Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved.

June 17, 2024

Shelby County Sheriff’s Office – Conflicting Gun Inventories –

By Kirk Allen & John Kraft

On May 5, 2022

Shelby Co. (ECWd) –

The power of the Freedom of Information Act is only as good as the public body’s willingness to be honest with the production of records. Knowing that, we have learned to request key documents in a manner that boxes in the public body based on information we already have in hand.  After multiple FOIA requests pertaining to the illegal sale of seized guns in Shelby County, it’s clear a criminal investigation was in order, and even more clear someone needs to be held accountable.

Since the Forensic Auditor coined the term Shelby County Special as it relates to payroll, we are going to coin the term Shelby County Shuffle as it relates to the shuffle being done with guns.

Former Sheriff Koonce produced an inventory of seized guns in 2019. Included in this request was the list of guns sold, and allegedly recovered, according to former Sheriff Koonce.

In a 2020 request for evidence seized in one particular case, a list of 32 guns was provided and that record reflects those guns were seized in October of 2017 by then-deputy Shaun McQueen. The problem is the inventory provided in our initial 2019 request did not contain 8 of the guns listed on the seized evidence from 2017 which are highlighted in the link. Considering they were seized in 2017 they should have been on the inventory list in the original request.  The fact they were missing from inventory was part of the initial criminal complaint being investigated by the authorities.

Shelby County Shuffle

Comparing the list of ‘sold then recovered’ guns with the current inventory provided by the current sheriff, we find that one of those guns is no longer in evidence and there are no records for any disposition of the missing Swiss Schmidt 7.5 Swiss Ruben M1911, highlighted in the document.

More troubling is the fact the current inventory provided by Sheriff McReynolds indicates weapons on his current inventory now include 8 guns that were part of the seized weapons in 2017 but were missing from the inventory provided by former Sheriff Koonce.  That indicates those guns have magically been shuffled back into evidence.

Following the public records provided, it appears a shuffle took place, and clear a gun is in fact missing.  Considering this matter was being investigated by the ISP, it does not surprise us to see weapons getting returned once they realized they were being investigated.

The fact one of those guns is missing indicates additional problems for the Sheriff’s office and a county board member.

According to page 131 of the ISP investigation report, it was alleged that the Chairman of the Sheriff’s Committee confirmed there were no missing weapons. There is no mention of who that was, but we understand it would have been either Gary Patterson or Kay Kearney.  More disturbing in the report is that the ISP reports “Most, if not all, of the firearms, were purchased by SCSO employees”.  Most, if not all?  So the ISP did not confirm who actually made the purchases of the sold guns?  If “most” were purchased by SCSO employees, who purchased the remaining guns?

Additionally, Sheriff McReynolds reported to us that all guns are accounted for according to his deputy in charge of evidence and the forensic auditor.

Unless the Sheriff’s office can document the whereabouts of the missing Swiss Schmidt rifle it appears the ISP report and auditor confirmation may have been based on limited information.  This is not surprising because if the person doing the inventory is not aware of ALL the documents outlined above they would have no way of confirming the missing gun.

Our questions:

  • How did 8 guns magically shuffle back into inventory that were in fact missing from the initial inventory record provided by former Sheriff Koonce?
  • Was the return of those guns an attempt to “un-rob” the bank so to speak?
  • Where is the Swiss Schmidt Rifle listed as one of the guns sold at Locked and Loaded and then recovered after our request for records?
  • For those alleging there are no guns missing, can you account for the Swiss Schmidt Rifle that was recovered but not on the current inventory list?
  • Why was the receipt book for the gun sales destroyed in the middle of an audit and criminal investigation, which, according to the Secretary of State, violates the law?
  • When will Shelby County Sheriff’s Office employees be held accountable for violating the Counties Code by participating in a Sheriff’s sale of seized guns?
  • Why do the receipt records from the sales conflict with deposits and funds refunded for guns returned? (Yes, more articles coming)
  • When will the Attorney General make a charging decision on what is clearly a violation of the law?

As it stands, there are a lot of unanswered questions, zero accountability for numerous violations of our laws, and there is a gun missing according to their own records.




Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print


  • Scott E Tapscott
    Posted at 15:34h, 05 May Reply

    Where can a list of these firearms be viewed and was an attempt to return those to their rightful owner ever made!

  • Sgt. Jack Webb (LAPD Ret)
    Posted at 17:23h, 05 May Reply

    It’s amazing what the potential opportunity for a “free” gun does to the minds and the decision-making process of grown men. Seized guns have always been a temptation for officers – as well as the public in general – to step over the line. I’ve never understood it. I never saw it much past 1983, but going back 45 years, I can recall guys I worked with either having “confiscated” guns in their lockers, in their possession as a backup gun, or suggesting that such guns might be converted to a let’s say, “quasi-official loan” status to the officer(s). Good for this officer – I know a guy who took a junk sawed-off shotgun – given to him by a relative who found it in a deceased family member’s home – to a metal recycling center for destruction. After IDing himself as an off-duty officer, and his intent to have the illegal gun destroyed, he was offered cash for the gun by two different goofball employees (one of them a facility manager) before the off-duty LEO witnessed its destruction. Even at that, one of the employees – on his initial chop/cut – tried to cut the gun in such a manner as to only shorten the barrel to an even more extreme length. Crazy. People do stupid things and don’t think of – or ignore – the potential consequences.

  • Droopy, Master Detective
    Posted at 06:53h, 06 May Reply

    How do any of these officers testify in a court of law. Their credibility should be called into question. The credibility of the state’s attorney should be called into question. They are using their position of trust and authority for personal gain. No trust anywhere in Shelby County government. Hold them accountable.

Post A Comment