Gun buy back

A ban on future purchases would be necessary.The Australian government bought semi-auto rifles from citizens. Did their rifles get replaced? Of course not. It wasn't legal to just go out and buy new semi-auto rifles after the buyback.

 

I considered selling my weapons "back" to the government, but after a background check and thorough investigation into the buyer, I determined the buyer has a long history of violence and is mentally unstable thus not legally fit to own them.

 

Then what is being proposed by the March of Our Lives Peace Plan authors is not simply a mere "buy back" effort as they claim, but a complete and total change of the firearm-related restrictions of the united states, into something that would never pass constitutional muster under any standard of scrutiny. Even the district of columbia did not attempt a supposed "buy back" of handguns in the three decades leading up to the Heller ruling.

 

Without an amendment, armed resistance would be a reality. Before that, you'd need to find people who would wiling violate the Constitutional rights of others, and a forced by back is simply not Constitutional...

 

The government cannot “buyback” something it never owned in the first place. It is confiscation, pure and simple. The government takes my money through taxation. Then it takes my property under the guise of giving me back some of the money it took from me.

It is a confiscation scheme financed by my money.

Furthermore, do not allow anyone to fool you into believing this is a zero-sum financial gain, for it is by no means equal compensation. Under this scheme I am paying twice the value I receive back for the firearm I am losing. Follow me now.

My total purchase price for my property begins with the 1/2 I willingly paid to buy the firearm (in fair exchange for gaining possession of the firearm), followed by the other ½ of the purchase price being paid unwillingly though taxation. I suffer the forced loss of my property and get the second half—the unwillingly paid half—back as compensation. In exchange I have lost both the property and the original purchase price in addition to facing the government’s desire for more taxation to replace the revenue it lost in the confiscation scheme—for the money it paid to “buyback” my firearm is lost to other government funding needs, and we know the government will simply demand more revenue from me rather than cut spending elsewhere to offset the revenue lost in the “buyback” scheme.

This quote has, in my opinion, been misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville, but regardless of the author the statement remains sound:

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money”

Like promises of “free education” and “free healthcare,” a gun “buyback” is nothing more than an attempt to bribe us with our own money—and with a low value “offer you can’t refuse” bribe at that.

Why does this happen? Is it because I have done anything wrong? No. There is not even the slightest imputation of offence against me. It is because someone else did something wrong, and because of this my public servants have decided that they cannot trust me to peacefully possess my property anymore.

They can call this confiscation scheme whatever they want, but that is what it is, and this is their justification for doing it.

 

Many of us have similarly opined if the ‘buy’ back was made mandatory, it was nothing more than a deceptive confiscation scheme coated in sugar to make it appear palatable, but a mandatory confiscation scheme none the less, one that would not only cost the taxpayer billions. Under the guise of compensating gun owners for surrendering their property, which I have heard some advocates equate with providing ‘fair’ compensation they equate with ‘fair’ compensation for executing Eminent Domain, the taking of private property for a public use/good, one major difference is the ‘fair’ compensation is not represented by what can be called ‘fair’ market value, but by a sugar value dictated by political advocates. An advocate suggested to me, you’d be getting more than your gun’s are worth because once implemented their would be no market left. To which I replied, my collection would bring well between 100-150k or more on the market today and if paid confiscation was enacted, significantly more on the black market that would result.
As for the costs for such a program, there is somewhere between 400-500k of gun in public hands. A program to confiscate just the targeted evil black guns, estimated by Bernie to be around 10m would, if compensated at $100, cost the taxpayer north of 100m and for a complete confiscation billions. Considering that today,

• Shotguns go for anywhere from $400 - $2000.
• Rifles anywhere from around $500 - $10,000.
• Handguns (non revolver) anywhere from $250 - $2500.
• Revolvers $200-$1500.

Gun owners would lose the difference in the value their guns minus the mandated compensated value which can easily be argued would equate to the fine owning guns. Given that most gun owners vote for conservative candidates that oppose Left/Liberal policies, those of the Liberal/Left affiliation would have little sympathy and see justification for inflicting financial pain on their political opponents.
Given, the 2nd, 4th, 8th and 10th Amendments it is difficult to see how such a program would stand Constitutional scrutiny.

Why is it many of the solutions the Left/Liberal anti-gun elite appear to be in conflict with the Constitution?

 

First of all, I'm not sure the SCOTUS would rule a mandatory buy back as you proposed constitutional. It might and might not. But if this were to become law, you can bet it would go all the way to the SCOTUS.

My second point is a mandatory buyback is not a buyback at all but confiscation. I also one of those who believes the government has no business in knowing what guns I own if I own any at all. That smacks of big brother and totalitarian government.

If I had any, I'd hide them. You can't fight city hall or the giant behemoth of the federal government and hope to survive.

 

Well, currently there are between 400k and 500k of gun in the US. If a mandatory program were to be implemented (unlikely), based on the level of compliance with mandatory registration in the NE states being between 10-15%,, and there being no gun registration system in place to track guns, the 85%-90% of the Country’s gun would disappear over night. ‘Feel Good’ politicians would call that a victory. Criminals though would still have theirs.

 

Yes, they did get replaced.

There are more firearms now in Australia than before the confiscations.

You don't need a semi auto to commit a mass shooting.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/05/australia/australia-darwin-gun-attack-intl/index.html

 

'Buyback' is an idiotic term, as if the privately owned firearm ever belonged to the government. Sorry, mine aren't for sale. Funny how the LW says we could never round up 11,000,000 illegals, but we can confiscate by force 20,000,000 'assault weapons' from US citizens.

 

Simply because the firearms do not possess the ability to scream the word "racist" at the top of their lungs.

 

Some estimates are that between 5 and 10 million Americans own an AR-15 rifle.

If none of them comply, how are they going to jail that many people - people who are otherwise peaceful and law-abiding?

Answer: Not going to happen.

 

How can government buy back something they never owned?

 

The semantics of Con artists... they have many decades of experience in the con game.

 

Not to mention broke.

 

You must be full of BS. The Aussies that come here to tell the US how a country should be run have assured us that every gun in Australia is secured and that all threats of gun have been eliminated.

 

It's an Orwellian double-speak term, similar to the mythical "gun-show" loophole term. A government "buy-back" implies that I bought the gun from the government, which is something I have never done.

 

Aside from hiding my theoretical guns, risking jail and potentially violently defending myself depending on the circumstances, I would also press out as many AK receivers as I could as fast as I could and sell them to the buyback. The BATFE defines the receiver as the firearm. Everything else is just machined parts.

 

Use a 3D printer and make a fine profit.

 

Interesting, the OP poll, though small of sample, is beginning to reflect the experience of the recent registration laws level of compliance in the NE states.

 

While I voted no way Jose, I still have some guns I would be more than glad to unload on the State, a while back I tried schlepping them off during a multiagency buy back at a local flea market, the Officer looked at my two guns smiled and without asking for ID looked at me, called me by my last name and stated "I'll give you two Publix free turkey cards for this one, but this other one you can go drop in the ocean, it's so rusted it's not even functional and you know that."

While he was tagging a $15 useless gun for $50 worth of food I suggested he might want to give me another turkey card and keep rusted one as a drop-gun, he suggested I need to take my two cards and go away, then just to rattle my tree, as I was walking away he yells out "hey I'm back on Charlie again, want to hit the streets tonight?"

I turned around and replied, "26 see you at 15:00."

The looks I received where a tad strange, the folks behind the table understood the conservation but where puzzled by my looks, the folks on the other side where thinking narc, but keep in mind at the time my hair was well over my shoulders, I was wearing worn out jeans with the knees blown out, a bight yellow baggy t-shirt with a 5 fingered cannabis leaf on the back of it, plus if one looked carefully the Motorola handheld clipped in my back pocket, that was printing through the T-shirt, could also be seen.

 

There would be no armed resistance...simply near-zero compliance.

 

So far we have 2 sane people who would turn in their guns. 9 who would hide their guns which means they could not use them and if they ever did they would lose them. And then there are 15 who would go to jail or fight. The fighters would, at best, go to jail but all 15 would lose their guns. All voters would lose their guns and 2 got money for it.

 

Hidden guns are always ready to be used and anyone who sells back a gun and doesn't get way more than what they paid for it is an idiot.

 

And so far the government does not have the vast resources necessary to handle or otherwise address massive civil disobedience on the part of those who refuse to surrender their firearms. It has the hope of scaring the public into complying so its task is easier, but it has nothing should the public call its bluff, just as the public is doing with regard to illicit narcotic substances.