Arizona Court Rules On Cities Destroying Confiscated Guns Good news!)

HotAir.com ^ | 08/192017 | Jazz Shaw

[aimhigh]

The NRA Institute for Legislative Action picked up a potentially important court ruling coming out of Arizona this week which has mostly flown under the media radar. Under debate is a policy in Tuscon (along with other cities and counties) which mandates the routine destruction of guns which are confiscated from criminals or surrendered during “no questions asked” gun turn-in events.

Since guns are items of value, the question is raised as to whether or not they can simply destroy and dispose of them rather than offering them for legal sale to subsidize taxpayer contributions to the city’s coffers. The political appeal of destroying guns for the left is obvious, but the courts have put the breaks on the practice.

[AzSteven]

That blog might be more relevant if they could be bothered to spell Tucson correctly

[\/\/ayne]

The man who works to make Arizona's gun laws great is Charles Heller who has two radio show every Sunday; the first is Liberty Watch and the 2nd (pun intended) is America Armed and Free.

Here's a recent podcast: 7 16 17 America Armed & Free - A history of the Right To Keep And Bear Arms in Arizona and the formation of The Arizona Citizens Defense League.

If something good happens with gun laws in Arizona, the Arizona Citizens Defense League likely helped. Gun owners in every state should study them and their successful work to keep tyrants at bay.

[MileHi]

...or surrendered during “no questions asked” gun turn-in events.

I'd be leery about buying a police auction gun unless they ballistic test them first.

[Balding_Eagle]

but the courts have put the breaks on the practice.

Who writes this stuff?, we need to BRAKE them.

[Svartalfiar]

That blog might be more relevant if they could be bothered to spell Tucson correctly

Not to mention the last sentence of the excerpt. Someone (and his editor) doesn't know the difference between 'breaks' and 'brakes'.

[Pontiac]

The case represents the latest battle in an effort dating back nearly two decades to prevent anti-gun localities from undermining the pro-gun policies of the state legislature.

This article originates at the NRA but law suit originates with the state.

The law in question is intended to alleviate some of the financial burden on the taxpayer of city government.

Many states have similar laws that require cities to sell confiscated property rather than destroy it where possible.

Selling valuable property rather than destroy it makes sense. Destroying property to serve a political cause does not.

Just another example of a Democrat controlled city deciding that it does not have to obey laws that get in the way of their Leftist agenda. And then when called on their bad behavior, wasting taxpayer money by fighting in court for their ‘right’ to keep breaking the law.