This exchange is Washington State simply sums it up PERFECTLY!
So this is in response to an anti-gun bill that FORCES police departments to destroy all guns seized by police. (I will note that if the department decides to destroy one or all the guns transferred to the police department, they still can)
His argument is that if a heroin dealer’s gun is sold to an FFL (which will help pad the department’s budget…something you always hear about whenever a department is asked) it MIGHT end up back in the hands of another bad person.
When questioned in turn if in fact those sales would be done through an FFL with a background check (Which BTW is the ONLY legal way for a police department to transfer a gun to a private individual who is not already the rightful owner…both in Washington which has the stupid Universal Background Check law, but federally under the Gun Control act of 1968), he notes that indeed all guns formally in police custody are only sold with background checks but “There is always that chance…”
This of course begs the question: If said heroin dealer is locked up, and his gun seized as a forfeiture, and is then sold to XYZ Gun and Pawn down the street has some inherent risk of getting back into the hands of another dangerous person (let alone the SAME dangerous person, thanks to the revolving door criminal justice system), what is the difference between THAT gun, and every other gun sitting beside it in the used rack?
What’s the difference between those guns and the guns in the USED racks?
Why were you so eager to push “Universal Background Checks”, but can’t even trust transferring the gun to an O1 or 02 FFL? I mean we now trust PRIVATE CITIZENS to own guns and not illegally transfer them!!!
For the longest time when an anti-gun bill was suggested, us pro-gun forces called it out as an incremental step to confiscation and outlaw of private firearms. We were mocked at paranoid for such conjecture.
using Occam’s Razor, can you see ANY other rational motivation for this?