bill in March.

The measure must now be signed or vetoed by Republican Governor Jan Brewer, a staunch gun rights advocate. A spokesman for the governor declined comment on the fate of the legislation late on Tuesday.

State Senator Rick Murphy, a Republican, said destroying the turned-in weapons was a waste of money that could be generated by these gun sales and has urged his colleagues to cast aside the "emotional rhetoric" raised when the issue of guns comes up for public debate.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/17/us-usa-guns-arizona-idUSBRE93G03N20130417

[tridim]

1. Republicans are INSANE

[Bay Boy]

2. That kind of defeats the purpose...

...don't you think?

[slackmaster]

4. Not really. The purpose of a gun buyback is to give people who have guns they don't want...

...an easy, painless way to trade them in for cash.

Selling them to people who DO want them and can pass a background check makes perfect sense.

[tridim]

6. Is that the stated, official purpose?

Because I always assumed the purpose was to get unwanted guns off the street.

THAT, makes sense. Your reason doesn't make sense at all.

[slackmaster]

7. Let's assume that the purpose is to get unwanted guns off the street.

How is selling them to people who want them inconsistent with that goal?

[tridim]

9. Because the second they're resold, they're back on the street.

Not rocket science.

[slackmaster]

11. Do you consider every gun that someone owns to be "on the street?"

I keep mine in a safe.

[tridim]

13. Taking it as a figure of speech. Yes.

But these days "on the street" has a more direct meaning. More and more gun nuts are actually carrying these guns in public, and yes that includes the street, and schools.

[slackmaster]

14. It's a pejorative, not just a figure of speech. It implies that every gun that people own...

...is a threat to society in general. It implies that gun owners are bad people. But most of us are not. Most of us never commit any kind of violent crime.

Guns that are owned by people who don't want them certainly are a problem. But guns in the hands of responsible people are not.

[tridim]

20. I don't think it's responsible to buy a weapon that the former owner assumed would be destroyed.

[Bay Boy]

22. That would kind of depend if...

...the new owner is responsible or not. But I still see your point, if the seller expects the gun to be destroyed, it should probably be destroyed.

But as someone else mentioned; if some widower sells a valuable gun for a pittance that is wrong if the place doing the buy back doesn't mention that.

[slackmaster]

24. If the bill under discussion here is enacted, people who turn in guns at buy-backs...

...would have no reason to assume the guns were going to be destroyed.

If they want their guns destroyed, they can destroy the guns. People turn them in at buy-backs to get money.

[tridim]

26. I'm a person, and will eventually turn my dad's guns in to be destroyed, not for money.

Unfortunately I don't own a blast furnace. Most people don't.

[gejohnston]

28. remove the stocks

and cut them in pieces, and take the pieces to a scrap yard. That is the only guarantee it won't land up in some cop's private collection, his personal sale at a flea market, or be a "throw down" gun to cover up a bad shoot.

Depending on the state or city, the guns could very well be auctioned off to FFLs as required by their policies or state law.

[slackmaster]

32. Do you own a hacksaw or a sledge hammer, or could you borrow one or the other?

Destroying a firearm isn't rocket surgery.

But if you'd prefer to get some cash and have the weapons go to someone who won't abuse them, drop me a PM when the time comes. I have a Federal Firearms License and may be able to help.

[CreekDog]

29. wow, you claim to support freedom but you oppose letting people do what they want with their own gun

total hypocrite.

total conservative position.

totally unsurprising.

[CokeMachine]

36. Right back at ya. I believe the highlighted part of your post is your position -- yes/no.

"wow, you claim to support freedom but you oppose letting people do what they want with their own gun"

I won't add your childish name calling because I'm not a host and would probably get hidden.

[krispos42]

27. And at that point, they are no longer "unwanted".

Your use of the term "on the street" has criminal-use connotations, which is not what we're talking about.


If the purpose is to achieve a general disarmament of the population, then NOT selling such guns does not achieve that goal, not when people can still buy new and used guns legally.



If the purpose is to turn in unwanted guns that are kicking around, perhaps in unsecured areas, then selling them to people that would otherwise buy from a gun dealer is reasonable.

[CreekDog]

30. why do you oppose letting gun owners do what they want with their guns?

wow, you oppose the rights of gun owners.

amazing hypocrisy.

[krispos42]

34. When they transfer the gun to the police...

...they are, by definition, no longer the gun owner. The police are.



Nothing stopping them from destroying their own gun. I've done it myself on an unwanted gun before I tossed it.


You're operating from the assumption that people turning in guns have had some kind of revelation and are now anti-gun. Not necessarily true.


I'll also note that this would not apply to private gun turn-in programs. A church, for example, could have a program where they pledge to destroy all turned in guns. I think it's foolish, but if it's privately funded, then that's their business, not public business. They could have a bandsaw right on site, and chop each receiver two or three times before tossing it in a recycling bin.

[CreekDog]

35. I'm realizing that you are expressing major hypocrisy to deny owners a way to destroy guns

again, you are in favor of guns, not gun owners.

more guns, more guns, more guns.

oh and recycling? try not to pretend to be an environmentalist. it's probably the only time in the past year you've used the term "recycling".

[DonP]

39. Try again, I'm sure you can be sound more shrill and desperate

People at gun buy backs want a gun out of their house and usually pick up a gift card in return. One Illinois group turned in about 30 rusted guns last year and used the nice $50 gift cards from Rahm to buy new Ruger 10/22 guns for the youth shooting program.

The vast majority of guns at "turn ins" are junk guns or rusted piles of metal. Very few are gang guns or usable street guns and any that are quality usually wind up in some cops sock drawer.

If the cops can get a few bucks to help their budgets out, and they run a NICS check on anyone that buys them, fine.

Or ... you can form an "Activism" group and offer to contribute the same amount to the Arizona police and just destroy the guns yourself. That way the cops would get the extra money and you'd feel all warm and fuzzy.

[CreekDog]

40. plenty of people who would pass a background check will use a gun in a way that will endanger people

people without records, without violations and without mental health history which would exclude them from firearms harm people with guns.

guns themselves are lethal force and are in and of themselves dangerous.

[DonP]

41. Animated firearms? Too many cartoons?

"guns themselves are lethal force and are in and of themselves dangerous."

Gee, my whole collection has just sat there in a safe for the past 20 or so years, and aside from a little M-1 Garand Thumb once in a while, no harm came to anyone.

You have two issues to deal with.

1. A grossly over active imagination.

2. Not even enough votes in the Senate, from our own Dems, to get even a pathetic watered down gun control bill passed.

[krispos42]

54. Yeah, that's reality.

We have to *gasp* trust the people around us.

[CreekDog]

55. you can't trust them without a gun?

then it's not trust.

[krispos42]

56. I don't carry.

Nor am I a martial artist. I carry a swiss army knife and a small pocket folding knife, both of which are tools because, like I said, I'm not a martial artist.

So I do trust people.

I trust them on the sidewalk, I trust them while driving, I trust them while shopping, etc.

Doubtless I've mingled with illegally armed criminals as well as legally armed citizens at some point in my life.

[krispos42]

42. Nothing is stopping owners from destroying their guns

Like I said, I've done it myself. An old bolt-action .22 rifle.

But what you seem to want is that gun owners who want to not only give up possession of their guns, but have the guns destroyed, while suffering no financial loss.



If a person wants to get rid of a gun, they can sell it. They will recover some or most of what they paid for the gun, but the gun will continue to exist and at some point will acquire a new owner.

If they want to destroy a gun, they can destroy it. They will lose whatever value the gun had, but the gun will no longer continue to exist.

What you seem want is that a person can have a gun of theirs destroyed at somebody else's expense.

If there really was a mass rejection of the concept of owning guns, you would think you would see a lot of people destroying their guns and simply taking the financial loss.



My point is that the police department is under no obligation to destroy turned-in guns FOR gun owners. And, since new and used guns are freely and legally available, destroying them makes no sense from a logical standpoint. They can be sold by the police department for money, or equivalent guns can be sold by gun shops for profit. In either case, the same number of guns find new owners after going through a background check.

Also, there is no reason that a private party or organization could destroy as many guns as they can buy or receive as donations.

I think what is getting you upset is that you very much want the per-capita gun ownership rate to fall in a steep and deep manner, and that I or anybody else would argue against what you want to happen.

[CreekDog]

43. you are against gun buybacks, period. you are against the very reason they exist.

the thing you are most concerned about is the loss of one gun from society.

you think that loss is so significant that you don't even think charitable donations to police to destroy guns should be a legal avenue.

your God is a gun. everything you post in this group shows that the gun is your master. the gun trumps all.

the gun is to be recycled. the gun is not to be destroyed.

the gun owner's right is even below that of the right of a gun to exist.

it's as if you were pro-gun the way someone who is pro-fetus is pro-life.

[DonP]

44. You really need to chill the fuck out

[krispos42]

53. Gone off the rails much?

I dislike the term "buyback". I didn't buy my guns from the government, so why would they buy them "back"?

And no, I don't have a problem with such programs. If people don't want guns, if people have guns kicking around that they don't want responsibility for, then they should sell them or give them away.

I have a problem with useless destruction.

If a perfectly useful, functioning gun, identical to one for perfectly legal sale at a gun shop, is turned in at a gun buying program, then destroying it is stupid. Now, I'm sure the gun makers will be very happy to have the police melt down perfectly fine guns... it drives the replacement market.

How about this? I notice you have mentioned the opposite side of the issue... what if a person turns in a gun and says he wants it sold, not destroyed? Will you respect his wishes?

[Jenoch]

52. My brother is a police officer.

He is also a gun collector. His interest in guns led him to be both the range officer and gun armorer for his small (fewer than 20) department. People bring unwanted guns to the police station but it is not a 'buyback' program. If he is interested in owning the gun he pays them for it. If he is not interested, and the gun has some value, he will see if anyone else in the department is interested. There is a retired cop nearby who almost always acquires the gun for his collection when it is offered. There has occasionaly been worthless guns brought in and they are told they have no value and accept them without compensation. My brother has a WWII P-38 that was still loaded. A widow lady brought it in. Her husband brought it back as a war souvenir. My brother first told her the gun had some value and asked her if she had a family member who would be interested in owning the gun.

[CokeMachine]

37. I think your posts

in this sub-thread are showing your hypocrisy. You are totally anti-gun but you are now saying everyone should be able to as they please with their guns?

[DonP]

45. Well, as long as what they want is to destroy the gun

OTOH, If they want to keep it and use it to teach their children or grandchildren firearm safety and target shooting, I have a feeling that's not an "allowable" choice to "do what they want with their own gun". I could be wrong about that , but Nahhh!

[CokeMachine]

47. I don't think that poster actually thinks before posting.

I'm probably on his/her ignore list as he/she doesn't respond to me anymore. The hypocrisy in the posts in this sub-thread would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Take Care,

[premium]

48. I find it ironic that he/she can

make all kinds of wild accusations on this group without fear of being banned, but if the same thing is tried on the other gun group, the ban would be swift.
Just sayin' ya know.

[CokeMachine]

50. Yep -- that one and a couple of others are just here to disrupt.

I'm careful in the other group and try to respect their echo chamber.

[Bay Boy]

10. Who are these people who keep their guns 'on the street'?

I just think that's a funny phrase to use.

[tridim]

12. Concealed carry people carry their weapons on the street and other public places.

[Bay Boy]

18. Yes they do but...

...that isn't what the phrase refers to in this case.

Gun buy backs are always said to get guns off the street, but they are referring to guns people have in their homes that aren't wanted anymore.

[tridim]

19. Semantics aside, unwanted guns in closets end up stolen and on the street all the time.

We already have way too many weapons out there.

[gordianot]

3. Not surprised age old source of Police confiscated firearms Pukes want a cut of the action.

It is like going to the shredder you need to see if the guns are actually destroyed.

[socialindependocrat]

5. A waste of money when you think about it

The people who turn in guns really don't use them and don't care about guns

The guns are found in the attic or closet so they really are in a place where the won't be used.
So why spend the money to buy them back? Nothing's accomplished. The guns were basically
out of circulation anyway.

On the other hand - some of the guns are very expensive, collector's items and are worth lots of money.
So the state pays $50 to get a gun and then auctions it off for $2,000 and the elderly widow goes
on eating dog food and living in a cold house.

It's another way for the government to make money by scamming the uninformed.

[tridim]

8. Do you really believe that unwanted guns in a closet "won't be used"?

Wow.

[gejohnston]

15. 99.99999 percent of the time

yes.
Some of the handguns have been sitting in sock drawers for 40 years. I know of one Canadian gun shop that uses a "buy back" scheme as part of their business model. They offer a disposal service for guns that land up in your possession (like tenet leaves one behind, kids inherit but don't want them) and will pay for them, unlike the cops. They flip the ones they can, scrap give to the cops what they can't.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. The gun buy backs often pay a pittance of what they are worth

And yes many of them are inherited and unused.

[gordianot]

16. Make no mistake some do cash in on firearms buy backs.

Firearms can be rendered inoperable on the spot seldom done. I do not trust buy backs or those who promote them unless the fire arms are made inoperable.

[gejohnston]

21. Are they using funds from the state, or from their own tax base?

If the latter, it shouldn't be the state's business. If the money comes from private groups like Cease Fire or some church, then it really isn't the state government's business.

[gordianot]

23. That probably works.

[petronius]

33. That was my first thought - I really don't think that any public money should

be used for buybacks (as they're not IMO a cost-effective public safety measure, and are mainly theatre), but in that case the sponsoring group should have the final say about disposition. At the very least, the organizers should be able to make their own arrangements for shredding or whatever else...

[krispos42]

25. Good. Recycling.

To do otherwise is stupid.



If the city towed a car that was fully functioning but abandoned, would it make any sense to destroy the car rather than put it up for auction? Would destroying this car in any way alleviate traffic or parking problems in that city?


Transferring a gun from a person that doesn't want it to somebody that does makes perfect sense, especially since the person buying the gun has multiple, legal avenues to buy guns. Now, doubtless the gun makers want the old gun destroyed to boost the market for new guns.

But as long as people can buy new and used guns legally from gun shops and private sellers, it makes no sense for the government to purchase and then destroy guns as a general policy.

I'm not saying there aren't reasonable exceptions to the rule (junk guns, broken guns, rust-buckets, whatever), but as a general policy it makes no sense.

[CreekDog]

31. you oppose the right of gun owners to dispose of their guns --you oppose gun rights

wow.

wow.

you just want more guns in more places and if you have to take away the rights of gun owners, you'll do it because you don't support gun rights, you support the opposite.

[CokeMachine]

38. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[lars1701a]

46. there should be an option

When you turn it in for a gift card they should ask you if its ok to resell it or destroy it. That seems fair, doesn't it?

[slackmaster]

49. I think that's a fine idea.

[Straw Man]

51. Yes.

When you turn it in for a gift card they should ask you if its ok to resell it or destroy it. That seems fair, doesn't it?

It sure does to me. Some people may have an opinion one way or another, but many won't.