Army, police to trace status of missile launcher at Seattle gun buyback

SEATTLE - Police are tracking down the history of a nonfunctional missile launcher that showed up at a Saturday weapons buyback event in Seattle.
Detective Mark Jamieson says a man standing outside the buyback event bought the military weapon for $100 from another person at the event. The item, a single-use device that had already been used, is a launch tube assembly for a Stinger portable surface-to-air missile.
Several people at the buyback then notified officers they had seen the man was walking around outside the area with the missile launcher.
Officers spoke to the man, who was cooperative, and told police that he had just purchased it. Officers then inspected the launcher and determined that was unarmed. However, police confiscated the weapon because it is considered a controlled military item, Jamieson said.
He says detectives will notify the Army Criminal Investigation on Monday.
Jamieson says the launcher is not supposed to be available to civilians through any surplus or disposal program offered by the government. He says it is most likely that the launch tube was previously obtained unlawfully from the military, and would likely be returned to Joint Base Lewis-McChord for the Army to dispose of.
The man who purchased the launcher agreed to accept a gift card in exchange for the weapon in case it is not returned to him.
Looks like I could convert it too a killer bong or Hooka pipe for repeated use and sell it to Herb Reefer for $100.
Can a cop look anymore a cop than Seattle police Sgt. Paul Gracy? He's got flatfoot written all over him, like some kinda alternate universe where he is the grandfather of nearly all of the Village People and his brother is Fred "Fifi" McPhee.
Who would want one that doesn't work. I want a live one! Just kidding... LOL
I would have asked for three gift cards
 @RougeCoyote I know huh...
What really happened at the Seattle Buy Back. http://dcxposed.com/2013/01/27/seattle-gun-buyback-gets-jacked-turns-into-a-damn-gun-show-lol/
disturbing
@Baldr Odinson You know of course that if you would fire that pistol that you show in your post picture, your troubles would be over and you would not have to be disturbed again. Remember you have rights that you want to keep, and we have rights that we want to keep. We want to keep our freedom, you don't seem to care. That I am totally confused about being an American and seeing what goes on in countries that don't have freedom.
I think the real issue is whether or not this still belongs to the military. Maters not that is is a "one-time-use" device if the public is not allowed to possess it. If it's still military property even the police, FBI or ATF would not even be allowed to possess it.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/AT4-Rocket-Launcher-Inert-/160962920409?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item257a233fd9
How do you just loose one should be the question they don't walk off the base..
 @IAMHIGH Oh gawd, you have no idea how much equipment just walks right off base, or gets left behind when we close a base.
I've seen news reports of loaded SWAT vans stolen never to be found as well as full on APC's. Â Now that's scary.
Definitely a one-use item. Like the LAW, these can't be made to fire again.Â
A missile launcher? That is not possible. They are illegal.
I'm pretty sure I would have required them to provide me with the documentation stating I couldn't own a non-functional military memorabilia. At very most the individual might have been required to file papers with the ATF and FBI to obtain the $200 tax stamp. Very unlikely though considering the device was non-functional.
Umm yeah, and the police said they would accept the weapons with no questions asked.
Â
Guess we know what we already know. Its legal for police to make false statements.
Â
Just not you.
@Jason Marks He didn't offer to turn it in; they found out he had it and intended to keep it until they contacted him. If I went there and bought a stolem civilian gun instead of a stolen military item, I wouldn't complain if I were you.
Burden of proof lies with the state to prove the device was stolen. Not with the individual to prove it wasn't. As for the private sale of the NON-servicable device I refer to the ATF link (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html#unserviceable-firearm) that state "An unserviceable NFA firearm is still subject to the controls of the NFA, but may be transferred tax free as a curio or ornament.
[26 U.S.C. 5845(h) and 5852, 27 CFR 479.11and 479.91]".
Â
 @Jason Marks  @Twistthewrist Couldn't be a weapons charge as per Washingtons definition of firearm (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.010) since it was unserviceable. They could charge him with possession if they could prove he knew or should have known it was stolen as per RCW 9A.56.140 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.140). All I'm saying is police don't know every rule and law off the top of their head. Just because a officer thinks you can't doesn't make it true or lawful.
 @Twistthewrist and probably once they did prove it was stolen, or at least, the guy in possession of it, he could potentially face a weapons charge.Â
Â
Rushing ahead of the line in a buy back program just to get something to brag about isn't always the smartest thing. Â
Â
He is lucky to walk away without charges.Â