You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why are guns destoryed after a crime
- Thread starter 9mm
- Start date
oldgunsmith
New member
Back in the 70's a when nearby police dept. had been ordered to destroy almost 60 guns their armorer called me and said he felt like he owed me some favors and since he only had to destroy the main frame or receiver he offered to let me go through them in his shop and salvage them out. I spent 3 evenings after work stripping them. Still have a lot of that stuff.
thedudeabides
New member
Because the guns soak up the souls of the people they kill and hunger for more blood.
Not all police departments destroy them. I do believe that there are some departments out there that sell them back to law abiding gun owners and perform NICS checks on the sales. However, I'm guessing destruction is a much more common process, and probably rooted in the anti-gun attitudes many large city department officials seem to poses.
bigalshootmupper
New member
Most of the guns recovered aren't worth much, so it may not be worth the time trying to resell them. Plus, some of them could be dangerous if not checked out by a qualified gunsmith. Again, that makes it not worth their time. But, I don't agree in destroying them. Seems the good guns could be sold to a shop or something.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, writes at length about this sort of thing in the beginning of his book, The Common Law ( http://www.constitution.org/cmt/owh/commonlaw01.htm ):
"As long ago as Bracton, in case a man was slain, the coroner was to value the object causing the death, and that was to be forfeited as deodand 'pro rege.' It was to be given to God, that is to say to the Church, for the king, to be expended for the good of his soul." (p. 24)
"In Edward the First's time some of the cases remind us of the barbarian laws at their rudest stage. If a man fell from a tree, the tree was deodand. If he drowned in a well, the well was to be filled up. It did not matter that the forfeited instrument belonged to an innocent person. 'Where a man killeth another with the sword of John at Stile, the sword shall be forfeit as deodand, and yet no default is in the owner.' That is from a book written in the reign of Henry VIII., about 1530. ... It is said that a steam-engine has been forfeited in this way."
"... the fact of motion is adverted to as as of much importance. A maxim of Henry Spigurnel, a judge in the time of Edward I., is reported, that 'where a man is killed by a cart, or by the fall of a house, or in other like manner, and the thing in motion is the cause of the death, it shall be deodand.'" (p. 25)
After quite a lot of rambling about ships, there's this:
"The following is a passage from a judgment by Chief Justice Marshall, which is quoted with approval by Judge Story in giving the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States: 'This is not a proceeding against the owner; it is a proceeding against the vessel for an offence committed by the vessel; which is not the less an offence, and does not the less subject her to forfeiture, because it was committed without the authority and against the will of the owner. It is true that inanimate matter can commit no offence. But this body is animated and put into action by the crew, who are guided by the master. The vessel acts and speaks by the master. She reports herself by the master. It is, therefore, not unreasonable that the vessel should be affected by this report.' ... ' The thing is here primarily considered as the offender, or rather the offence is primarily attached to the thing.'" (p. 29)
"In other words, those great judges, although of course aware that a ship is no more alive than a mill-wheel, thought that not only the law did in fact deal with it as if it were alive, but that it was reasonable that the law should do so. The reader will observe that they do not say simply that it is reasonable on grounds of policy to sacrifice justice to the owner to security for somebody else, but that it is reasonable to deal with the vessel as an offending thing. Whatever the hidden ground of policy may be, their thought still clothes itself in personifying language." (pp. 29-30)
"As long ago as Bracton, in case a man was slain, the coroner was to value the object causing the death, and that was to be forfeited as deodand 'pro rege.' It was to be given to God, that is to say to the Church, for the king, to be expended for the good of his soul." (p. 24)
"In Edward the First's time some of the cases remind us of the barbarian laws at their rudest stage. If a man fell from a tree, the tree was deodand. If he drowned in a well, the well was to be filled up. It did not matter that the forfeited instrument belonged to an innocent person. 'Where a man killeth another with the sword of John at Stile, the sword shall be forfeit as deodand, and yet no default is in the owner.' That is from a book written in the reign of Henry VIII., about 1530. ... It is said that a steam-engine has been forfeited in this way."
"... the fact of motion is adverted to as as of much importance. A maxim of Henry Spigurnel, a judge in the time of Edward I., is reported, that 'where a man is killed by a cart, or by the fall of a house, or in other like manner, and the thing in motion is the cause of the death, it shall be deodand.'" (p. 25)
After quite a lot of rambling about ships, there's this:
"The following is a passage from a judgment by Chief Justice Marshall, which is quoted with approval by Judge Story in giving the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States: 'This is not a proceeding against the owner; it is a proceeding against the vessel for an offence committed by the vessel; which is not the less an offence, and does not the less subject her to forfeiture, because it was committed without the authority and against the will of the owner. It is true that inanimate matter can commit no offence. But this body is animated and put into action by the crew, who are guided by the master. The vessel acts and speaks by the master. She reports herself by the master. It is, therefore, not unreasonable that the vessel should be affected by this report.' ... ' The thing is here primarily considered as the offender, or rather the offence is primarily attached to the thing.'" (p. 29)
"In other words, those great judges, although of course aware that a ship is no more alive than a mill-wheel, thought that not only the law did in fact deal with it as if it were alive, but that it was reasonable that the law should do so. The reader will observe that they do not say simply that it is reasonable on grounds of policy to sacrifice justice to the owner to security for somebody else, but that it is reasonable to deal with the vessel as an offending thing. Whatever the hidden ground of policy may be, their thought still clothes itself in personifying language." (pp. 29-30)
Rifleman1776
New member
There is a word for the mentality that believes the object is somehow responsible for the actions of the crime.
They really believe destroying the guns will help prevent it's use in crime again. No amount of logic or words can change that thinking.
They really believe destroying the guns will help prevent it's use in crime again. No amount of logic or words can change that thinking.
Years ago, my father worked/ran a scrape yard with a shredder and about once every 12 to 18 months the ATF, FBI and the local police department would put up with boxes of handguns, rifles and knifes to put through the shredder.
The biggest part that came out was about the size of a half-dollar. Most of
the guns were junk but I have seen some quality guns. I would guess the most expensive was a Colt Gold Cup.
The biggest part that came out was about the size of a half-dollar. Most of
the guns were junk but I have seen some quality guns. I would guess the most expensive was a Colt Gold Cup.
Closing The Gap
New member
I think of it as a way to keep good men and women working. If more used weapons hit the market there is less room for new ones. Therefore destroying a small percentage means that the factories churn out more new ones.
Kevin Rohrer
New member
In all honesty, guns are routinely destroyed because liberal judges feel that to do so removes death-dealing objects from society, and the act of destroying weapons makes society safer.
WillyKern69
New member
So many lost treasures.
Years back I sold wirerope to the steel mills in northern Indiana. one day the buyer said you got to see this. A dumptruck, yes dumptruck, full of handguns, shotguns and rifles. Eighty percent were absolute junk. But the two that caught my eye was a Nazi luger(you just knew it was stolen) and a mint Model 19 Smith&Wesson. It was heavily guarded. But I asked it I could take the grips off the Smith. "No!" said the cop. I said I have the gun already, but I have pachmayer grips and would like a wood said. He told me if I touched that gun he would arrest me. What a jerk. Not saying he had to give them to me, but being a jerk for no reason. Well, they all went into the smelter. The wood would burts into flames and soon they were all molten. So next time you see steel on something just wonder what it was before, could have been a Nazi Luger or some other prize.
WK
Years back I sold wirerope to the steel mills in northern Indiana. one day the buyer said you got to see this. A dumptruck, yes dumptruck, full of handguns, shotguns and rifles. Eighty percent were absolute junk. But the two that caught my eye was a Nazi luger(you just knew it was stolen) and a mint Model 19 Smith&Wesson. It was heavily guarded. But I asked it I could take the grips off the Smith. "No!" said the cop. I said I have the gun already, but I have pachmayer grips and would like a wood said. He told me if I touched that gun he would arrest me. What a jerk. Not saying he had to give them to me, but being a jerk for no reason. Well, they all went into the smelter. The wood would burts into flames and soon they were all molten. So next time you see steel on something just wonder what it was before, could have been a Nazi Luger or some other prize.
WK
Years ago in Indiana they were sold at the police/sheriff unclaimed property auction. then the anti's got their panties in a bunch and began to raise a stink about putting these terrible guns back on the street so they went to the policy of only auctioning them off to FFL holders. As you would expect, this wasn't good enough for the anti's who cried and moaned and wrung their hankies, so they went to the current policy of destroying them. It is a quite ridiculous policy in what is otherwise a fairly gun-friendly state.
deadcoyote
New member
In our area the court's decide. Some guns are destroyed and some are returned to owners. The majority of them go to auction. Another local agency puts fixed prices on the stuff they sieze instead of auction. They actually put really reasonable prices on the stuff at a local shop, picked up some cheap rifles that way!
shootniron
New member
Because those are the baddest of bad guns. They have already robbed someone or tasted blood...so, for the good of society, they have to be destroyed in places.