Yes, and so what? Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I was not referring to police seizing specific guns (and I don't know how you came up with this since I didn't say it.) My concern that was the police would increase their overall seizure activity as another form of fund raising to go along with the asset seizure of the so-called "war on drugs" Kind of like having a ticket quota, they would have a guns seizure quota looking for flimsey excuses to steal peoples' property under the color of law - you know like they do with cash now.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, however, my general point still stands. I don't think there's much incentive for the individual officer to seize a gun (or fifty, for that matter) that wouldn't have been seized anyway, when he/she will likely never see any actual return from the seizure other than in the most general sense possible.
They're already seizing these guns. The question is, what do they do with them after the case is adjudicated? They can't keep them forever -- they have to do something with them. Typically the options are either to destroy it or sell it, or in very rare cases, donate it to a museum or something like that.
Since my old agency stopped doing sales, I've destroyed literally THOUSANDS of Beretta 96s and Glock 17s, hundreds of Ruger 10-22s, and Lord only knows how many AK variants. It was a shame, but we weren't allowed to do anything else with them.
Of course, we also destroyed oodles of crappy little Jennings/Lorcin/Cobra/Brycos, Hi-Points, and tons of guns that had been 'home gunsmithed' in ways you don't even want to think about LOL.