AP Exclusive: Pentagon gun was from Tenn. police

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON – Two guns used in high-profile shootings this year at the Pentagon and a Las Vegas courthouse both came from the same unlikely place: the police and court system of Memphis, Tenn.

-snip-

The use of guns that once were in police custody and were later involved in attacks on police officers highlights a little-known divide in gun policy in the United States: Many cities and states destroy guns gathered in criminal probes, but others sell or trade the weapons in order to get other guns or buy equipment such as bulletproof vests.

-snip-

One of the weapons in the Pentagon attack was seized by Memphis police in 2005 and later traded to a gun dealer; the gun used in the Jan. 4 courthouse shooting in Las Vegas as sold by a judge's order and the proceeds given to the Memphis-area sheriff's office. Neither weapon was sold by the Memphis law enforcement agencies directly to the men who later used them to shoot officers.

In both cases, the weapons first went to licensed gun dealers, but later came into the hands of men who were legally barred from possessing them: one a convicted felon; the other mentally ill.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100314/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_pentagon_metro_shooting_guns

[Joanne98]

1. LOL Why am I thinking "Oath Keepers"

[Euromutt]

70. I don't know. Why are you?

[AtheistCrusader]

74. Random free association?

Next up: Kumquat.

[RC]

2. How about a three strikes law for guns.

The third time a crime gun goes around, it can't be sold back into the real world and never sees the sun again. I wonder how many guns that will keep off the streets?
Probably none because that smacks of gun control and we all know guns are innocent victims.

[Robb]

4. Perhaps

...but I would enjoy the debate that would orbit around such legislation being introduced. :thumbsup:

[harmonicon]

14. three? how about one?

For the victim of gun crime, I imagine they'd be pretty mad that the gun was ever sold to the perpetrator at all.

[PavePusher]

57. How about the same law for cars?

Or bats? Or knives? Or ANY OTHER INANIMATE OBJECT?


Or are we just going to leave logic at the door?

[Euromutt]

59. Who says "guns are innocent victims"? They're inanimate objects

Your idea only makes sense if you believe that guns (some guns, at least) are able to commit crimes of their own volition, or are imbued with some evil spirit that drives their owner to commit crimes. I hope I don't have to explain how risible either notion is.

What does make sense is the idea that pre-owned firearms are more attractive to traffickers and their straw purchasers because they're cheaper than new ones. That applies to any pre-owned firearm, not just ones that have been seized as evidence and resold to an FFL, or as sold as surplus to the agency's requirements.

[madrchsod]

3. anyone can buy a gun in the usa.

there are no "restrictions" on purchasing a gun if one looks long enough and has the cash.

[SteveM]

6. Anyone can buy pot in the usa. And it's illegal.

[cheapdate]

7. I'm in Tennessee

and it's a whole lot easier to buy a gun than to buy some pot.

[SteveM]

9. I'm in Texas. Both pot and guns are easy to buy. nt

[PavePusher]

63. I don't think you're trying very hard... n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. That's simply false. Being able to purchase a gun illegally doesn't mean there aren't restrictions.

[Euromutt]

64. Given those circumstances, anyone can buy a gun *anywhere*

there are no "restrictions" on purchasing a gun if one looks long enough and has the cash.

Provided you have enough time and money, you can buy a gun illegally in any country on the planet. In China, it's illegal for a private citizen to own anything more powerful than a .177-cal air rifle (and even that requires a permit), but organized criminals buy guns directly from the factory, albeit via the back door from certain corrupt individuals. It's much the same story in places like Croatia and Bulgaria, and those weapons are smuggled to other parts of Europe.

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. Who cares where they wind up?

The main thing is it helps keep the economy moving, and they weren't just stored away in a cabinet doing nothing.
















:sarcasm:

[trusty elf]

8. They sell guns to buy bulletproof vests....

hmmm....

:eyes::think::crazy::silly::wtf::eyes::think::crazy::silly::wtf::eyes::think::crazy::silly::wtf::eyes::think::crazy::silly::wtf::eyes::think::crazy::silly::wtf:

[RC]

32. I think that there might be a flaw in their thinking somewhere.

Either that or someone high up in the city has a financial interest in bullet proof vests.

[bossy22]

34. it makes sense

if you actually think for a second. They just don't have a garage sale with the guns; they sell them to license dealers. And chances are those guns are not goin to be used against them. They run a probability game (which life is).

Remember this is a minute amount when compared to the whole gun supply, it really doesnt signficantly affect supply and demand.

[Dr.Phool]

10. Harold Ford trafficking in arms?

:rofl:

[onehandle]

11. WFT? The Governor signed a law preventing law enforcement from destroying guns!?

This is how obsessed Republicans are with guns. Now cops can't destroy seized weapons. They go right back on the street.

'In fact, on the day of the Pentagon shooting, March 4, the Tennessee governor signed legislation revising state law on confiscated guns. Before, law enforcement agencies in the state had the option of destroying a gun. Under the new version, agencies can only destroy a gun if it's inoperable or unsafe.'

You seize a gun, You Destroy It!

Cops don't want more guns on the street, idiot Republicans.

[slackmaster]

15. Destroying them is a waste of valuable assets

It's like burning cash that gets seized from drug dealers, or crushing cars seized from drunk drivers.

[No Elephants]

26. Not destroying them also seems to be a waste of valuable assets.

One costly choice is simply more direct than the other, even more costly, choice.

IMO, it's more like destroying heroin seized by police than like destroying cash seized by police.

[bossy22]

30. no its not

heroine cannot be sold legally, guns can. Also heroine use is inherently dangerous, gun ownership is not.

Many police departments can't even afford duty handguns for their officers; taking away a good source of income is silly. Its even sillier when its done to make a political statement (which this is)

on edit: stopping these sales isn't goin to make any significant changes in crime. It just won't. The gun market is just too big and im pretty sure these sales relate to only a fraction of a percent. also if these guns werent there but the demand was, then the compaines would just turn out more new ones.

remember, increased supply does not cause an increase in demand

on edit 2: we allow police to sell old police cars but you could make the excuse that why would anyone need a 300 HP V8 sedan with a racing chip making it capable of doing 140 mph (you do know when they sell their old cars they just take out the lights and sirens, the "heart" of it is the same)

[mbperrin]

38. Remember, increased supply, ceteris paribus, means that the

equilibrium price of guns will decrease, and the equilibrium number of guns sold will increase. Movement of supply along the existing demand curve will result in more being sold at lower prices.

[bossy22]

40. true

but we must also look at significane. An extra 50,000 guns into a 15 million total "on sale" supply doesnt really significantly affect the price.

The issue is this, banning the sales of these guns aren't going to really save lives, but they are going to greatly hurt cash strapped departments. An action to ban these would be nothing more than a political statement, just like when NYC banned the use of the word N****R

[mbperrin]

41. Political statements are often useful. When Kennedy said we would

go to the moon before the end of the decade, that was politics. The technology wasn't there, funding wasn't there. But getting people excited about the political statement brought about the moonwalks and changed history forever. Miniature electronics, better computing, solar power, insulation, medical monitoring, all had to be upgraded to make the moonwalks work.

In so doing, it created the modern electronic world.

Just a line in a speech. Quantitatively, not so much. Qualitatively, spoke volumes and created energy.

[bossy22]

42. but thats in a different context

there is no direct harm in making a speech encouraging scientific exploration; but there is harm in making a statement that strips a PD of funds in which to equip their officers.

I'm not saying there isnt any harm in selling weapons that the police have or have confiscated because there is. But there is harm in most decisions we make. For example, we allow the sale of alcohol yet thousands die each year directly or indirectly from its effects. The issue is that selling these guns more good than harm. It allows for PD's to get new bullet proof vests and other equipment that is necessary for the officers; all for the .00003% chance that one of these guns will be used against them. I like those odds

[mbperrin]

45. You're certainly entitled to like the odds, but you are not entitled to

force others to like them as well, correct?

The speech I was thinking of would be one in which we equip police officers correctly so that we don't have to have "bake sales" for them, and to encourage people to shun those making illegal sales of guns, all in the name of greater enforcement of laws. Sound ok?

[bossy22]

47. i have no problem with such a speech

the problem is that reality is where we live. Sometimes we don't have the money to equip them properly. Thats the sad fact. We can whine and scream all we want but if the piggy banks empty...its empty. Money like oil is a finite resource.

Also such a statement begs the question, don't you think the police department would have tried other ways of securing funds before going through this? The answer is yes in almost all instances. PD's don't like leaving such essential things to chance income. Many times these sales to buy equipment are not by choice, but by desperation. Just because you stop these sales doesnt mean that automatically the municipality will start increasing their budget; no.

So in short,"bake sales" are not done because people like to do them, but because they are necessary. I think most organizations would like to recieve money in the way that requires the least amount of work. Its a "i would if i could but i can't" situation

lastly, such a statement like you made above would be equivalent to someone standing up in front of a bunch of people on an unemployment benefit line and saying "You should go to work so you don't have to sit on an unemployment line"

[slackmaster]

50. Nonsense

Guns don't behave like gas molecules, and any price-reducing effect caused by police selling seized ones would be miniscule.

[slackmaster]

48. Your position is simply illogical

Destroying them doesn't and can't possibly prevent anyone from acquiring a firearm.

[Flaneur]

44. Yeah, especially when they can be used to shoot innocent people.

Jesus Christ. This is why I stay out of the gungeon.

[slackmaster]

51. Magical thinking?

How can anyone seriously suggest that the police destroying seized firearms prevents anyone from acquiring one?

:crazy:

[bossy22]

53. why does it matter if the gun used was an old police gun

or a brand new gun from a dealer? It doesnt. You should also know that such sales represent an insignficant percentage of the total gun sales in this country

[420inTN]

29. TN Governor, Phil Bredesen, is a Democrat.

Although, in 2008, the Repubs did gain control (barely) of both state houses for the first time since Reconstruction.

[PavePusher]

58. Does destroying the gun destroy the evil within it?

Or do you have to have a separate ceremony, like an exorcism or something, to do that?

[Euromutt]

65. "They go right back on the street"

No, they don't; they go to a dealer, who is a Type 01 Federal Firearms Licensee, which means that to buy one of those guns, you have to fill out an ATF form 4473 and pass a NICS check, just like you have to with any firearm you buy from a dealer.

It's not like police departments are selling these out of the back of a van in a parking lot to any and all comers, no questions asked. At least, if they are, they're not doing so legally.

Moreover, if the governor signed that bill into law on the day of the Pentagon shooting, it follows that that law wasn't what enabled the shooter to acquire the firearm, right?

[one-eyed fat man]

72. Deodand

from Anglo-French deodande, from Medieval Latin deōdandum, from Latin Deō dandum (something) to be given to God, from deus god + dare to give.

They did that back in medieval times. "Executed" objects that caused a person's death. You support burning witches too?

and the Pentagon shooter was registered Democrat, apparently left-wing wackos get a free ride? You only worry about right-wing wackos?

I'd like to see all wackos kept away from guns, but only people who obey the law pay much attention to gun laws. Even apolitical moderate wackos don't care what laws they break.

The real problem with a free society is we kinda have to wait until a wacko, thug, dickhead, etc actually takes some concrete steps to commit a crime, if not carry through with the crime itself. The effectiveness of laws is in moral restraint,(for those who care)and in the certainty of punishment for those who don't.

But to prevent future rapes, using your approach to gun crime, we should castrate every male child at birth and the problem of rape would be solved in a generation.

[krispos42]

12. So they follow the same path as new guns

Surprise surprise.

[Historic NY]

13. Alma Colorado pop. 179

[pattmarty]

16. I am sick and fucking tired of ALL the police depts getting away................

...........with all sorts of shit INCLUDING murder I don't want to get robbed or shot, but it is about fucking time that we curtail this insane fucking bullshit with the cops. No more "get out of jail free" for these motherfuckers that openly violate the laws they were sworn to uphold. More and more we are becoming a true "police state" with little or no accountability for cops that break the law. It has become the vogue nowadays (even in "liberal" communities) that it is ok to get tough on criminals (meaning "spics and niggers"). Ya know that pretty soon, maybe 15 or 20 yrs the "minorities" will be the majority and I sure hope to hell that when that happens they will treat "us" (white people) a fucking lot better than we treated them.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

21. What does that have to do with the OP?

[bossy22]

23. they aren't getting away with anything

all they did was sell confiscated guns (after an investigation and trial) legally to licensed dealers. Many small dept do it as a way of getting money to get new equipment. If you have 50 confiscated guns and you sell them at $50 a peice, thats $2500 dollars that now you can put towards new guns for your officers, or other equipment. People don't realize how cash strapped some departments are. Many small departments in the midwest can't even afford to issue/reimburse a new officer for his duty weapon. Sometimes that officer is asked to use his own personal weapon or even borrow one from a friend. So every little bit of money helps.

confiscated guns are just as good as confiscated money

[No Elephants]

27. Yet, the guns sold to licensed dealers somehow found their way to folks who were not legally

able to purchase them, at least one purchased by a nut case at a gun show.

[bossy22]

31. yes that is unfortunate

but we can say that about many things. The guy down at the local liquir store purchasing a liter of jack could end up drinking all of it, driving, and killing a little kid.

In this instance we have to go by probability. Probability is that the gun will never be used in a crime again. This is not a "habitual" problem; its closer with a freak occurance. And if that gun wasnt their, this guy would have chosen another gun. So if their is 15,000,000 guns for sale each year without PD weapons, then 15,050,000 isn't goin to make a whole lot of difference. So it does more good than harm.

Many police departments rely on selling old weapons/confiscated weapons to run their department.

[slackmaster]

52. The exact same thing happens to some brand-new firearms

Your position is not logical.

[PavePusher]

60. And how was that the fault of the police? n/t

[galileoreloaded]

24. Your pills!! n/t

[patrice]

17. Oath Keepers

[PavePusher]

61. Your point is....? n/t

[Proletariatprincess]

18. guns are durable goods.

I think we forget that sometimes. Firearms are forever almost. They don't wear out. The industry keeps making more and more...guns are ubiquitous. How many is enough?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

20. The consumer will have to decide how many is enough.

[No Elephants]

28. No. That's only the outcome the RW would prefer. There's no "have to" about it.

[bossy22]

33. its the right outcome

the consumers will almost always dictate supply.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

66. Who else will decide?

[Pavulon]

22. Whatever the market demands...(nt)

[madmom]

25. I'm not sure if I'm remembering this correctly, but, I read somewhere that the guy who did the

Pentagon shooting was already denied the purchase of a gun because of his mental status, but went to a different state and was allowed the purchase. If this is true it seems the problem is not everyone having the same criteria for denial.:shrug:

[bossy22]

35. there is an issue there

the big problem with NICS (the federal background chteck system) is that it is reliant on each state inputing data into it and many times the states don't do it or don't have the money to do it. Therefore some states may enter all the info, and others don't enter any. That was the problem with Virginia Tech shooter; he was technically supposed to be denied but since virginia never put the info into the fed database, they approved him. the 2007 NICS improvement act (which was passed) was designed to fix this problem. It has done some good so far, but this data entry problem is still an issue and will take awhile to sort out.

[indepat]

36. Seem to also recall a huge amount of evidence (drugs & guns) went missing from the Memphis

Police locker several years ago, with strong, maybe irrefutable evidence of an in-side job. The missing goodies purportedly had a street value in the millions of dollars, the potential suspects few, the number of convictions zero, the number of indictments zero, the number of arrests/disciplinary actions zero, all this from my recollection, all enough to make wonder if it were all business as usual. :)

[JDPriestly]

37. Deaths -- gunshot wounds v. AIDs

Every year, more than 30,000 people are shot to death in murders, suicides, and accidents. Another 65,000 suffer from gun injuries.

Harvard School of Public Health

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/09.28/firearms.html

In 2007, the estimated number of deaths of persons with AIDS in the United States and dependent areas was 14,561. In the 50 states and the District of Columbia, this included 14,105 adults and adolescents, and 5 children under age 13 years.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#ddaids

Apparently efforts to prevent deaths from guns have been less successful than efforts to prevent deaths from AIDS. Or could there be some other explanation for this?

[bossy22]

39. correlation does not equal causation my friend

Statistics 101.

You are comparing 2 completely different things; a disease and a man made consumer good. I don't know even where to begin to explain to you but i will leave you with one. AIDS has no acceptable purpose in society; everyone can agree that AIDS is bad. That is not the case with guns. Guns still serve purposes in society; some purposes that even society endorses.

Comparing apples to tractor trailers doesnt do the debate any good

[JDPriestly]

55. We have made a lot of progress on preventing AIDs and deaths from AIDs

Lots of research has been done. If we did that much research on preventing deaths from guns, maybe we would have a safer society, a healthier society.

I would suggest that you try to get permission to visit the emergency room of the County hospital of a big city like Los Angeles on a Saturday night.

If half the money were spent on researching medical treatments for gunshot wounds that is spent on lobbying for ever more liberal gun laws, maybe we could save some of the lives lost to gunshot wounds. Of course a lot of gun deaths are due to suicides, and there are lots of alternative methods for suicide. Still, it is tragic when an insane person takes a gun and shoots a police officer. If only there were a way to put the officer and his loved ones back together. Do you suppose we could find a cure . . . .

[bossy22]

56. its more complicated than that

still you compare apples to tractor trailers. Society views both in different ways. Yes if more research toward gun violence prevention than there would probably be less gun violence but the problem is getting to that point.

There are many more things involved when it comes to gun policies than when it comes to AIDS policies

[JDPriestly]

68. You mean, more things are involved in teaching people to be careful about

sex than to be careful about guns? Or, do you mean that it is easier to persuade people to abstain from sex than to abstain from having guns? Or do you mean that teaching people to manage the anger or carelessness that leads to many gun deaths and injuries is more involved than teaching people to manage the passions that lead to AIDs transmissions?

What kinds of things are more involved when it comes to gun policies than when it comes to AIDS policies? Why is it more involved?

[GreenStormCloud]

75. Legal gun owners do very well at managing their anger.

The gun violence problem lies with illegal gun owners, commonly called criminals.

[PavePusher]

62. You'd have to compare some more numbers...

But you knew that, right?


Gun deaths vs. # of gun owners


AIDS deaths vs. AIDS carriers or possibly those at risk for AIDS.

There are approx. 80 million gun owners. How many people with AIDS? Fewer than 80M, I'm sure.

[Euromutt]

71. HIV is a pathogen; firearms are not

That is, how likely you are to become infected with HIV, how it will affect you if you are infected, and how effective antiretrovirals will be on it, are not affected by prior criminal behavior or your mental health. The likelihood of your doing something considered socially undesirable (e.g. committing a violent crime or suicide) with a firearm is greatly affected by those factors. It's perfectly possible to be exposed to firearms without ever being at risk of injuring someone (fatally or non-fatally) or being injured oneself. By contrast, being exposed to HIV is inherently risky.

As for your comparison of AIDS deaths compared to firearms deaths, well, you can "prove" anything by selecting two data points that support your argument. I could point out that firearm homicides in the US are currently at the lowest levels since the early 1960s, while unintentional deaths from GSWs are the lowest on record. Since AIDS deaths in the 1960s were zero, and the current numbers are more than zero, "efforts to prevent deaths from guns have actually been more successful than efforts to prevent deaths from AIDS." For that matter, the number of AIDS deaths in 2007 was up from 12,113 deaths the year before, whereas the number of firearm murder victims dropped from 10,225 in 2006 to 10,129 in 2007.

What does any of this prove? Not a damn thing, which is the point I'm trying to get at.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bossy22]

49. you do know that

"northern states" do the same thing with their police guns right? Even NYC area departments do it.

[shadowrider]

54. Calling DU'ers who happen to live south of the Mason-Dixon line

names like rednecks, backwaters etc. won't win you any points.

[Mike K]

67. There is only one logical approach to this issue.

If these particular guns were not available to the person(s) who purchased and misused them is there any reason to think they would not simply have bought other guns?

The toothpaste is out of the tube where the gun situation in America is concerned. So whether or not police agencies sell off their confiscated inventories is about as relevant as where bank robbers buy (or steal) their getaway cars.

[ProudDad]

69. GACK!

Fuckin' DU has REALLY gone downhill...

To ban this post to the gungeon...

Insane!

And they censor siglines, too...

[gorfle]

73. So what's the big deal here?

I'm not sure what the big deal is with the reference to the Tennessee Police.

So some police departments are selling firearms to Federally licensed firearm dealers, who, in turn sell them to the public after conducting a background check.

From the article:

"Neither weapon was sold by the Memphis law enforcement agencies directly to the men who later used them to shoot officers."

OK...so the police basically had nothing to do with the firearms getting into the hands of bad guys. So why that angle in the article?

One of the firearms ended up in the hands of a private citizen, who then sold the firearm to another private citizen (Bedell), which does not require a background check. As it turns out, Bedell was determined to be mentally incompetent and unable to own firearms according to the State of California.

For the other shooter, the article say sit is "unclear" how Wicks got his firearm. I can only take this to mean that he also did not buy it from an FFL dealer, because they must keep meticulous records of who buys their firearms otherwise they loose their FFL and go out of business.

I don't have any problem at all with the police selling or trading confiscated firearms to Federally Licensed Dealers.

The real issue here is that private citizens selling firearms have no way to tell if the person they are selling to is legally able to own firearms or not.

What is needed is an opt-out Firearm Ownership ID system, similar to what Illinois has, but on an opt-out, instead of opt-in basis, so as to protect firearm ownership anonymity.