Maximizing Law Enforcement Budgets: The Impact of Selling Seized Firearms to FFLs under Michigan House Bill 6146

Michigan House Bill 6146, introduced in late 2024, proposes significant changes to the way seized firearms are handled by law enforcement. The bill would prohibit the sale of firearms seized under the penal code to Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), instead mandating their destruction after providing a 30-day reclamation period for rightful owners. This change could have a profound impact on law enforcement budgets and operational efficiency.

Our own Shop has purchased seized firearms from our local Law Enforcement Agencies. This is a benefit for both parties. The agency can make space in their evidence rooms and supplement the budget. We as an FFL get an opportunity to purchase firearms at a discounted rate, thus impoving our chances of success. In one case we purchased several firearms from a department and they were able to offset a portion of training for a new K9 and handler.

One issue we discovered pertaining to seized firearms is the lack of accountability from departments. It is not uncommon for firearms to disappear from agency storage and end up in individuals' hands from unscrupulous officers. While we recognize that most LEO are good people, most cover for the misdeeds of bad officers (thin blue line).

Another issue, departments are not required to make contact with the Legal owners of stolen firearms, once recovered and released from evidence after trial. Instead departments send the firearms to the Michigan State Police for destruction. The last word I have is the Michigan State Police have several Semi-Trailers full of firearms awaiting destruction. With no current contractor for destroying these firearms it is anyones guess as to when or how many semi loads the state will not return to the rightful owners.

Current Practices and Their Benefits

Under current laws, many law enforcement agencies sell legally forfeited firearms to FFLs, generating revenue that helps fund critical programs such as officer training, equipment upgrades, and community outreach initiatives. By recycling these firearms into regulated channels rather than destroying them, law enforcement maximizes the utility of resources while ensuring firearms re-enter the market under strict federal oversight.

For example, revenue from these sales is often allocated to purchase advanced protective gear or expand tactical response capabilities, directly benefiting public safety. Moreover, the sale process ensures these firearms are transferred responsibly through FFLs, adhering to all background check requirements and tracking protocols.

The Financial Strain of Destruction Mandates

If HB 6146 becomes law, it would impose new costs on law enforcement agencies. Destroying seized firearms requires secure facilities, specialized machinery, and personnel, all of which strain already limited budgets. Furthermore, the loss of revenue from firearm sales could force agencies to seek alternative funding sources, potentially diverting funds from other critical community programs.

Modeltown Firearms is a type 07 Manufacturer; we can provide local agencies the ability to destroy firearms legally, though we encourage offering the sale through local FFL. When the state of Michigan decided to send firearms out of state to a large corporate donor business, it was later discovered the business was not completely destroying firearms as contracted.

Potential Public Safety Concerns

While the bill aims to reduce the number of firearms circulating in Michigan, critics argue that destruction mandates are unlikely to impact illegal firearm possession significantly. Instead, the absence of FFL-mediated sales may lead to fewer resources for addressing real crime drivers, such as drug trafficking or violent gang activities.

A Balanced Perspective

Supporters of HB 6146 suggest that firearm destruction is a symbolic step toward reducing gun violence. However, law enforcement professionals and fiscal conservatives emphasize the need for a balanced approach—one that combines public safety goals with sustainable funding mechanisms.

By allowing agencies to continue selling seized firearms under strict regulations, Michigan can maintain funding for vital public safety initiatives while ensuring firearms are distributed through legal and controlled channels. This compromise not only preserves the integrity of law enforcement budgets but also strengthens community trust in how resources are managed.

Conclusion

The debate surrounding Michigan House Bill 6146 highlights the intersection of fiscal policy, public safety, and Second Amendment rights. As discussions progress, policymakers must weigh the financial realities of law enforcement against broader social goals. With transparent oversight and community engagement, Michigan can pursue solutions that enhance both safety and sustainability.