Posted on 06/28/2013 5:58:14 PM PDT by marktwain
Ohio gun-rights advocates are upset about the defenseless killing of guns.
Among this year's wave of proposals that are supposed to preserve the sanctity of the Second Amendment is one to protect the sanctity of the gun itself -- from murder.
Ohio House Bill 210 – introduced by Republican Rep. John Becker of Southwest Ohio – would prohibit police departments and other law enforcement agencies from destroying legal guns and ammunition seized in crime investigations and collected through gun-buyback programs.
I hope gun-rights advocates pay close attention because this bill is killing their credibility. The bill does absolutely nothing to advance the protection of gun rights.
Police departments melt their inventories of firearms, which include guns used in a crimes that are no longer needed as evidence. And, in many cases, police departments are carrying out the wishes of responsible gun owners, some elderly, who turned their firearms over because they want them safely destroyed.
Last time I checked, that is their right.
But HB 210 would trump all this and require law enforcement agencies to sell these guns to licensed gun dealers.
Take a minute to think about this. I'm not sure the sponsors did. Under this bill, the .22-caliber Ruger handgun used by Chardon's T.J. Lane to kill three classmates would get a second life while his victims do not.
The bill's supporters argue it's needed because police departments and law enforcement agencies are ignoring a revenue stream that could be used to buy bulletproof vests and other safety items.
The bill is not really about generating revenue. It's another shot against what they see as gun-control advocates' influence over police.
Don't take my word for it. Listen to Doug Deeken, director of Ohioans for Concealed Carry. He told Plain Dealer Reporter Brandon Blackwell that police are "beholden to this cultlike agenda in which they have to destroy" guns.
Deeken continued, "I think it's a crime to melt down guns. The gun didn't do anything wrong."
Jim Irvine, chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Association, is more measured. He told me that the bill's supporters have seen guns with great monetary and historical value indiscriminately destroyed. He believes the bill is a win-win for those who want to preserve the craftsmanship of some guns and for law enforcement, which always needs more money.
Irvine might also be open to changes to HB 210 that would make exceptions for weapons used in high-profile crimes if a victim's family objects to their sale.
Cleveland Safety Director Marty Flask has no tolerance for the bill – or for legislators who support it.
"Whatever the pro-gun advocates want, the legislature will do it," he said. "I've been criticized for my comments in the past, that some legislators are shills for pro-gun advocates. My opinion has not changed."
Flask said the department destroys guns with good reason. While he acknowledged that the criminals don't turn in their guns through buyback program, the program takes hundreds of guns out of homes, which keeps them from getting stolen, a primary source of guns on the street.
"Buybacks do serve a purpose, mainly to destroy guns that could wind up in the hands of criminals," he said. "We are destroying guns that people turned in, and for us to put them back into the community is contradictory to our goal of reducing violence."
The bill also is pushing the unrealistic notion that police departments have the time or resources to get into the gun-sales business, or that money will easily flow in for guns that don't shoot straight. Melting guns is the most efficient system for handling them. Police departments should be focused on fighting crime, not running side businesses.
If gun-rights advocates truly want to help out law enforcement agencies, they should strike up a partnership with them. They should offer to send representatives to flag firearms of exceptional value and link the agencies with a licensed dealer. This way, the few good valuable guns are saved and the rest get destroyed. I'm sure the gun manufacturers won't mind.
Gun-rights advocates should drop the bill and keep their powder dry for real battles over Second Amendment.
let them be destroyed. each ancient relic of firearm turned in, is replaced with a more bad-a$$ upgraded model, which i will gladly buy to support the jobs and businesses that still produce firearms. bought one today, just cuz i like how scary it looked. yay! Texas!
Mark Naymik is the ones giving the guns human characteristics:
“Under this bill, the .22-caliber Ruger handgun used by Chardon’s T.J. Lane to kill three classmates would get a second life while his victims do not.”
The gun was never “alive” to begin with.
He derides Doug Deeken for saying:
Deeken continued, “I think it’s a crime to melt down guns. The gun didn’t do anything wrong.”
That is a simple statement of fact. Guns do not have minds. They do not make moral choices.
And destroying guns doesn’t prevent crime.
Maybe the police shouldn’t be in the business of destroying guns. Maybe that could be handled by private companies filling that critical niche.
And if there is a notorious crime gun, then maybe it should be auctioned for a substantial premium, like other famous murder weapons associated with famed criminals. I’d even support the fined going in part to uncompensated victims of crime. But the wanton destruction of a machine that has value is irrational.
I seriously doubt such evidence would ever be let go of. If there is ever a retrial they would need it. Guns that are sold are confiscated weapons, not evidence.
The value of the gun in total would be--at minimum--the value of the parts minus the labor to extract them. If a gun has no value except as parts, the quoted statement would be technically true, but not in the sense most people would read it. More likely the statement is trying to say that the retail value of the parts of a gun may substantially exceed the value of the gun; that would be true, but ignores the fact that some or even most of the parts may never end up getting sold at retail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.