“…why do you care if Minneapolis creates a gun law more restrictive than state gun laws?”
Because of episodes like this, in Cleveland, which can write laws more restrictive – and idiotic – than state law.
7 thoughts on ““So Mitch…””
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This weekend, I talked to a person who works in the evidence room of a local police department. The person confirmed the department melts confiscated firearms instead of selling them through licensed dealers. I’m thinking “Hey, you’ve got so much money that you don’t need honest revenue, time to trim the budget until need trumps political correctness.”
This is not an uncommon practice, even after relatively recent legislation made the ability of law enforcement agencies to sell such weapons much easier.
Some smug, all-knowing, part time politicians I know proudly refuse to “put these guns ‘back on the streets'”, or perhaps more appropriate, out in the cul-de-sacs of their already safe, third-ring suburban fiefdoms.
Like hardboiled journalists, some of these types like tough talk and jargon. In their everyday life, what they do when not playing politician in weekly council meetings, they have to follow the same rules as everyone else. Sadly, this doesn’t always make it out to the 10-20% of the citizenry who even bother to vote.
However, in many cases, a lot of the stuff is just turned-in junk that would cost more to sell than toss. Interestingly, one major source of disposal stopped the practice a while back for fear of political backlash from pro-rights groups. Not sure who’s doing it now, but good luck; guns can’t be run through a paper shredder or flushed down the toilet. Fortunately, the run on guns and ammo has drastically slowed the the voluntary turn-ins of what is now recognized as a valuable commodity. Those involved in that process can easily bring tears to the eyes of gunlovers with tales of turned-in collectables, based on Oprah’s suggestion …
Mr. Doaks, should you speak to the person again, ask him/her if their department does the same with their no longer used duty weapons (sidearms, shotguns, carbines).
As is done with old squad cars, these items are regularly taken out of service and replaced while still servicable. The replaced weapons are routinely traded to the supplier of the new guns as a down payment towards the new gun order.
I could never understand why department trade-ins weren’t also destroyed, if the city and department administrators truly believed their “keep them off the streets” logic. After all, these can also wind up “on the streets.” Anyone who frequents gun shows will see tables full of used Glocks, Berettas, and the occasional service revolver that were traded by the lot by the distributer, who sold them to the dealer, who will sell them to the individual buyer. After all, “if it saves just one life …”
Not only can they wind up “on the streets”, they frequently do at excellent prices.
I’m told – hypothetically – that now that the cops are getting all kinds of DHS money, they’re trading in their old shotguns for AR15-pattern carbines. Which means – again, so I’m told – that there are fair number of cop-surplus shotguns on the market.
I’m told there was a great deal on surplus Remingon 870 Expresses at Frontiersman about a year ago. Really good prices. Hypothetically.
Why would cops want to trade in shotguns for carbines? Why do patrol cops need guns that are accurate at a longer range?
PM,
An excellent question.
One that might land you on a Napolitano watch list.
A gun collector friend of mine told me that the Saint Paul Police had a bunch of Thompson submachine guns (M1928 or M1, not sure which) in their weapons lockers up until the seventies. According to the story I heard, they made a ki-i-i-i-illing selling them off to curio and relic collectors.