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.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Or maybe we can just chalk it up to civil forfeiture. 
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.
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. 
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.
