Kimber Gun Rights Bulletin: Savannah Georgia’s Top Priority – Destroying Guns


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

comments

  1. avatar LarryinTX says:

    City leaders are not bound by state or federal law. I thought you guys knew that! Those grammas with their panties on backwards are a power unto themselves, they will let you know if a law must be changed.

  2. avatar Bill says:

    That’s not a surprise. As someone who formerly lived in Savannah, I can tell you that city is run by corrupt democrat criminals, and the local judges are liberal activists. Which is an oddity in the great state of Georgia. But just goes to show how much problems the large liberal cities can cause. If Savannah was much larger, it would honestly rival Chicago in size and scope of corruption. A true shame too, because it’s the most beautiful city in America, with a great history. Problem is, like many places, it’s been overrun with liberal transplants and the ever expanding gehttos, who’s been brainwashed by democrats to vote against their own self interest.

    1. avatar Klaus says:

      Seconded. I lived out on Wilmington Island for a while and Savannah is one screwed up city.

      1. avatar Cody Mitchell says:

        Yep i live in betz creek, and work closely with city hall, they are all corrupt and incompetent. Even my ultra liberal friends think the same thing.

  3. avatar Geoff PR says:

    I’m a bit confused here.

    Aren’t they the ones that claim they want guns only sold to those who pass a background check?

  4. avatar Dave says:

    It sounds like a solution in search of a problem. Savannah was voted second friendliest city in the country, and their violent crime rate is lower than the national average.

    On a side note, if you’re looking for a good time in March, they have the second largest St Patrick’s Day celebration in the country (Chicago has the largest), and they close all schools and businesses the day of and the day after (so the city can clean up and sober up).

    1. avatar Cody Mitchell says:

      I don’t know about low violent crime rates, as of October a 6 year old counted our 44th murder this year, the next day a woman was killed in a domestic dispute. I could find the most recent figure.

  5. avatar Michael S. says:

    One of the controversial city officials, Van Johnson, started up a group to privately purchase guns for gift cards, then destroy them. He did this to circumvent the state law, which is odd. These are voluntarily acquired with no questions asked, not siezed by law enforcement. There’s a video floating around of him with some of the guns on a table, including what appears to be an ilegally sawed off, single shot 12 gauge. Johnson represents a high crime district, one where most of the shootings are between rival drug gangs.

    The big stink about this is that they haven’t stated whether or not they are checking to see if the guns they acquire are stolen. Or, in the case of the aforementioned SBS, NFA items that they could face federal charges for. Just idiots passing out $200 gift cards to people who could be providing them with stolen guns, evidence from a murder, etc. which they will then destroy for you.

  6. avatar bLoving says:

    “Reinstating the law that allows law enforcement agencies to destroy weapons and drainage improvements”
    Those damned drainage improvements, we’d all be better off without them.

  7. avatar Cliff H says:

    The entire comment is poorly worded – the state of journalism today, I suppose. This:

    “This list includes addressing the on-going blight issues, dramatic increases to commercial property taxes…”

    I take this to mean they are attempting to address on-going blight (urban blight?) by dramatically increasing commercial property taxes. What? Increase commercial property taxes and businesses (who will have to pay those taxes) will bail on that city like rats from the sinking ship that it is. Resulting in even more blight. I originally wondered if elected city officials could be that ignorant, but…

  8. avatar Fred Frendly says:

    They destroy the guns but sell confiscated cars to put the cash in their coffers. Even the cars that were used to run people down, drive drunk in, or rob banks with. Because, logic.

  9. avatar LHW says:

    They gots to destroy those evil guns that turn perfectly behaved young boys into blood thirsty killers. Sarc/

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email