NRA challenges firearm buyback

[Malivotti]

Well this is interesting, a NRA official may file legal challenge to stop a gun buyback program. The NRA position by this official is that a gun owner, if they turn in a gun to the police for destruction, even at a buyback program that is private run just administered by the police, the gun cannot be destroyed by the state, the state must ignore the wishes of the owners, and resell the guns to the highest bidder.

Published: Jan. 10, 2013 at 5:20 PM

TUCSON, Jan. 10 (UPI) -- A National Rifle Association official says he may sue to prevent the Tucson Police Department from destroying guns it collected this week in a buyback program.

The department collected 206 firearms Tuesday, the second anniversary of the shooting in which six people were killed and 13 others, including former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., were wounded.

The program came after a request by Tucson City Councilman Steve Kozachik, a Republican, who told National Public Radio he has been getting negative response, including threats of lawsuits, to the gun buyback.

Todd Rather, an Arizona lobbyist and NRA national board member, said he doesn't object to the buyback but he said Arizona law requires police to resell the firearms to the highest bidder, rather than destroy them, NPR reported.

"If property has been abandoned to the police, then they are required by ARS 12-945 to sell it to a federally licensed firearms dealer, and that's exactly what they should do," he said.

Kozachik says guns being turned in voluntarily to police are not being abandoned.

Nevertheless, Rathner said the NRA will go to court to try to prevent the destruction of the guns. Failing that, he said the NRA will "tweak" the law and "work with our friends in the Legislature and fix it."

As people arrived at the Tucson police station parking lot for the buyback Tuesday, gun-rights advocates carried signs advising the public they would pay double what police were offering to those who wanted to turn in firearms, NPR said.

Yup that's right the rights of a gun are more important than the owners.
Ok if this goes ahead are the NRA going to try give voting rights to firearms next?

Seriously the NRA leadership has gone so far into crazyville territory that their actions are hurting their goals, they are heading into far right margins at high speed. In fact the leadership of NRA by defining everything as an all or nothing fight hurts them to be reasonable.

What is reasonable? More detailed background checks? Having to show proof that you've had registered firearm training course and passed? A special license for high capacity or military grade firearms? There are all kinds of things that can be done but the gun lobby is unwilling to discuss anything at all at least that is own it seems.

To the Americans on the board, do you think if George W Bush was president and was proposing more gun regulations would it more acceptable to the gun lobby? Or Bill Clinton was asking for gun laws? Is it an Obama issue, a Democrat issue or a gun issue?

[SCRawl]

Published: Jan. 10, 2013 at 5:20 PM

TUCSON, Jan. 10 (UPI) -- A National Rifle Association official says he may sue to prevent the Tucson Police Department from destroying guns it collected this week in a buyback program.

I heard this a couple of days ago, I think on the Rachel Maddow show, and I wondered if she was fooled by "The Onion". I thought it unlikely, but less unlikely than the pants-on-head stupidity that is this lawsuit. If this were a bunch of, say, puppies that were to be destroyed, then I could see someone standing up and trying to put a stop to it, and making a case for having the standing to do so. I would have loved to have been in the meeting when this idea was discussed, and judged to be a sensible course of action.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Look, why should we not sue the government to stop it from doing something illegal? Isn't that one of our rights, to force the government to be accountable to its own laws? If they want to make buyback-and-destroy operations legal, they should pass a law doing so. Until then, we should use all our powers to hold the government accountable to its own laws as they presently stand. This is a very straightforward issue of government accountability.

[Simon_Jester]

If Arizona state law DOES mandate that gun buybacks resell the guns instead of destroying them... that's kind of a dumb law, but if it's on the books, then I agree the state should have to stick to it.

[SCRawl]

I have to issue a mea culpa for this one. I heard the bit from Maddow a couple of days ago, failed to assimilate that the event was the law of the land, and then didn't read the article beyond the first couple of lines which identified the story for me. Not great behaviour for a moderator, I know, but I never would have thought that such a stupid law could ever exist. What in the world would possess a person to put forward such a law, never mind draft, vote for and then sign it?

So, mea culpa. I am guilty of both skimming and underestimating human stupidity, in that order.

[Malivotti]

Look, why should we not sue the government to stop it from doing something illegal? Isn't that one of our rights, to force the government to be accountable to its own laws? If they want to make buyback-and-destroy operations legal, they should pass a law doing so. Until then, we should use all our powers to hold the government accountable to its own laws as they presently stand. This is a very straightforward issue of government accountability.

So the NRA by this argument has the final say over how weapons are distributed and owned? Not the person that owns the weapon? So the NRA and the gun lobby can over-ride a person's property rights? The program that this bunch fanatics are planning to block is a voluntary buy-back program, so the only rights a gun owner has with regards to their property is what the NRA allows them to have?

Congrats, in defending the 2nd Amendment you tossed away a gun owner's freedom and responsibility, that person chose to purchase a gun, they choose what to do with it. What next taking away a person's right to disagree with NRA, or news organization right to report on gun violence? After all what's the 1st Amendment compared to 2nd Amendment?

I'm not an American, but one thing I love about the US is the what the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights means, even when I complained about the US tossing it's weight around, even when I ran into the 'Ugly American' phenomena I could look at what the US created in the Bill of Rights and admire and defend the intent of the USA to those that spoke ill of the US's policies. In the past decade I've observed this blindness and venom towards anyone that isn't in 100% lockstep with whoever is speaking. An obsession defending 'freedom' only if 'freedom' means exactly this or that but nothing else. When did the atmosphere in US become an enemy of discourse and compromise become something to be spoken of in hated tones?

[SCRawl]

So the NRA by this argument has the final say over how weapons are distributed and owned? Not the person that owns the weapon? So the NRA and the gun lobby can over-ride a person's property rights? The program that this bunch fanatics are planning to block is a voluntary buy-back program, so the only rights a gun owner has with regards to their property is what the NRA allows them to have?

I'm picking up what you're laying down, but it isn't the NRA's issue (though I think that they're silly for threatening the lawsuit): it's the asinine law on the books that prohibits what the government is doing. Lose the law, and the NRA would have no argument.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I have no problem with changing this law, but the law, as it stands, requires the guns to be sold to FFL'd dealers for resale, not to be destroyed. And I support using lawsuits to force the government to follow the law as long as it stands, as it does right now. So Malivotti's argument is just ridiculously off base. You have a legal right to abandon your property to the police. And then the police have a present standing legal obligation to resale that property to an FFL gun dealer for resale back into public circulation.

[Malivotti]

I have no problem with changing this law, but the law, as it stands, requires the guns to be sold to FFL'd dealers for resale, not to be destroyed. And I support using lawsuits to force the government to follow the law as long as it stands, as it does right now. So Malivotti's argument is just ridiculously off base. You have a legal right to abandon your property to the police. And then the police have a present standing legal obligation to resale that property to an FFL gun dealer for resale back into public circulation.

Ok maybe I'm missing something vital or you are, but the property is not being abandoned unless US/Arizona property laws are way different from how I understand private sale works. The property is being sold with the understanding that the property in question will be destroyed as a condition of the sale.

The law as I understand it is in regard to property that is abandoned (ie seized as a result law enforcement action(s), as in the person's right to own/operate said property as been abandoned by the action(s) of property owner.) must be sold to a firearms dealer if the property is a firearm. Ok. I get that, but the NRA cannot and should not have the right to prevent private sale, if person makes his or her choice to sell their property even if the conditions of that sale include the agreement that said item will be rendered non functional it is their choice.

Their Choice. Not the state, not the gun lobby, not the NRA.

Their Choice.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Ok maybe I'm missing something vital or you are, but the property is not being abandoned unless US/Arizona property laws are way different from how I understand private sale works. The property is being sold with the understanding that the property in question will be destroyed as a condition of the sale.

The law as I understand it is in regard to property that is abandoned (ie seized as a result law enforcement action(s), as in the person's right to own/operate said property as been abandoned by the action(s) of property owner.) must be sold to a firearms dealer if the property is a firearm. Ok. I get that, but the NRA cannot and should not have the right to prevent private sale, if person makes his or her choice to sell their property even if the conditions of that sale include the agreement that said item will be rendered non functional it is their choice.

Their Choice. Not the state, not the gun lobby, not the NRA.

Their Choice.

Do you have to be this histrionic? Like you're talking to a camera instead of on a message board? Do you think I won't understand "their choice" unless you repeat it twice, little man?

It isn't a private sale. A buyback is an event where people literally toss guns into a bin and then receive a coupon for a local store for groceries or something as a reward. It doesn't constitute a sale, in part because there is no method of verifying whether or not the guns are stolen or illegally possessed. In either case, in buying them the police would be technically committing a crime themselves since they're buying them without intent to prosecute. So it isn't a purchase as such.

Now, that is an admittedly debatable interpretation. But that is also why the courts may rule against the lawsuit. The lawsuit is however important for government accountability, so it should go forward, understand?

[Malivotti]

Do you have to be this histrionic? Like you're talking to a camera instead of on a message board? Do you think I won't understand "their choice" unless you repeat it twice, little man?

I'm sorry if you feel that went over the top, for me personally individual rights is a hot button topic for me (and yes I studied drama BTW ) and with some of the friends and co-workers that I discuss this stuff with on regular basis, well hitting them on the head with a sledgehammer is considered too delicate in some cases.

I do wonder about the 'little man' comment, I thought 5'8" was below average.

Seriously Duchess if you felt like I was attacking you, or offended you in some way I'm sorry, I respect the passion you have for this subject I just wonder and worry about the passion on both sides destroying or damaging something that the people on both sides won't realize was lost until it's much too late.

Maybe I'm an idealist, but I'd like to believe that people not groups, not lobbyists, not agendas or government are the ones that matter.

[SCRawl]

Malivotti, we live in a society in which we surrender a few of our individual liberties in exchange for the vast benefits that come from having that society. Government is responsible for the maintenance of that society, and governments have rules that they set for themselves. We elect the representatives who set those rules, yadda yadda yadda, I hope I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.

The point here (which I missed at first, and you seem to have continued to miss for some reason) is that the government's own rules prohibit the behaviour they have undertaken by promoting a firearm buyback with the purpose of destroying the thus-acquired firearms. This is not an individual rights issue. If those people who surrendered their firearms in exchange for whatever compensation was offered did so with the understanding that those firearms were to be destroyed, then the argument can be made that they should be allowed to reverse that transaction, since the law does not allow for this outcome. These transactions took place on false pretenses.

The NRA is only arguing (and, truth be told, insisting) that the laws be followed. I don't like much of what the NRA does in general, and the law they're arguing about is a ridiculous law, but they're not wrong here. This is black and white, so long as that law is on the books.

Also: I've split this diversion out into its own thread. This really doesn't have much to do with Piers Morgan interviewing a crazy person.

[CJvR]

Although one really shouldn't be surprised by weird stuff in the US when it concerns the three Gs, it is hard not to be.

Perhaps the US do need all those silly marriage laws that have popped up in recent years, not to prevent gays from marrying but to keep NRA members from marrying their guns, they probably already sleep with them.

[Darth Holbytlan]

The NRA is only arguing (and, truth be told, insisting) that the laws be followed. I don't like much of what the NRA does in general, and the law they're arguing about is a ridiculous law, but they're not wrong here. This is black and white, so long as that law is on the books.

Except that the NRA is willing to change the law to prevent these buyback weapons from being destroyed if they don't get what they want. The following article from NPR is a bit clearer than the one quoted in the OP:

Rathner says the NRA will ask for an accounting of every weapon turned in and then go to court to stop the firearms from being destroyed. If that doesn't work, Rathner says they'll change the law.

"We just go back and we tweak it and tune it up, and we work with our friends in the Legislature and fix it so they can't do it," Rathner adds.

If the NRA just wants to make sure the law is followed, that's one thing, but it's pretty clear here that their goal is just to gut the buyback program entirely.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The NRA is also a lobbying organisation. Government accountability, however, is the responsibility of everyone, no matter what they lobby government to do.

[SCRawl]

If the NRA just wants to make sure the law is followed, that's one thing, but it's pretty clear here that their goal is just to gut the buyback program entirely.

The NRA can want whatever they want. Changing the law is certainly outside the scope of the lawsuit. Reading the article, it seems as though the NRA will just lobby the legislature to make sure the law is clear, because there seems to be some misunderstanding here. Consider:

Rathner says Arizona state law forces local governments to sell seized or abandoned property to the highest bidder.

"If property has been abandoned to the police, then they are required by ARS 12-945 to sell it to a federally licensed firearms dealer, and that's exactly what they should do," he says.

That way, Rathner says, the guns can be put back in circulation or given away.

The Tucson city attorney calls that a misreading of the law.

Councilman Kozachik says the guns aren't being abandoned; they're being turned in voluntarily.

"This is about giving somebody the chance to say, 'Look I'm not comfortable having this weapon, here's an opportunity for me to just get rid of it in a proper manner,' " Kozachik says.

I don't know what (if any) precise legal definitions exist for "abandoned" or "turned in voluntarily", or whether or not they're effectively the same thing. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television. But if the city can make the case that the exchanged firearms are not abandoned, then the law is not triggered, and the NRA's lawsuit becomes pointless.

As for this particular case, the weapons appear to be destined for the scrap heap:

UPDATE: The Tucson Police Department sent 205 weapons to be destroyed Tuesday afternoon. A spokesman for the NRA says he will work with the Arizona legislature to rewrite the law to prevent police from destroying firearms from gun buybacks in the future.

So if it turns out that this buyback-to-destroy mission was technically legal, the NRA would please like the next and subsequent ones to not be legal, and would also like the legislature to take up the task of "tweaking" the law so as to make sure that happens. This is one of those times I hope that the NRA doesn't get their way.

[Flagg]

God the NRA are fuckbags. "This is illegal and you shouldn't be allowed to do it!" "It's not illegal? Then make it illegal because we don't like it!"

[Simon_Jester]

They think it is illegal.

They think that if it isn't, it ought to be.

Haven't you ever looked at something and thought "why the fuck isn't this illegal?" That's what they're acting on right now.

[Rogue 9]

I would dearly like to know why they think it should be illegal, however. I can think of no rational basis for them to oppose the destruction of the weapons.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I would dearly like to know why they think it should be illegal, however. I can think of no rational basis for them to oppose the destruction of the weapons.

Because it is a symbol of the disarming intentions of the American government leadership that the guns are being destroyed, without even being checked for historical status or collector's value. It is a demonstration that the objective of government policy is to reduce the number of guns in circulation whether or not they were legally held.

[Flagg]

I would dearly like to know why they think it should be illegal, however. I can think of no rational basis for them to oppose the destruction of the weapons.

Because it is a symbol of the disarming intentions of the American government leadership that the guns are being destroyed, without even being checked for historical status or collector's value. It is a demonstration that the objective of government policy is to reduce the number of guns in circulation whether or not they were legally held.

Are you crazy? Honest question here.

[Stark]

I would dearly like to know why they think it should be illegal, however. I can think of no rational basis for them to oppose the destruction of the weapons.

I'd say its clearly an example of a roadblock created for just such an occasion. It'd be easier to make this illegal in a time when nobody cares than block it when there is a public cry for it.

Nobody said the guns or death crowd weren't planning ahead.

[Rogue 9]

I would dearly like to know why they think it should be illegal, however. I can think of no rational basis for them to oppose the destruction of the weapons.

I'd say its clearly an example of a roadblock created for just such an occasion. It'd be easier to make this illegal in a time when nobody cares than block it when there is a public cry for it.

Nobody said the guns or death crowd weren't planning ahead.

The law doesn't explicitly say that guns acquired during a buyback must be sold to the highest bidder, though. The law says that property seized or abandoned must be sold at auction, and says nothing about property surrendered. The law isn't specifically about guns and says nothing about buybacks; the NRA grasped at it in an attempt to prevent the destruction of the guns, the Tucson city attorney says that it's a misreading of the law, and the NRA has vowed to exert all its influence on the legislature to change the law if their reading doesn't win through in court. Basically, what the city's doing isn't cut-and-dried illegal. My question is why do they care enough to go to all this effort to make it so?

[Stark]

Oh, sorry. My mistake was believing what Zeon said. :V

In that case, where they're using an existing law that might support what they claim, and thus re-cast 'buybacks' not as voluntary programs entered into by people to safely dispose of dangerous property but as THE STATE SEIZING YOUR IMPORTANT BADGES OF CITIZENSHIP WHICH ARE THE ONLY BULWARK AGAINST THE TYRANNY THAT WE ONLY CARE ABOUT WHEN IT REGARDS GUNS. It'd be pretty unfortunate if they were successful, but from what you say it doesn't seem likely.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I would dearly like to know why they think it should be illegal, however. I can think of no rational basis for them to oppose the destruction of the weapons.

Because it is a symbol of the disarming intentions of the American government leadership that the guns are being destroyed, without even being checked for historical status or collector's value. It is a demonstration that the objective of government policy is to reduce the number of guns in circulation whether or not they were legally held.

Are you crazy? Honest question here.

Because you asked me that question I'm donating $24.99 to the NRA's legislative action fund.