Gun Rights Activists Not Welcome in Coatesville

You know you're doing something right when the establishment press takes the time to lambaste you. That is what happened to the liberty-minded people standing up for gun rights at Coatesville, PA's gun buy. Here's what the Daily Local News had to say about us:

The event was also attended by an organized group of about 15 people who offered to buy guns for cash on the sidewalk outside. Many of those outside said they opposed the buy back for political reasons, as they viewed it as an affront to Second Amendment Rights. These people are welcome to their opinions, but in our view of [sic] part of the problem. They have no clear vision for decreasing the level of gun violence on the streets of places like Coatesville, and seem more interested in maintaining he [sic] profitability of gun manufacturers than in the safety of their fellow citizens. We will be very satisfied if they do not come back.

The firearms will now be held in a police lockup until they are destroyed at a nearby steel mill. Good riddance.

 Never mind the bad grammar and misspelled words, never mind that they shamelessly made up nonsense about us being there to help the gun manufacturers, the Daily Local should get a clue about how to reduce crime. Instead of just seeking to appease politicians and maintain the status quo they should propose real solutions to the crime problem. Since I've been accused of not having a "clear vision for decreasing the level of gun violence on the streets of places like Coatesville" let me refer the editors to an article I recently wrote on the subject "Progressivism’s Violent World":

We need to move to a system of private security. There is no need for local police. History has already proved that private security is better at protecting us than the government is. A shining example is Oro Valley, Arizona. In 1975 they hired Rural/Metro Inc. to be their police department, providing the services previously provided by the county sheriff. Crime rates where greatly reduced at a fraction of the cost of a government police force.

If the editors of the Daily Local really want to help reduce crime I invite them to sign Law Enforcement Against Prohibition's petition and start advocating ending the war on drugs on their pages:

Reducing Gun Violence Isn’t About Gun Control – It’s About the Drug War

So much has been said in recent months on the subject of gun violence, but in the midst of this heated debate, one obvious solution to rampant gun violence has often been downplayed or overlooked: ending drug prohibition.

Is that clear enough for the Daily Local?

Moving on, below is a video of the gun buy. In the video one can see that the city councilperson and the deacon can't offer any proof that these gun buys help reduce crime:

The Daily Local also covered the gun buy. They actually wrote a nice piece about it. See "Coatesville collects 40 guns in buy-back program". Please note the pictures of the guns collected and the poor condition of many of them.

Below is the video of my interview by their reporter:

Stopping Illegally Funded Gun Buy-Backs

In the video below Mayor Joseph DiGirolamo and Director of Public Safety Fred Harran of Bensalem, PA state that their two day gun buy-back of February 6 and 16 was the first in the nation financed with federal funds seized from drug dealers. 

They refer to the fact that the shared funds must be used for law enforcement purposes and that they are the first jurisdiction to get approval to use such funds for a gun buy-back. Mr. Harran mentions a flier that was sent out to law enforcement agencies across the country informing them that federal shared funds are now available to them for gun buy-backs. A little Internet searching found the February 1, 2013 edition of the Equitable Sharing Wire, the Equitable Sharing Program’s newsletter published by the US Department of Justice. The Equitable Sharing Program is run by the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section.
 
The article “Gun Buy-Back Programs” outlines how this is to be done. The relevant part is the one sentence third paragraph, “If your agency uses equitably shared funds to run a gun buy-back program, the funds used should be reported on Line C, Informant and Buy Money, of the Equitable Sharing Agreement and Certification form.” However, when one hovers their cursor over the boxes on Line C to report expenditures a bubble appears that reads in part “Miscellaneous petty cash purchases should not be reported in this category. Justice Guide VIII.A.1.a”. Buying unwanted guns from the public would certainly seem to be “Miscellaneous petty cash purchases”.

The above referenced Justice Guide is the “Guide to Equitable Sharing for State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies”. It gives us further guidance. Section VIII.A.1.a (page 16) reads:

Law enforcement investigations—the support of investigations and operations that may result in furthering the law enforcement goals and mission, e.g., payment of overtime for officers and investigators; payments to informants; “buy,” “flash,” or reward money; and the purchase of evidence.

On the same page we read “Except as noted in this Guide, equitably shared funds shall be used by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement purposes only.” Gun buy-backs enforce no laws nor do they involve payments to informants, rewards, or the purchase of evidence.

The Guide goes on to list other permissible, pre-approved uses for equitably shared funds. Gun buy-backs aren’t on the list.

The bottom line here is that Bensalem is, in this layman’s opinion, improperly using these funds. I would also bring up the question of whether state funded gun buy-backs are being illegally financed. A quick search at the legal website FindLaw found no rulings by the courts on this issue. Hopefully, the attorneys employed by gun rights groups will follow up on the research presented here and can end the practice.