I thought the law in Texas required that firearms be sold instead of destroyed.
I actually don't have a problem with that as it is still better than the alternative...
Just FYI, the SAPD has several thousand firearms secured that will eventually be destroyed. I have been offered a tour of the facility in which they are being stored, but declined as I believe it would be very depressing. It pains me to think this is the only destiny of these weapons, and how much is being lost because the city refuses to even consider selling them through a FFL to law-abiding citizens. Makes me sick to my stomach to think about it...
You don't have a problem with a cop that is a thief? In my opinion ANY thief is a POS and especially a cop.
I wonder if a complete AR upper (ie, without a lower) counts as a fire arm in CA. Probably.
In Cali bayonet lugs are classified as weapons...If it has a scary muzzle device, you can’t own or be in possession of it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
For years firearms had to be repurposed for law enforcement use or destroyed, but House Bill 1421--which passed during the 2013 legislative session--formally permitted law enforcement officials to sell found or unclaimed weapons to a licensed firearms dealer.
So it is an option, not a requirement.
When that law was passed, larger Texas cities like San Antonio, Houston and Austin said they would not participate.
Here is the code...
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure - CRIM P Art. 18.19. Disposition of seized weapons
Having had my brand new, unfired S&W SS .357 stolen by a cop I have a LOT of problems with them. There is a thin line between cops and crooks, a VERY thin line.You don't have a problem with a cop that is a thief? In my opinion ANY thief is a POS and especially a cop.
.
I'd be willing to bet that the average of crook cops is near the same as the average of the population in general.Having had my brand new, unfired S&W SS .357 stolen by a cop I have a LOT of problems with them. There is a thin line between cops and crooks, a VERY thin line.
I consider it a rescue more than a theft.
So you'd rather the weapon be destroyed than someone taking it?
Call it what you want but theft is theft. A thieving cop is a low life POS regardless of what he steals.
He had lots of guns in California, that's what was wrong.I have read this whole thread (large gun arrest) and still can't figure out what it did wrong.
It already has.As I said, used to be. Don't be surprised 'assault weapon' definition changes too.
Yeah, I get that, but the thread title says a large gun was arrested.He had lots of guns in California, that's what was wrong.
You mean Cali needs an excuse to arrest someone on gun charges?It already has.
Yeah, I get that, but the thread title says a large gun was arrested.
But since you paint it all with such a large brush, what are your thoughts on how the US "acquired" a Mi-24 HIND helicopter in Chad back in the 1980s? Was that theft as well, or does the old military adage “gear adrift is a gift” apply?
https://tacairnet.com/2015/05/12/hind-heist/
If I gotta explain it to ya, oh never mind.You mean Cali needs an excuse to arrest someone on gun charges?
He had lots of guns in California, that's what was wrong.
So we can agree to disagree, I for one would much rather see a historic and/or valuable weapon end up in a cop's hands than destroyed. These agencies/departments/cities have no problems selling off vehicles that were used in the commission of a crime, but are biased against firearms for no reason other than the political leanings; so I have less of an issue if them being "acquired" as such as I do their demise.
But since you paint it all with such a large brush, what are your thoughts on how the US "acquired" a Mi-24 HIND helicopter in Chad back in the 1980s? Was that theft as well, or does the old military adage “gear adrift is a gift” apply?
https://tacairnet.com/2015/05/12/hind-heist/