[Frankie9011]

I think the point they're trying to make is that when they purchased the gun for 50k they were never told that at some point it could be taken away with a 15k reduction from the original buying price. I think the "you paid 15k to use the gun" argument is pretty null considering no one ever technically agreed to those terms, correct me if I am wrong.

This also conflicts with another thing... no one technically specified who or what "individual" owned the gang gun when purchased. I assume it was the actual person who bought it, but I've heard excuses like "it's the gang's property", among other things.