Colorado Springs Police considering selling off seized guns

I think it sounds like a terrible idea. Can you imagine the police making a business out of confiscating firearms and selling them? Thats all we need, extra incentive to disarm individuals.

A local Law Enforcement dealer periodically purchases confiscated guns and sells them. Over the years, I've picked up some decent deals like a 2 1/2" Diamondback for $225.00 and a first generation SAA with ivory stocks for $600.00. I passed on a pair of Colt 1903's for $100.00 each and I kick myself everytime I think about it.

I think it sounds like a terrible idea. Can you imagine the police making a business out of confiscating firearms and selling them? Thats all we need, extra incentive to disarm individuals.

Click to expand...

It is a pretty common practice that helps offset the costs of ammunition, training supplies, and duty gun purchases. There is no "extra incentive" to disarm the law abiding, the guns are confiscated from criminals.

This is barely news. Many police departments sell confiscated firearms as well as their old duty pistols/rifles/shotguns (included NFA) to dealers all the time. Hell, summitgunbroker.com makes a business out of buying weapons from PDs.

I don't know about the police, but TX Parks and Wildlife auctions off all of their seized guns to dealers every year. It's a good program.

The sales are projected to bring in about $10,000 a year, only a slight dent for a city that faced a deficit of one-quarter its $200-million annual budget this year. But it still helps, said Vice Mayor Larry Small, who proposed the gun sales.

"Every penny counts," Small said.

Click to expand...

We need more politicians who think like this.

State of CT used to hold public auctions twice a year (spring and fall) 'til the liberal crybabies put a stop to it in the late 90's.

Why is this of any concern to the LA Times?

Jan Martin said:

"I remember what some of those weapons were used for," Martin said. "Just the idea of putting those weapons back on the street is unconscionable."

Click to expand...

This part is my favorite. If the idea of putting the weapons back on the street is unconscionable, it follows that paroling the felon who used the weapon should be even more so. Right?

Hell yeah! Sell the guns, put them back into circulation! But keep the damn criminals locked up for good. I'd just like to know how to get in on some of those sales. C. Springs ain't far for me. Wonder if our county S.O. has any to get rid of, he's a good ol' boy.....

It's a great idea - most PD's already sell off seized cars, tools, electronics, houses, etc... (I go to these auctions myself and pick up quite a few bargains).

There is no "extra incentive" to disarm the law abiding, the guns are confiscated from criminals.

Click to expand...

Just like there's no extra incentive for the police to more aggressively pursue drug cases because of forfeiture laws.

I'd really like to see the protocol for the guns going for sale. Are they seized from people actually convicted of something, or just lifted off someone during a search/investigation? I don't believe in melting guns down for scrap, but only the most naive would believe that the police are simply immune to financial incentive. They're doing this to try and make up a budget shortfall. And realistically the police can generate financial reward simply by choosing how they'll enforce the laws, putting up ridiculous hoops to jump through to get your property back, or throwing their weight behind more restrictive laws.

Just like there's no extra incentive for the police to more aggressively pursue drug cases because of forfeiture laws.

Click to expand...

Drugs are illegal. If forfeiture laws incentivize them to pursue their cases more agressively, good. I don't see a problem with that.

I'd really like to see the protocol for the guns going for sale. Are they seized from people actually convicted of something, or just lifted off someone during a search/investigation? I don't believe in melting guns down for scrap, but only the most naive would believe that the police are simply immune to financial incentive. They're doing this to try and make up a budget shortfall. And realistically the police can generate financial reward simply by choosing how they'll enforce the laws, putting up ridiculous hoops to jump through to get your property back, or throwing their weight behind more restrictive laws.

Click to expand...

They will more than likely be exactly the same as the protocols for selling off all the other seized assets, such as I've already mentioned above. Also, there are plenty of places that already have 'ridiculous hoops' to jump through get your guns back - and they melt them down anyway.

Drugs are illegal. If forfeiture laws incentivize them to pursue their cases more agressively, good. I don't see a problem with that.

Click to expand...

There is no shortage of stories about over-zealous law enforcement organizations confiscating property under forfeiture laws without even charging the people who own the property.

I can't be the only person here who remembers the recent BATFE freebies given out that were engraved with "Always Think Forfeiture".

That said, under normal circumstances I don't have a problem with governmental offices selling off seized items, but it would be nice, at least, if the people they were seizing things from had actually been charged with a crime, sent to court, and convicted.

I'm with HGUNHNTR.

There is no shortage of stories about over-zealous law enforcement organizations confiscating property under forfeiture laws without even charging the people who own the property.

Click to expand...

...And there's no shortage of stories of people being killed with guns; yet I see no reason to limit gun ownership based on the actions of a tiny percentage of individuals.

...And there's no shortage of stories of people being killed with guns; yet I see no reason to limit gun ownership based on the actions of a tiny percentage of individuals.

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that the justice system works better when due process isn't observed? And that is analogous to abrogating the civil rights of law-abiding gun owners how, exactly?

...And there's no shortage of stories of people being killed with guns; yet I see no reason to limit gun ownership based on the actions of a tiny percentage of individuals.

Click to expand...

The difference being that the state seizing and selling citizens property is not a Constitutionally protected right. In fact, there's a whole Amendment that's specifically supposed to constrain such actions. And so the state rigs the system, subtly at first, but increasing without even trying to preserve the appearance of due process, and people just accept it. Create a criminal class, and it's open season on their property, and now it doesn't even really matter if you can convict them of the crime.

So what you're saying is that the justice system works better when due process isn't observed? And that is analogous to abrogating the civil rights of law-abiding gun owners how, exactly?

Click to expand...

No, actually what I'm saying is that the actions of a few 'corrupt' people/departments should no more limit the overall issue of asset forfeiture any more than the actions of a few gun wielding murderers should limit the overall issue of gun ownership.

I'm comparing number of stories to number of stories; nothing more. Overall, both legal asset forfeiture and legal gun ownership are good things, no?

No, because asset forfeiture is legal without actually having to charge the property owner with a crime.

Think about that for a minute. It is legal for law enforcement to take your property, charge the property with a crime, and force you to go to court to get your property back, even though you have not been charged with a crime. In such cases, it is not uncommon for the legal costs getting the property back to exceed the value of the property.

I'm sorry, but unless it's tied to an arrest, asset forfeiture is very obviously nothing more than theft under color of the law.

No, because asset forfeiture is legal without actually having to charge the property owner with a crime.

Click to expand...

And this applies to every state?

Also, most of the stories I've been reading about involve people signing away their rights to their property - not the state petitioning to have it seized.

Overall, both legal asset forfeiture and legal gun ownership are good things, no?

Click to expand...

No, they're not. One is at best a necessary evil, and at worst organized theft by the state in defiance of the bedrock principles of the country. The other is at worst an abused yet fundamental right, and at best the guarantor of the bedrock principles of the country. Who would think that they're even vaguely equivalent?

No, they're not. One is at best a necessary evil, and at worst organized theft by the state in defiance of the bedrock principles of the country.

Click to expand...

So you basically believe that a drug dealer should not only get his illegally obtained stuff back after his prison term, but also be able to pay his attorney with the money he made through his illegal enterprise?