Gas for Guns

[charliepapa]

I see in the Lake Charles paper that the reason for gas cards is so the people won't take cash and go buy another gun or drugs

Errrr....are they talking about people who buy and sell anything and everything as a way of life ?? They can sell La Purchase for 80 - 90 cents on a dollar...I would think gas cards would be no problem

Can we get a group hug and say feel good bout my self all over

Is this an example of the gun show loop hole in effect ?? Churches can buy guns w/o background ck ??

^^^This is what I was wondering. Probably why LE has to be involved. I guess it's actually Circle K who's buying them but they invited churches to be a part of it in an attempt to sugar coat it, and LE to make it legal.

that, and does anyone or any group who does this really believe people are turning the guns in faster than new ones are being made?

I just don't get it, but then again, I've thought about it for a few minutes.

 

[Revolvergeek]

I like what Mark Vanderberg of the Gun Rights Radio Network did when faced with a series of gun turns in Indiana. He teamed up with a storefront gun dealer. This dealer and Mark then set up a table a short distance away from the turn in location with a sign. "Free Gun Appraisals" Armed with a copy of Blue Book of Gun Values they gave out info on what those guns were really worth. Frequently those guns were from widows who "just wanted them out of the house" and thought these turn ins were an easy way to get it done. Mark and the dealer did a fine job of buying up some very nice pieces at fair prices. Mark got some TV exposure over it and explained how these turn ins were nothing but a feel good measure that did nothing to reduce crime. Eventually the turn ins faded away from lack of participation.

That is an excellent idea! I was wish that I had deep enough pockets to do it.

 

[Ellis1958]

Originally Posted by Ellis1958
I like what Mark Vanderberg of the Gun Rights Radio Network did when faced with a series of gun turns in Indiana. He teamed up with a storefront gun dealer. This dealer and Mark then set up a table a short distance away from the turn in location with a sign. "Free Gun Appraisals" Armed with a copy of Blue Book of Gun Values they gave out info on what those guns were really worth. Frequently those guns were from widows who "just wanted them out of the house" and thought these turn ins were an easy way to get it done. Mark and the dealer did a fine job of buying up some very nice pieces at fair prices. Mark got some TV exposure over it and explained how these turn ins were nothing but a feel good measure that did nothing to reduce crime. Eventually the turn ins faded away from lack of participation.

That is an excellent idea! I was wish that I had deep enough pockets to do it.

If I remember right Mark spent less than $300 and came home with a couple nice pieces. The dealer had deeper pockets and purchased several. More than likely resold at a nice profit. Details are at Marks podcast available through iTunes. It's some of his earlier work.

BTW: The Gun Rights Radio Network is a group of podcasters organized by Mark. I subcribe to several. Between these and Tom Greshams Gun Talk I stay on top of the gun rights movement.

 

[Praesul Presul]

....add one more to my list of why I think Mr. Pimp-Suit and Leduff shouldn't be in there respective offices.

Maybe they can do knives next as I was complaining the other day to the wife that I couldn't close the drawer because she has so many......

 

[Yrdawg]

^^^This is what I was wondering. Probably why LE has to be involved. I guess it's actually Circle K who's buying them but they invited churches to be a part of it in an attempt to sugar coat it, and LE to make it legal.

that, and does anyone or any group who does this really believe people are turning the guns in faster than new ones are being made?

I just don't get it, but then again, I've thought about it for a few minutes.

Yep...that thinkin thing can really screw up a good liberal project

So I wonder what is the final disposition of these weeponz and who is liable for their lawful transfer ???

 

[herohog]

When did Circle K buy up EVERY stinking convenience store on the West side of Shreveport? I was out there today signing some papers at my wife's home office and of the 5 gas stations there in that area ALL of them were Circle K's! I had to lock up my P-11 in the glove box to go in and pay for my gas.

 

[TomTerrific]

When did Circle K buy up EVERY stinking convenience store on the West side of Shreveport? I was out there today signing some papers at my wife's home office and of the 5 gas stations there in that area ALL of them were Circle K's! I had to lock up my P-11 in the glove box to go in and pay for my gas.

Y'mean y'all don't have Pak-A-Saks in Shreveport any more?

 

[Yrdawg]

I thought Pak a Sak went out in the 60's....that was the last one I saw in Lake Charles

Near Burger Chef

 

[fr33manator]

wait, couldn't people go to any pawn shop and sell their guns now, for cash?

 

[kcinnick]

wait, couldn't people go to any pawn shop and sell their guns now, for cash?

Not the ones reported stolen and those used in crimes, can't destroy evidence at a pawn shop.

Wait, criminals wouldn't use this gun grab to destroy evidence, what was I thinking.

 

[bill krambeer]

how many thugs are going to turn their guns..this is stupid a waste of church tides and a waste of gas ;;;; will not put a scratch in gun crime'''b k''

 

[Yrdawg]

how many thugs are going to turn their guns..this is stupid a waste of church tides and a waste of gas ;;;; will not put a scratch in gun crime'''b k''

Well hi...

Welcome Wagon

Pic ya one or both,...think of it as a welcome gift from BS and Snookie

 

[Vermiform]

Ya know, I'm just as Pro-2nd Amendment as the rest of yall, but I'm going to have to disagree with yall on this one. Why are these buy backs such a bad thing? I've disagreed with a few just on principle because they were government funded with my tax dollars. However, as you've stated these buy-backs are actually in high crime neighborhoods and seem to be sponsored by the churches themselves. We have also established that anyone with half a brain would take their guns to a local pawnshop and get more for them, but that's only the ones that aren't stolen.

So who is turning in guns at the buy-back?

1) Criminals: turning in a stolen gun because he can't take it to a pawnshop. Good, that is one less gun off the street that actually is likely to be used in another crime. The downside is it could be a gun stolen from you, and now it will be melted down and not returned to you. But how often do we really see this happen? As far as destroying evidence, I seriously doubt that is the motive. If a goblin is scared to have a gun found linking him to a crime, he isn't gonna sell it at a buy-back, he's gonna toss it off a bridge.

2) Idiots: turning in a working gun for a gas card. You have to be very stupid to do this. Good, I don't want them to have a gun. I feel safer that they have turned it in.

3) Hoplophobes (people scared of guns): They were either given the gun or someone died and left it to them. Maybe it's an old widow, maybe it's a liberal son-in-law that doesn't like guns. In any case, these are the people that accidentally shoot themselves or other people, or store it improperly where a child can get ahold of it. These are also the small percentage of people who in an emergency would have it taken from them and used against them. They have no idea how to load the damn thing or even tell if it's loaded. They are scared of it, glad to have it gone AND not smart enough to go sell it at a pawnshop. Good, I don't want them to have a gun either. Yes, it may be Grandpa's Luger WWII bringback, but if it didn't get passed on when he died to someone who appreciated it, then fine, melt it before some hoplophobe throws it in the trash or tries to put it in the garbage disposal.


In short, anyone who sells a safe/working gun at a buy-back neither needs or deserves to own a gun. If it's my stolen Glock that get's melted, so be it. I'd rather that than it be used to kill some kid or even cause me some legal hassle because it was traced back to me because I was the original buyer.

Just my humble opinion. Of course, I could be relapsing. I am a "recovering" democrat after all.

 

[Cat]

I'm still trying to figure out the safest way to unload that puppy!

A shovel and a real deep hole.

 

[Mjolnir]

Ya know, I'm just as Pro-2nd Amendment as the rest of yall, but I'm going to have to disagree with yall on this one. Why are these buy backs such a bad thing? I've disagreed with a few just on principle because they were government funded with my tax dollars. However, as you've stated these buy-backs are actually in high crime neighborhoods and seem to be sponsored by the churches themselves. We have also established that anyone with half a brain would take their guns to a local pawnshop and get more for them, but that's only the ones that aren't stolen.

So who is turning in guns at the buy-back?

1) Criminals: turning in a stolen gun because he can't take it to a pawnshop. Good, that is one less gun off the street that actually is likely to be used in another crime. The downside is it could be a gun stolen from you, and now it will be melted down and not returned to you. But how often do we really see this happen? As far as destroying evidence, I seriously doubt that is the motive. If a goblin is scared to have a gun found linking him to a crime, he isn't gonna sell it at a buy-back, he's gonna toss it off a bridge.

2) Idiots: turning in a working gun for a gas card. You have to be very stupid to do this. Good, I don't want them to have a gun. I feel safer that they have turned it in.

3) Hoplophobes (people scared of guns): They were either given the gun or someone died and left it to them. Maybe it's an old widow, maybe it's a liberal son-in-law that doesn't like guns. In any case, these are the people that accidentally shoot themselves or other people, or store it improperly where a child can get ahold of it. These are also the small percentage of people who in an emergency would have it taken from them and used against them. They have no idea how to load the damn thing or even tell if it's loaded. They are scared of it, glad to have it gone AND not smart enough to go sell it at a pawnshop. Good, I don't want them to have a gun either. Yes, it may be Grandpa's Luger WWII bringback, but if it didn't get passed on when he died to someone who appreciated it, then fine, melt it before some hoplophobe throws it in the trash or tries to put it in the garbage disposal.


In short, anyone who sells a safe/working gun at a buy-back neither needs or deserves to own a gun. If it's my stolen Glock that get's melted, so be it. I'd rather that than it be used to kill some kid or even cause me some legal hassle because it was traced back to me because I was the original buyer.

Just my humble opinion. Of course, I could be relapsing. I am a "recovering" democrat after all.

Very interesting, my friend.

I am "all against" them but your comments make me pause for a second.

Cool.

 

[bs875]

There's no law against it.

You're right. I had to look it up but I was getting my CHP rules mixed up with the general law. Thanks

 

[bs875]

Ya know, I'm just as Pro-2nd Amendment as the rest of yall, but I'm going to have to disagree with yall on this one. Why are these buy backs such a bad thing? I've disagreed with a few just on principle because they were government funded with my tax dollars. However, as you've stated these buy-backs are actually in high crime neighborhoods and seem to be sponsored by the churches themselves. We have also established that anyone with half a brain would take their guns to a local pawnshop and get more for them, but that's only the ones that aren't stolen.

So who is turning in guns at the buy-back?

1) Criminals: turning in a stolen gun because he can't take it to a pawnshop. Good, that is one less gun off the street that actually is likely to be used in another crime. The downside is it could be a gun stolen from you, and now it will be melted down and not returned to you. But how often do we really see this happen? As far as destroying evidence, I seriously doubt that is the motive. If a goblin is scared to have a gun found linking him to a crime, he isn't gonna sell it at a buy-back, he's gonna toss it off a bridge.

2) Idiots: turning in a working gun for a gas card. You have to be very stupid to do this. Good, I don't want them to have a gun. I feel safer that they have turned it in.

3) Hoplophobes (people scared of guns): They were either given the gun or someone died and left it to them. Maybe it's an old widow, maybe it's a liberal son-in-law that doesn't like guns. In any case, these are the people that accidentally shoot themselves or other people, or store it improperly where a child can get ahold of it. These are also the small percentage of people who in an emergency would have it taken from them and used against them. They have no idea how to load the damn thing or even tell if it's loaded. They are scared of it, glad to have it gone AND not smart enough to go sell it at a pawnshop. Good, I don't want them to have a gun either. Yes, it may be Grandpa's Luger WWII bringback, but if it didn't get passed on when he died to someone who appreciated it, then fine, melt it before some hoplophobe throws it in the trash or tries to put it in the garbage disposal.


In short, anyone who sells a safe/working gun at a buy-back neither needs or deserves to own a gun. If it's my stolen Glock that get's melted, so be it. I'd rather that than it be used to kill some kid or even cause me some legal hassle because it was traced back to me because I was the original buyer.

Just my humble opinion. Of course, I could be relapsing. I am a "recovering" democrat after all.

My concern would be:

1. If they're not paying attention to who is turning in the guns, and receive a gun used in a murder, then they will never be able to trace the murder weapon back to the criminal. I don't know what the probability of them finding it would be anyway but it seems to be zero once the gun has been laundered at a gun drop. Having said that, the river also is a good place to dispose of guns used in crimes. I don't know if anyone would be so greedy/stupid as to risk getting caught with a murder weapon in order to get a tank full of gas. On the other hand...

2. I agree. The only smart trade would be a gun of unknown or sketchy origin. Again, the river is a good place for those.

3. Good points there. Some people shouldn't have guns and I don't just mean violent criminals.

 

[HammondShooter]

One thing I don't understand is why won't these guns be run through the stolen gun lists by the police? If you find some were stolen, they could be returned to the rightful owners and there is no way to trace back who brought the gun in, due to the way they do these things. I guess these programs don't care about returning someone's property--they just want to do away with what they believe are "evil" guns. Sad. It's this attitude that marks certain guns as "Assault rifles," though, I dare say, the vast majority of people who own them have never assaulted anyone with them and don't plan to. The use of them by the vast majority should cause them to more appropriately be called "Defense rifles," as that's what they would use them for if pressed to do so.

Shane

 

[GIJeaux]

I was just thinking..... If they do a buy back and receive stolen guns, would they not be guilty of receiving, being in possession of and assisting in the disposal of stolen property?
Let alone aiding and abetting a felon? Accessory after the fact?
Criminal facilitation??

Criminal facilitation
In some jurisdictions, criminal "facilitation" laws do not require that the primary crime be actually committed as a prerequisite for criminal liability. These include state statutes making it a crime to "provide" a person with "means or opportunity" to commit a crime, "believing it probable that he is rendering aid to a person who intends to commit a crime."

I don't know. Just some thoughts. I am not a lawyer but, I did see some on TV.


Al

 

[HammondShooter]

I think you're right.