The special study of the disposition of firearms was requested by the Metropolitan King County Council. The objectives of the study were to determine if the county’s practices in the disposition of firearms were in compliance with state and local laws and to evaluate the financial impact of those practices.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

The study concluded that the Sheriff’s Office is not complying with county code requirements for the disposition of firearms and that compliance with the code will reduce revenues from weapons trades by approximately one-third.

The Property Management Unit (PMU) in the Sheriff’s Office disposes of unclaimed firearms, firearms that have been ordered forfeited by a court, and the Sheriff’s Office’s own surplus weapons. The weapons are traded for new service firearms or destroyed by melting them down.

Finding 2-2.  Since 1997, the Sheriff’s Office Has Acquired All of Its New Weapons Through Trades. However, Compliance With the Code Will Reduce Revenues From Trades by Approximately One-Third.

Since 1997 the PMU has traded 2,277 weapons and received $155,800 worth of firearms and equipment in return. The trades provided the Sheriff’s Office with all of its new service weapons in that time, a total of 362 handguns. However, these trades included 927 handguns that did not meet the definition of potential value and should have been destroyed. The list of 410 weapons currently pending trade includes 164 handguns that are not of potential value. Audit staff calculated that destroying those handguns would decrease revenues from gun trades by at least 32%.

The council changed the code in 1993 to allow the trade of some handguns, instead of destroying all of them as previously required. The preamble to the ordinance stated that the reason for the change was the "dual financial burden" of losing the revenues the handguns would bring in trade and having to pay a fee to the state for destroying the guns. Per state law, the county has to pay $25 for every handgun it destroys that was forfeited before June 30, 1993, to a maximum of $50,000. However, with the passage of time fewer handguns dating from 1993 or earlier are left. Since part of the reason for the current requirements is becoming immaterial, the council may want to revisit the issue of which firearms should be destroyed and which should be traded.

Finding 2-4.   The Property Management Unit’s System Does Not Have an Automated Inventory System, Making It Time Consuming and Inefficient to Track Weapons.

The PMU does not have an automated system for inventorying evidence. Weapons are tracked on a number of different systems, which is time-consuming and results in duplication of data entry. The unit also cannot provide some information, such as a list of all guns that are evidence in active cases. Furthermore, the system for numbering guns that enter the unit is not sequential, although this is an important inventory control.

The PMU is scheduled to get a Tracking Evidence and Supply System (TESS) by early 2000, in time for the unit’s move to a new facility. The system is supposed to issue a unique bar-coded number to every incoming weapon, track weapons, and generate reports on their current location.

The audit recommended that the Sheriff’s Office work to ensure that implementation of TESS is completed by February 2000. Implementation should include a comprehensive review of the inventory process in order to eliminate redundant data entry. 

This study was prompted by the introduction of an ordinance that would have required the Sheriff’s Office to destroy all rifles and shotguns that were used in a crime of violence or that met the federal definition of semiautomatic assault weapons, unless they could be returned to the owner. The ordinance was dropped due to concerns that destroying forfeited rifles or shotguns would violate state law. However, state law allows local jurisdictions to dispose of firearms forfeited after June 30, 1993, in any manner the legislative body determines, with the exception of antiques and curios. Therefore, if similar legislation is planned in the future, there are some issues to be considered:

• Without a change in legislation, it is probably inevitable that some firearms used in homicides will be traded. The code requires that all forfeited rifles and shotguns be traded, and the Sheriff’s Office does not have any procedures for identifying and destroying handguns used in homicides.
• Such legislation would reduce the number of guns traded. Out of a sample of 25 weapons in the current trade list, seven had been taken in connection with a crime of violence, as defined in state law. The list also contained 12 semiautomatic assault rifles, worth $1,700, that would have been destroyed under the proposed ordinance.