HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Gun rights group goes to ...

Mon Oct 19, 2020, 08:11 AM

Gun rights group goes to court to stop buyback program

https://www.wpri.com/target-12/gun-rights-group-goes-to-court-to-stop-buyback-program/

After the brief hearing before Superior Court Judge Melissa Long, the gun rights group’s attorney and President Frank Saccoccio said his organization got what it wanted.

“They said on record the stolen guns wouldn’t be destroyed,” Saccoccio said. “We lost the battle but we won the war.”

Saccoccio was referring to statements from the Central Falls and Providence attorneys who told the court their respective police departments would do their best to return any stolen weapons to their rightful owners.

The two cities are offering $200 Visa gift cards for handguns, $100 gift cards for rifles and shotguns and $500 if the firearms are stolen. Initial statements about the Saturday morning buyback indicated the weapons would be destroyed after they were purchased.


The initial plan for the cops to recover stolen property and then destroy it was IMO no better than the actions of the original thieves. Think about it. You break into a house. You steal money or items you can turn into money. That's the motivation for stealing. Having law enforcement act as a fence within these types of crimes is just wrong. Allowing law enforcement to destroy property rather than return it is even more wrong.

19 replies, 2312 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 19 replies Author Time Post
Reply Gun rights group goes to court to stop buyback program (Original post)
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2020 OP
ret5hd Oct 2020 #1
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2020 #2
ret5hd Oct 2020 #3
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2020 #4
ret5hd Oct 2020 #5
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2020 #6
friendly_iconoclast Oct 2020 #11
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2020 #12
ret5hd Oct 2020 #13
friendly_iconoclast Oct 2020 #14
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2020 #16
ret5hd Oct 2020 #17
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2020 #19
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2020 #18
friendly_iconoclast Oct 2020 #15
sanatanadharma Oct 2020 #9
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2020 #10
sanatanadharma Oct 2020 #7
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2020 #8

Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Mon Oct 19, 2020, 08:14 AM

1. Maybe those responsible gun owners shoulda invested in a safer safe.

Just sayin'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ret5hd (Reply #1)

Mon Oct 19, 2020, 08:19 AM

2. Maybe law enforcement shouldn't be financing a fencing operation.

Or maybe we can just chalk it up to civil forfeiture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #2)

Mon Oct 19, 2020, 08:22 AM

3. Maybe responsible gun owners should keep their guns locked up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ret5hd (Reply #3)

Mon Oct 19, 2020, 08:28 AM

4. What have I heard about this before?

It's never okay to blame the victim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #4)

Mon Oct 19, 2020, 08:35 AM

5. My short skirt won't kill anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ret5hd (Reply #5)

Mon Oct 19, 2020, 08:37 AM

6. I'm thinking it's not about your skirt. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ret5hd (Reply #5)

Mon Oct 19, 2020, 02:13 PM

11. Your standard for victim blaming appears to be "Acceptable, *if* I don't like them"

 

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210683179

A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on. U.S. Customs took it without charging him with a crime.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210683179#post55

ret5hd
55. What's grey about the zone in this instance?
Did this man do anything remotely illegal?


https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210683179#post61

ret5hd
61. I bet it was how he was dressed.
Just askin' for it, ya' know.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #11)

Mon Oct 19, 2020, 03:45 PM

12. puzzling isn't it

So far there's 2 votes apparently favoring civil forfeiture if the property is a gun.

If the case involved cash, the victim could take the cash (assuming it's eventually returned) and use it to buy a gun. A difference that makes no difference isn't really a difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #12)

Mon Oct 19, 2020, 06:08 PM

13. Not really puzzling...more nuanced than you might be used to though...

Lets take a hypothetical:

Someone owns a vial of of some horrible chemical. Owns it perfectly legally, whatever that means...has the proper paperwork, maybe it's completely unregulated, whatever. He owns it legally. And this little vial can kill everyone in a house-sized structure. And its labelled "DANGER! THIS CHEMICAL CAN KILL ANYONE THAT EVEN SMELLS IT!"

And he leaves it under the front seat of his car. And it gets stolen.
Or leaves it on his night stand. And it gets stolen.
Or leaves it in a public restroom. And it gets stolen.
Or hides it in a shoebox in his closet. And it gets stolen.
Or sells it under the table and makes an insurance claim for his loss.

Sure, someone with money could go buy a vial of this hypothetical chemical, but we would still say amongst ourselves "Man, I hope this guy don't get anymore of that stuff. He's an effin' idiot!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ret5hd (Reply #13)

Mon Oct 19, 2020, 08:53 PM

14. "What's grey about the zone in this instance? Did (these people) do anything remotely illegal?"

 

There are are great number of people in this country who just don't accept that people who do or have things that they
don't approve of (but are legal) have the same civil rights as everyone else.

As we can clearly see, not all of these Pecksniffs identify with the Right...





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ret5hd (Reply #13)

Mon Oct 19, 2020, 10:37 PM

16. I hear you

I like your hypothetical.

I promise to give this some serious thought tomorrow but I've had it tonight.
Thanks for the reply and have a good evening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #16)

Mon Oct 19, 2020, 10:39 PM

17. You are a gracious person. Have a nice evening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ret5hd (Reply #17)

Tue Oct 20, 2020, 11:44 AM

19. Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ret5hd (Reply #13)

Tue Oct 20, 2020, 11:44 AM

18. I'm really not trying to be verbose but I see this issue as terribly complicated.

I support the idea that working to abate the causes of crime are more productive than punishing criminals, criminalizing contraband or, worse, trying to control honest folks. I believe most folks are morally good and generally responsible. I see self-defense as the most basic and personal individual right.

I think the folks who invented the term "gun-control" have done a great disservice to the country. I disagree that laws will be effective in changing the behavior of those determined to commit violent crimes. I see the primary purpose of criminal law as serving as a criteria to be used in determining guilt at a trial. Yes, the law serves as a guide for society but I believe laws fall short of any effectiveness as controls. I see safety campaigns as generally more productive than criminalizing items into being contraband.

For sure there are many responsibilities in the world today. Owning anything dangerous carries some extra responsibilities. Many jurisdictions have trigger lock laws to keep your 7 year olds from shooting your 4 year olds. Some folks use a lock box or safe for the same reason.

To the case in point, the only way law enforcement has of determining if a gun recovered through a buy back program is stolen is if its serial number has been reported stolen by the owner. IMO reporting your gun stolen is the responsible thing to do. The buy back staff would be entering the serial numbers to determine if the .38 revolver or 9 milli being turned in is on the stolen list. That's the determining factor to decide if the person should get $200 or $500.

Once the town has possession it seems to me that, barring any precluding circumstances, the right thing is to return it to its owner. Not every stolen gun was stolen because the owner was careless.
(After a background check, etc.)

In short, I don't think you should be treated as irresponsible (too irresponsible to own a gun) simply because you've had one stolen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #12)

Mon Oct 19, 2020, 09:18 PM

15. Not a bit - some folks believe civil rights should be reserved for "their sort of people"

 

And as we can see, not all of them are professed Republicans...

Looks like I need to haul out this blast from the past.

From 2012, yet still relevant

Seems I need to remind people of this on a regular basis:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=181522#182329


friendly_iconoclast (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-02-08 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #129

You *are* aware that there's no "niceness clause" in the Constitution? At least, I hope you are...

144.Guess what? Civil rights aren't just for "our sort of people"

Edited on Sat Aug-02-08 02:04 AM by friendly_iconoclast

There is a very long history in American jurisprudence of people defending the civil rights of
people they wouldn't have over for dinner. Or who wouldn't have *them* over for dinner.

From John Adams (accused British soldiers in the Boston Massacre), to
the ACLU (Illinois Nazis vs. the city of Skokie), to Sabin Willett (prisoners at Guantanamo).

I wouldn't defend Razzano as a person. I would, however, defend his rights no matter how odious his ideologies.

See: Goose and gander, sauce for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #2)

Mon Oct 19, 2020, 09:44 AM

9. There are victims who suffer civil forfeiture of money, cars, etc...

...Guns have no special rights to life. Guns that escape from honest gun owners need to be put down; crush them, melt them, plow with them and the earth will be a better place.

I do not return fire.
I do not need to express the last bullet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sanatanadharma (Reply #9)

Mon Oct 19, 2020, 10:17 AM

10. Yes victims

Civil forfeiture is an evil process. It needs to be ended.
Guns have no special rights to life? - Guns aren't alive. They have no rights of any kind. Only the living have rights.

'Guns need to be destroyed?' - I'm not aware of any government that agrees with you. The U.S. government doesn't agree with you.

I don't see self-defense as wrong. While the actions of two are required to make a fight, it takes only one to make a murder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Mon Oct 19, 2020, 09:39 AM

7. No gun return if insurance claim has been paid.

You can have your stolen guns back after providing PROOF that your insurance benefit has been returned to the insurance company.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sanatanadharma (Reply #7)

Mon Oct 19, 2020, 09:43 AM

8. So if the victim...

...passes an NICS background check and returns any insurance payout, he can have his property back?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread