There’s something unhealthy about a city administration that lists destroying valuable property as one of its highest priorities. Yet that’s how they roll in Savannah, Georgia. According to a WTOC report, the city fathers are trying to focus on the most important issues facing them.
The city has had a lot of issues, but city council members managed to narrow them down to a list of just six items. This list includes addressing the on-going blight issues, dramatic increases to commercial property taxes, improving transparency with the Pardons and Parole Board, ID cards for parolees, reinstating the law that allows law enforcement agencies to destroy weapons and drainage improvements.
Only one problem: destroying weapons is in direct contravention of a state law that requires such valuable assets be sold to licensed dealers rather than being destroyed. Plus, destruction of confiscated firearms only benefits firearms manufacturers, and outcome anti-gun city administrators should want to avoid. If there are fewer used guns to supply the demand, then more new guns will be manufactured and sold. But city councils, especially in larger urban areas, often have no understanding of simple economics.
City leaders are asking the law to be changed so that local jurisdictions have the option of destroying *or* selling weapons at auction. Despite the city’s efforts in making this a top priority, Rep. Ron Stephens says not to get your hopes up.
Numerous academic studies have shown that destruction of such guns has no measurable effect on crime.
It’s understandable that people who favor civilian disarmament want to send a message — “guns are bad” — by publicly destroying them. But in making that message one of its six top priorities, the city of Savannah reveals that we’re dealing with delusional group, not rational players. The chances of the State of Georgia reversing the law that prohibits firearms destruction is essentially nil. The bill, SB 350, passed in the Georgia Senate in 2012, 49 to 4.
Consider the attitude of Atlanta Democrat, Sen. Vincent Fort, about the law. From ajc.com:
Fort doesn’t always agree with the Reed administration, but he does this time. “We’re going to find that those guns are going to be used in crimes. I have no doubt about that. To put that many guns back on the street, when we should be doing the opposite, is bizarre,” Fort said.
Fort’s statement is itself bizarre. The guns made available for sale will be put on store shelves, right alongside other new and used guns. If they are not there, other guns will be sold to meet demand. Their presence will make zero difference in the overall availability of lawful guns for sale. Numerous academic studies have shown that their presence have no appreciable impact on crimes.
©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included. Gun Watch