The strangest thing about this story is that KPMG had to tell the City of Tulsa, OKLAHOMA that, you know, maybe they could sell some of these guns to OKLAHOMANS for money.
Selling the hundreds of guns that Tulsa police confiscate each year instead of melting them down is one of several revenue-generating ideas included in the KPMG efficiency report.
But city and police officials said that would have to be done cautiously, if the idea makes it past the evaluation process.
“What (KPMG) is essentially saying is that we are destroying assets that could bring us revenue,” Mayoral Chief of Staff Terry Simonson said.
The report recommends the firearms be sold to certified dealers through the already-established city auction process, rather than incurring $80,000 per year in costs to dispose of them.
Once you’re able to get the idea of Oklahoma actually having firearm dealers around your skull, we will admit that we’re being a tad harsh on Tulsa.
You see, they used to sell confiscated guns until some freedom-hating police chief decided that occasionally these guns end up in the hands of bad people and that destroying them was a better solution. The fact that this even occurred in the Sooner State without a populist uproar and nightly vigils for all the destroyed Smith & Wessons is beyond comprehension.
But never mind that. Here we are, 20 years later and KPMG suggests they get back in the gun trade. God knows municipalities need the money these days and spending $80k melting down perfectly fine weapons is just silly. Sadly, not all guns are created equal:
If the city began selling guns again, [Capt. Jonathan] Brooks said, there are still many of the confiscated weapons that would have to be destroyed.
“Obviously, we wouldn’t be able to sell guns that have been modified or altered from the original manufacturer’s specifications, such as sawed-off shotguns,” he said.
“We also wouldn’t want to be selling any assault-type weapons.”
This guy also probably voted for Obama.
KPMG finds asset in guns [Tulsa World]
If you’re a resident of the Lone Star State and you happen to frequent the peelers, you’re probably familiar with the $5 charge that you pay to enjoy a little bit of entertainment.
Well good news! The Texas Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case and determine if that $5 violates the First Amendment right to free expression and maybe this travesty can be put to bed once and for all.
The Texas Court of Appeals ruled the law was discriminatory against establishments that served alcohol since as Kay Bell explained then, “a play involving nudity did not trigger the tax…that meant that, had the law stood, the touring company of…Hair could have come to Texas.”
If you simply wanted to go to Treasures in Houston and have a beer and appreciate some artistic impression to Bon Jovi, Skid Row, Def Leppard, etc. then the tax applied. The $12 million that the state collected while the law was in effect is still being held in an account while they sort this out. What’s not clear is if that money will be returned to the patrons or simply given to employees of the clubs where the money was going to end up anyway.
Texas stripper ‘pole tax’ to get review [Don’t Mess With Taxes]