NRA Vows To Stop Tucson From Destroying Guns

FriendlyFire

Codex WMDicanious
Joined
Jan 4, 2002
Messages
21,761
Location
Sydney
NRA Vows To Stop Tucson From Destroying Guns



Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., and her husband, Mark Kelly, have formed a political action committee to support prevention of gun violence. The announcement came Tuesday, the second anniversary of the mass shooting in Tucson that left six dead and wounded 13, including Giffords.

Churches and fire stations around the city rang bells in memory of the victims and in commemoration of other mass shootings since Tucson.

The Tucson Police Department also held a gun buyback Tuesday. Police want to destroy the 206 firearms turned in to them. But the National Rifle Association says that would violate Arizona law.

A line of people with guns formed in front of the midtown Tucson police station well before the 9 a.m. starting time for the buyback.

At a command post in the parking lot, officers checked weapons to make sure they hadn't been stolen or used in a crime, and took the guns. The people who turned them in got a $50 Safeway gift card for every gun — money donated by the grocery chain and by private contributors.

Anna Jolivet had four old rifles she didn't want: "They belonged to my husband, and he passed away four years ago, and I haven't had any success in having someone take them off of me since then. So I thought this is a good time to turn them in."

That's exactly what Republican Tucson City Councilman Steve Kozachik expected when he asked the police to do the buyback. What he didn't expect was the response after he announced the event.

"I've been getting threats," Kozachik says. "I've been getting emails. I've been getting phone calls in the office trying to shut this thing down or 'We're going to sue you' or 'Who do you think you are?' "

Todd Rathner, an Arizona lobbyist and a national board member of the NRA, may sue. He has no problem with the gun buyback, but he does have a problem with the fate of the guns once police take possession of them.

"We do believe that it is illegal for them to destroy those guns," he says.

Rathner says Arizona state law forces local governments to sell seized or abandoned property to the highest bidder.

"If property has been abandoned to the police, then they are required by ARS 12-945 to sell it to a federally licensed firearms dealer, and that's exactly what they should do," he says.

That way, Rathner says, the guns can be put back in circulation or given away.

The Tucson city attorney calls that a misreading of the law.

Councilman Kozachik says the guns aren't being abandoned; they're being turned in voluntarily.

"This is about giving somebody the chance to say, 'Look I'm not comfortable having this weapon, here's an opportunity for me to just get rid of it in a proper manner,' " Kozachik says.

Rathner says the NRA will ask for an accounting of every weapon turned in and then go to court to stop the firearms from being destroyed. If that doesn't work, Rathner says they'll change the law.

"We just go back and we tweak it and tune it up, and we work with our friends in the Legislature and fix it so they can't do it," Rathner adds.

At the gun buyback, gun-rights advocates held signs reading "Cash For Guns" and "Pay Double for Your Guns." As cars pulled into the parking lot, they asked drivers if they wanted to sell their guns privately rather than turn them in. There were few takers.

Doug Deahn couldn't understand it: "Can't figure they'd rather line up and give them away. Can't figure that out."

What's to become of the weapons may still be unclear. But in the current political climate, this controversy seems to show that, in Arizona at least, it's tough for an owner to get rid of an unwanted gun.

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/09/168926749/nra-vows-to-stop-tuscon-from-destroying-guns

So American's cannot voluntarily destroy there own private guns ?
And they are getting phone threats and emails threats .... /facepalm
 
Shouldn't the NRA be for desrtoying guns ?
If the guns are gone they can't be resold second-hand and the gun manufacturers make more money.
Atually, the NRA should lobby for mandatory gun destruction every couple of years. This way people would have to regularly buy new guns.
 
Atually, the NRA should lobby for mandatory gun destruction every couple of years. This way people would have to regularly buy new guns.

What ever happened to "cold dead hands" and "government coming for our guns tyranny" ?
 
What ever happened to "cold dead hands" and "government coming for our guns tyranny" ?

That's something for marketing guys and spin doctors to figure out.
Maximising gun sales is of the utmost priority,
 
Yeah everyone's got to understand that for the NRA guns are a business model. They need to protect it and clearly feel that preserving an ubiquitious gun culture is better for business than reducing the second hand market.
 
So now there is a pro-gun-life lobby in this country?
 
So American's cannot voluntarily destroy there own private guns ?
I didn't know Tucson was an "American"...

If the state law says they must sell the property, as this article says, then it's the state law, and they must not destroy the guns but sell them. If they want to amend the law, that's fine, until then, it's the state law and a city (which is not an "American" which has privately owned guns) cannot override state law. A mayor cannot just make up rules to override the state no more than states can make rules to override the Fed (see the Civil War).

Federally seized guns are all destroyed, for example. That's the law for guns seized by Federal Agencies.

I'm sure NYC and NYS guns are destroyed... but that's the law there.

Follow the law... and quit knee jerking. A 2 second analysis of the facts in this article should lead everyone sane to agree.
 
I didn't know Tucson was an "American"...

If the state law says they must sell the property, as this article says, then it's the state law, and they must not destroy the guns but sell them. If they want to amend the law, that's fine, until then, it's the state law and a city (which is not an "American" which has privately owned guns) cannot override state law. A mayor cannot just make up rules to override the state no more than states can make rules to override the Fed (see the Civil War).

Federally seized guns are all destroyed, for example. That's the law for guns seized by Federal Agencies.

I'm sure NYC and NYS guns are destroyed... but that's the law there.

Follow the law... and quit knee jerking. A 2 second analysis of the facts in this article should lead everyone sane to agree.

Councilman Kozachik says the guns aren't being abandoned; they're being turned in voluntarily.

So Police "buying back" == "abandoned"
So Police "voluntarily" == "seizure"
Guns thus abandoned or seized have to be sold.

no1der • a day ago

Fascinating... the NRA doesn't mind much when guns kill people, but look how they react when people kill guns.
 
Well, that's why it will be a court case.
Personally, I think it is silly for the NRA to oppose this as well. Just playing the Devil's Advocate because the law is on their side.

The city just has to make the case that they bought these weapons from the people, and therefore they are city property... not abandoned property. Shouldn't be too hard.
 
So now there is a pro-gun-life lobby in this country?

Well, I for one wouldnt want to see some antique guns simply destroyed because someone didnt realize their value. Form, I know you love cars. If we were talking cars instead of guns, you wouldnt want to see a GTO or something get destroyed just because some pandering politician wanted to score some poll points would you?

For people that are gun afficiandos, the feeling is the same.
 
Gun rights: just because I fervently believe it may someday be necessary for me personally to take on the military dictatorship with my hunting rifle doesn't make me hysterical. I'll sue you. :mischief:
 
Well, I for one wouldnt want to see some antique guns simply destroyed because someone didnt realize their value. Form, I know you love cars. If we were talking cars instead of guns, you wouldnt want to see a GTO or something get destroyed just because some pandering politician wanted to score some poll points would you?

For people that are gun afficiandos, the feeling is the same.
These sorts of drives occur all the time and are typically done by police departments. They have removed hundreds of thousands of firearms from circulation before they could fall into the hands of criminals.

Do you really consider them to be "pandering politicians" as well, instead of dedicated professionals who are merely trying to do their jobs in the best way they know how? What an odd attitude for someone who is supposedly an advocate of "law and order".

No police departments that I know of are trying to get people to turn in their clunkers for cash to get them off the streets so they aren't used to kill even more people. Do you know of any?

Do the guns in the photo above really cause you to mourn their loss?

Do you really think people who have valuable antique guns are stupid enough to turn them in to be destroyed for $50? Or that the police would be stupid enough to do so if one was actually turned in?

I've heard some really inane rationalizations recently in regard to common sense measures to try to reduce the number of victims of gun violence in the US each year, but this one sets new levels of absurdity.
 
It was a hypothetical, so as such was there just to make the point, not a show of proof.

And yes, I think everyone that is jumping on this current gun control bandwagon are panderers and hypocrits. All of them.

And I don't know why you would think it an odd attitude for a 'law and order' guy that people would actually follow the law.

And about the antique guns...didnt you even read the story? Apparently not. Here, let me refresh your memory.

Anna Jolivet had four old rifles she didn't want: "They belonged to my husband, and he passed away four years ago, and I haven't had any success in having someone take them off of me since then. So I thought this is a good time to turn them in."

These could be potentially valuable, much like your own family guns that were given to you.

Actually, you can also take a look at the linked pic. See those rifles at the top with wood stocks? You cant tell me those arent worth way more than 50 bucks.
 
Four guns she apparently couldn't even sell for a song or possibly even give away, e.g. "I haven't had any success in having someone take them off of me", were "potentially valuable"? Did you "even read the story"?

Why are you so opposed to taking guns out of circulation that people no longer even want?

Do you really think the numerous police departments that have these sort of drives all the time know far less than you do about the real issues here? That they are willingly destroying "GTOs"?
 
The NRA opposes blaming gun owners for the crimes of madmen

The NRA supports the drug war by blaming drug users for the crimes of madmen

The NRA supports the drug war, the drug war creates more violence, people want more gun control
 
Four guns she apparently couldn't even sell for a song aka "someone take them off of me" were "potentially valuable"? Did you "even read the story"?

She's an old lady. How hard do you think she really tried?

I think not very.

Why are you so opposed to taking guns out of circulation that people no longer even want?

But people do want them. Were there not other people entirely willing to pay at least double for their guns? Why yes there were.

This would be a great way for the city to make some revenue for itself, just like it does with any other seized merchandise.

Do you really think the numerous police departments that have these sort of drives all the time know far less than you do about the real issues here? That they are willingly destroying "GTOs"?

Depends. Even you, yourself have lamented about the ignorance of such departments on the law before, havent you? Especially in Florida, where you live?

Why yes you have. Odd question for you to ask in consideration of how much you've complained about the police previously.
 
Top Bottom