A guy came into our department today wishing to surrender for destruction (specifically, unless able to be used by the department/academy) four good condition firearms, one that he NEVER EVEN FIRED! His stated reason was that he hasn't hunted or gone shooting in over a decade, had no interest in doing so in the future, and didn't want them to get into the hands of anyone who might do some kind of harm with them by selling or giving them away. I just can't understand that mindset, especially from someone who stated that he once hunted. How does one shift to such a terrified mindset, so outlandishly fearful of remote potential over which one would have no control anyway? I just can't fathom that kind of thinking! At least two of them may be usable to some training purposes, and the ammo he surrendered as well, so hopefully those will be spared destruction, but the other two will likely be melted. Crying shame! And no, I was not allowed to make him any offers.
Inexplicable mindset...
- Thread starter Kraut
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I wasn't bashing LEO's. I do not know the protocol for this situation, and I do not know the legalities also. So I was curious. Just like I'm a pharmacist. I DO NOT dispose of medications from people. We use a reverse distributor to get rid of our meds, but when we send it off, there's an itemized invoice for tracking numbers. If I sent a patients medication back, it would mess up our inventory numbers on an audit.
So basically if you "gave" it to me to destroy (which usually I deny and tell them the proper way to dispose of it), whats stopping me from taking it home or flushing it down the toilet? Legally I Cannot put it back in inventory, and it would be a hassle for me to call for an agent to come and watch me "destroy" said drug.
They go into property, they get fired for ballistics, they MAY be requested for academy use and become department property if appropriate caliber/type for issue or training, if not they are taken for melting. No individual officer can obtain them for personal use. I would have bought all four if I could have.
dk.easterly
Well-Known Member
The Fudd mindset.
We had a lady stop by our shop with an old Remington single shot 22 and a crack barrel 12 gauge that was for her dad. He had just passed away and she didn't believe in gun, so she asked us to cut them up. Told her no problem and went put them in the truck! The 22 is accurate as Hell. I'm too scared to shoot the shotgun. It's in pretty bad shape.
If the firearms were not returned to the rightful owner for whatever reasons,then they ALL should
be demilled,melted down,etc.Making a clause in the law only makes it easier for the not so good
leo to use it.I'm not saying anything bad toward leo or anyone else,just stating that is a simple
way to abuse the so called "Clause".If the rightful owner cant't have it,then no one should.
What happens if the firearm is in leo hands and its stolen,now a ak ,tec9,etc is back on the street.
I believe that law should be changed!!!
be demilled,melted down,etc.Making a clause in the law only makes it easier for the not so good
leo to use it.I'm not saying anything bad toward leo or anyone else,just stating that is a simple
way to abuse the so called "Clause".If the rightful owner cant't have it,then no one should.
What happens if the firearm is in leo hands and its stolen,now a ak ,tec9,etc is back on the street.
I believe that law should be changed!!!
I had a fellow come into the shop and ask if I could dispose of a few primers for him. He no longer reloaded, and didn't want to sell them. I said sure.
He went out to his vehicle and came back with over fifteen bricks of primers.
A week later, he came back with about thirty pounds of powder.
I am slowly disposing of these components. It may take me a while.
He went out to his vehicle and came back with over fifteen bricks of primers.
A week later, he came back with about thirty pounds of powder.
I am slowly disposing of these components. It may take me a while.
CriticalMass
Well-Known Member
"Ye have not yet resisted unto blood" - Hebrews 12:4
And until they do, they won't appreciate the need to be armed.
And until they do, they won't appreciate the need to be armed.
I dunno, it seemed like a perfectly reasonable question to me. As much as I can't stand LEO-bashers, the other end of the spectrum is just as annoying. Back the blue, but no need to wear blue panties that bunch up too easily, bro.
Propaganda is the answer to the OP's question. It works, even on gun owners (former). Think of how the already left/anti gun leaning populations take to this propaganda! It's not about logic or reality, it's about perception.
He's an idiot! There are plenty of "good" uses these could go to. Oh, I dunno; Boy Scouts, 4-H shooting programs, Disadvantaged Hunter Programs, etc. There are many people who would love to enjoy the shooting sports legally but can't afford a firearm, and this douche is destroying them?
moe24
Well-Known Member
I would of told him.."ok sir you're going to have to come back on my lunch break and meet me in the parking lot..from there you would be required to sign some bill of sales,stating that they now belong to me"..
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
