Libertarians vs. Sheriff’s Deputies at Gun Buyback – 2nd Amendment Win


PDA






Dean Weingarten
February 20, 2013, 02:48 PM
TAMPA – February 2, 2013 – The Hillsborough County, Florida Sheriff’s Department set up five locations where people could turn in their firearms. The Sheriff was offering $75 plus tickets to a local sports events in exchange for each firearm surrendered.

Adrian Wyllie, Libertarian Candidate for Governor, Matt Bender, Alex Snitker, and several other law-abiding citizens offered to legally purchase firearms from the individuals who were there to turn them in. In many cases, Wyllie and the other citizens purchasing firearms offered considerably more than $75.

These transactions are completely legal and proper under Florida law.

The sellers were happy. The buyers were happy. The Sheriff was not happy.

Deputies ordered Wyllie and the others to stop immediately, and they were briefly detained to await further instructions. We were told that we weren’t breaking any laws, however, we were interfering with the Sheriff’s operation.

The vast majority of the firearms being turned in to the Sheriff were damaged, rusted, or otherwise inoperative. Only a handful of people said they were voluntarily disarming themselves, or believed they were “making the streets safer.” Most people said they were just trying to get a few bucks for some old, useless firearms they had, and reported having better quality firearms at home.

Many of the functional firearms were purchased by private individuals before they could be surrendered for destruction.

After waiting for about 10 minutes for the supervisor who was supposed to advise us further, we decided to continue purchasing rifles, shotguns and handguns from the people waiting to turn them in.

Knowing that we were operating within the law, we did not seek the Sheriff’s permission to do so. We continued purchasing firearms directly in front of the substation.

By the end of the day, dozens of quality rifles, shotguns and handguns were legally purchased by Libertarians and other law-abiding citizens at the five gun buyback locations.

Deputies did not bother us again.

We believe that we the streets safer that day, by ensuring law-abiding citizens have the tools to defend themselves.

We would like to thank the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Department for eventually recognizing our Second Amendment right, and not further interfering with our lawful commerce.

http://florida.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/02/libertarians-vs-sheriffs-deputies-at-gun-buyback-2nd-amendment-win/

If you enjoyed reading about "Libertarians vs. Sheriff’s Deputies at Gun Buyback – 2nd Amendment Win" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Dean Weingarten
February 20, 2013, 02:51 PM
Nice to see opposition to irrationality. "Buyback" is a propaganda term implying that the State owns everything. These firearms were never owned by the State to begin with.

If the Sheriff really wanted to get firearms "off the street" he would invite the private buyers in. Their money would stretch his turn in budget and move the nicer guns to responsible hands, while giving those ignorant of the value of their property a better deal.

The fact that he did not do this shows that he is promoting propagnda, not really wanting to "get firearms off the street".

ngnrd
February 20, 2013, 03:14 PM
Buy back = taxpayer subsidized confiscation.

How do some people not see this?

And, I'm happy to see that the citizen purchases at these events are becoming more common. Maybe a few jerky vendors will start showing up to these things and we can start calling them government sponsored gun shows.:rolleyes:

Cosmoline
February 20, 2013, 03:17 PM
"Buyback" is a propaganda term implying that the State owns everything. These firearms were never owned by the State to begin with.

Absolutely. A lot of people seem to miss this.

Akita1
February 20, 2013, 04:06 PM
Buybacks never work; just a political show so a sheriff or mayor can stand in front of a pile of mostly junk and say "see what we're doing - making you safe." Noise.

9mmepiphany
February 20, 2013, 04:17 PM
Buy back = taxpayer subsidized confiscation.

How do some people not see this?
Perhaps because you are using the word improperly?

"Confiscation, from the Latin confiscatio 'joining to the fiscus, i.e. transfer to the treasury' is a legal seizure without compensation by a government or other public authority."

The bolded part is the defining section. Without compensation is the part you are overlooking in the use of the word. It isn't even a seizure if the guns are offered by their owners; that is why private purchases wouldn't fall under interfering with the officers

While I can understand your sentiment, using words improperly to doesn't lend creditability

mrvco
February 20, 2013, 04:17 PM
Viva la Libertarians!

taliv
February 20, 2013, 04:25 PM
We believe that we the streets safer that day, by ensuring law-abiding citizens have the tools to defend themselves.

i think you a verb out of that sentence.


i applaud making fools out of the opposition, but let's not pretend anything done there had any effect whatsoever on public safety.

ngnrd
February 20, 2013, 05:19 PM
Perhaps because you are using the word improperly?

"Confiscation, from the Latin confiscatio 'joining to the fiscus, i.e. transfer to the treasury' is a legal seizure without compensation by a government or other public authority."

If the compensation is not commensurate with the value of the object forfeit, it is - in fact - not proper compensation. Therefore, such seizure would be a confiscation.

But, the nit you chose to pick seems like a perfect opportunity for a study in semantics to me. Because, in the context of gun control, confiscation has come to mean the illegal forfeiture of weapons. And that's the context in which I used the term. Even Webster has defined the term to mean forfeiture:

Definition of CONFISCATE (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/confiscation)

1: to seize as forfeited to the public treasury
2: to seize by or as if by authority


And, forfeiture is defined as a penalty for error, offense, or crime.

Definition of FORFEIT (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forfeit)

1: to lose or lose the right to especially by some error, offense, or crime
2: to subject to confiscation as a forfeit; also : abandon, give up

So, while I thank you for your comments, I shall stick with my previous statement:

Buy back = taxpayer subsidized confiscation.

1911Tuner
February 20, 2013, 05:27 PM
If the compensation is not commensurate with the value of the object forfeit, it is - in fact - not proper compensation. Therefore, such seizure would be a confiscation.

Still doesn't qualify for confiscation. The Sheriff's office didn't force anyone to sell. Regardless of the value, if the owner voluntarily accepts the offer, it's a sale.

baz
February 20, 2013, 05:28 PM
Even Webster has defined the term to mean forfeitureHow do you get "forfeiture" out of a voluntary act. No one is forced to participate in these deals. Look, we all agree they are silly, and especially laughable when they backfire. But it is a stretch, no matter how hard you try, to equate them with any kind of "confiscation."

silicosys4
February 20, 2013, 05:28 PM
If the compensation is not commensurate with the value of the object forfeit, it is - in fact - not proper compensation. Therefore, such seizure would be a confiscation.

But, the nit you chose to pick seems like a perfect opportunity for a study in semantics to me. Because, in the context of gun control, confiscation has come to mean the illegal forfeiture of weapons. And that's the context in which I used the term. Even Webster has defined the term to mean forfeiture:




And, forfeiture is defined as a penalty for error, offense, or crime.



So, while I thank you for your comments, I shall stick with my previous statement:

Buy back = taxpayer subsidized confiscation.

It is never a requirement for a voluntary ( I can't bold that or underline it enough for some people, it would seem) transaction to be conducted commensurate of full value, or estimated value, etc...

Stop the presses, you "confiscated" that sandwich, because you bought it while it was on sale.....for less than MSRP!!
You are basically arguing that if you sell something and I get a good bargain for it, paying less than I might be able to sell it for, I must have "seized, confiscated, or had you engage in forcefull forfeiture".
So does this count for future appreciation of value as well?

If a citizen is voluntarily (again, this is being ignored) exchanging their privately owned property for a pittance, it is not a seizure, a forteiture, a confiscation, etc....
it is a sale.

Its always strange to me when people say we would be "more free" if they outlawed "buyback" programs, privately funded or not. And yes, selling to a privately funded buyback program...they are private gun sales, much as you loath the final end user/destroyer.

Vector
February 20, 2013, 05:50 PM
Viva la Libertarians!

While I am glad the article was written, and the guns purchased instead of destroyed, read between the lines to see it was self serving. I'm sure others, including R's & D's who support RKBA also bought the guns, but the author is a Libertarian candidate also promoting his party. Hence the way the story was framed.

`

AABEN
February 20, 2013, 05:51 PM
BOY"S lets drop it!

gp911
February 20, 2013, 05:52 PM
Libertarians 1
Deputies 0
Grammar Nazis -2

The missing verb post made me out loud

ngnrd
February 20, 2013, 05:54 PM
I'm not going to spend days arguing the point.

But, voluntary transactions cannot be established under false pretenses. That is, if the Agency in question made the false claim that "turning in your guns will make your neighborhood safer", or some other such nonsense known to be patently false, the transaction cannot be seen as voluntary, or legal.

Furthermore, I am speaking of seizure and confiscation, not a sale on sandwiches. These terms are limited to the actions of government and its agencies, and have nothing to do with personal transactions.

So, call it what you will, or define it how you wish. I see it for what it is.

ngnrd
February 20, 2013, 05:57 PM
The missing verb post made me out loud

Indeed. Very funny.

Cosmoline
February 20, 2013, 05:58 PM
Considering how these things invariably net a Colt Python or vintage Luger worth enough to put a kid through community college, I think the operative word is CON rather than outright confiscation. And in some ways that's actually worse. The local police are tricking typically rather poor people into giving up valuable property for a pittance.

NavyLCDR
February 20, 2013, 06:12 PM
In the very few cases where a real, operating firearm was sold to the police, I would call those scams as well. Those few people were scammed into selling a $400-$2,000 firearm for $75 under false prestenses that it was safer that way. Most of the time, though, the firearms sold to the police are not even worth the $75, and then only the public willing to believe the government propaganda that anything is being accomplished by this waste of money and resources are being scammed.

I'll bet there was not one single gang-banger or criminal standing in line to sell their guns to the police so they would not have them to commit a future crime with. And what really gets me is this - a cop will seize a gun from a person stopped for speeding and check the serial number to see if it was stolen....but no such checks occur at these buybacks.

Dnaltrop
February 20, 2013, 06:16 PM
I'm with Cosmoline on this one, regardless of whether the sheriff or a private buyer gets the gun, Most of the transactions amount to a sale for what is likely a fraction of a firearm's value, under the not very Honest umbrella of public safety.

The Dummy selling the good guns for a pittance isn't being coerced at any level, and as to the value of their property, They just don't know any better and can't be bothered with the effort of finding a good home for their gun.

There's a sucker born every minute.

AlexanderA
February 20, 2013, 06:58 PM
The vast majority of the firearms being turned in to the Sheriff were damaged, rusted, or otherwise inoperative. Only a handful of people said they were voluntarily disarming themselves, or believed they were “making the streets safer.” Most people said they were just trying to get a few bucks for some old, useless firearms they had, and reported having better quality firearms at home.

That, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with these gun "buyback" programs. Or, depending on your point of view, what's right with these programs. Taxpayers are subsidizing rearmament -- sell them your junk guns for more than they're worth and use the proceeds to upgrade your arsenal. The only losers are those few people who are unaware of the market values (and, of course, the taxpayers).

SharpsDressedMan
February 20, 2013, 08:04 PM
In places that might be a little more restrictive, a licensed gun dealer could apply for a temporary permit to set up NEXT to the LE buyback, much like the vendors permits for selling hot dogs on the street, and conduct legitmate pruchases from sellers....AND...even SELL guns (probably covered under fair trade and commerce laws). That would REALLY upset the LE's.

joeschmoe
February 20, 2013, 08:24 PM
To me these gun buys are like modern day book burnings. I'm not sure I can explain why but they seem just like the old scenes of people bringing in books and records to burn in a pile in the town square and pat themselves on the back for thier efforts to fight the evils of the day.

Sol
February 20, 2013, 08:32 PM
Wait...did somebody say sports tickets?

JohnBT
February 20, 2013, 08:47 PM
" they seem just like the old scenes of people bringing in books and records to burn in a pile in the town square "

The guns were freely sold by the owners to the police. The books and records were donated. Two completely different things.

And since the guns were sold by the owners, it simply cannot be a confiscation or seizure. Just a simple sale in which the seller and buyer agreed on a price. If the seller hadn't agreed there wouldn't have been a sale.

John

SharpsDressedMan
February 20, 2013, 08:50 PM
^^^Exactly WHY a gun dealer could and should set up next to the Sheriff's booth. The dealer has a RIGHT under free commerce to conduct business the same as the Sheriff!

joeschmoe
February 20, 2013, 09:02 PM
The guns were freely sold by the owners to the police. The books and records were donated. Two completely different things.
John
No, not the payment (although book burning did frequently give rewards for books brought to be burned). I mean it's the kool aid mentality of either blindly or even taking joy in seeing the rights of others (and ultimately everyone) being destroyed on public display with official support. My comparison is not about how they are paid for, but what they are destroying and the Orwellian/fanatical pride and claims of piety and self-righteousness.

It just has this really creepy, cultish, book burning, brain-washing type feeling. Like I said, I find it hard to describe, but it gives me the "creeps".

AlexanderA
February 20, 2013, 09:05 PM
...a licensed gun dealer could apply for a temporary permit to set up NEXT to the LE buyback, and conduct legitmate pruchases from sellers....AND...even SELL guns (probably covered under fair trade and commerce laws).

An FFL dealer can only sell guns at his licensed premises, or at organized gun shows. He can't set up a stand on the street to sell guns. He can buy at any location.

ApacheCoTodd
February 20, 2013, 09:16 PM
If they can do it why not us? Come to the lot at ***** get $50 for every firearm you bring. I guarantee the pooh-shooters would be more than covered by the odd collector pieces we always see in the news clips.

USAF_Vet
February 20, 2013, 11:11 PM
No, not the payment (although book burning did frequently give rewards for books brought to be burned). I mean it's the kool aid mentality of either blindly or even taking joy in seeing the rights of others (and ultimately everyone) being destroyed on public display with official support. My comparison is not about how they are paid for, but what they are destroying and the Orwellian/fanatical pride and claims of piety and self-righteousness.

It just has this really creepy, cultish, book burning, brain-washing type feeling. Like I said, I find it hard to describe, but it gives me the "creeps".
I see the correlation, but I'll raise you this: If gun buy-offs are akin to book burnings, was anyone taking their old high school notebooks that are completely useless to the book burnings?

Most of these gun buy-offs yield rusty, old, broken pieces of junk that were once guns. They can not be repaired, or should not be repaired. They serve the owner no purpose, just like the useless old notebooks scrawled with bad poetry, caricatures of your English teacher and the occasional notes relevent to the subject at hand. we're not talking about classic literature, and we're not talking about quality guns.

Sure, occasionally a buy off yields a gun of value, like the Stg-44 and the MP-40, but those are few and faw between. Mostly it's old Jennings pistols, crappy Spanish revolvers in odd calibers, rusted out muzzle loaders and the occasional air soft gun.

I hate buy offs. Some people who particiapte in them are complete suckers. Others are getting paid to dispose of their trash.

USAF_Vet
February 20, 2013, 11:13 PM
If they can do it why not us? Come to the lot at ***** get $50 for every firearm you bring. I guarantee the pooh-shooters would be more than covered by the odd collector pieces we always see in the news clips.
I've seen this suggested before. The problem is, when fronting your own money for a no questions asked buy-off, you're bound to get the junk I just described. You aren't likely to have a successful buy off if you reject 80%+ of the folks who show up with their busted Bryco.

RPRNY
February 20, 2013, 11:33 PM
(Sarcasm)I object to my tax dollars being used to buy crap firearms from people who don't know how to write fluffy and enticing Gun Broker copy. It's not confiscation, it's government subsidization of laziness and discourages entrepreneurship! (/sarcasm)

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

AlexanderA
February 21, 2013, 02:05 AM
If they can do it why not us? Come to the lot at ***** get $50 for every firearm you bring.

Probably, a fair percentage of the guns brought to these "buy-backs" are stolen, have been used in crimes, etc. Part of the enticement is the "no-questions-asked" or immunity policy. A private individual, as opposed to a government entity, can't offer such a policy, so those sellers wouldn't come forward. On the other side, there's always the possibility of the buyers being charged with offenses such as receiving stolen property. Would you really want to take such risks?

TonyDedo
February 21, 2013, 02:17 AM
I've always wondered why more gun shops don't run "buyback" programs. Perhaps partner with a local law enforcement agency, the agency would pay $75 or whatever they pay per gun, and the FFL would pay whatever it's worth above and beyond that. The LEA gets the junk guns at $75, and the FFL resells the guns worth selling. Even if the FFL had to turn over guns that came up stolen, I'm sure the process would still be profitable. It would get more guns off "the street" and into the hands of law abiding gun owners, return some stolen guns to their rightful owners, and generate some goodwill between law enforcement and FFLs...

Maybe "one day" when I open that garage gun shop I've always wanted...

thorazine
February 21, 2013, 06:14 AM
I've always wondered why more gun shops don't run "buyback" programs. Perhaps partner with a local law enforcement agency, the agency would pay $75 or whatever they pay per gun, and the FFL would pay whatever it's worth above and beyond that.

Because law enforcement agencies sponsoring such events wants the firearm destroyed and not resold unlike the gun shop.

JohnBT
February 21, 2013, 08:49 AM
"I mean it's the kool aid mentality of either blindly or even taking joy in seeing the rights of others (and ultimately everyone) being destroyed on public display with official support."

What rights are being destroyed? The sellers were under no obligation to sell. I don't get teary eyed over the destruction of a bunch of near-useless wall hangers just like I didn't get upset when the feds introduced the Cash for Clunkers car program. Nobody was forced to participate and nobody in their right mind traded in a '65 Mustang or SS396.

Dean Weingarten
February 21, 2013, 10:20 AM
The primary purpose of these misnamed "buybacks" is political propaganda, aimed at destroying the Second Amendment, the rule of law, and ultimately, the Constitution. The reason the organizers of the "buy back" ( a pure propaganda term meant to insinuate that only the State can legitimately own firearms) do not cooperate with dealers to stretch the turn in dollars and to put collectable guns back in responsible hands, is that they want to send the message that the only responsible hands are those of the State agents.

Pure propaganda, and often, your tax dollars are fueling it.

This is why they call buying guns from responsible owners "getting guns off the street" and why we should always say that responsible owners buying guns are "getting guns off the street".

powder
February 21, 2013, 11:33 AM
A sale on firearms was had: individuals made a decision to sell their firearm(s). Those individuals had a choice to keep their property, or sell it.

Noone from the government or it's agencies went door-to-door confiscating or seizing anything. I have the freedom to choose, to make my own decisions, and you are free to disagree with those decisions of mine.

However, you cross a line when you try to lump and demonize all governement agencies and their employees as part of a seizure conspiracy. Kudos to the people who went to make private transactions at the event-too bad it was for political gains rather than a moral high ground.


Furthermore, I am speaking of seizure and confiscation, not a sale on sandwiches. These terms are limited to the actions of government and its agencies, and have nothing to do with personal transactions.

So, call it what you will, or define it how you wish. I see it for what it is.

SharpsDressedMan
February 21, 2013, 11:51 AM
The "no questions asked" thing might be a future problem for the law enforcement agency. They are subverting any possible lawful prosecution for crimes that they quite literally have no clue about. If someone turns in the gun that that, for instance, REALLY killed Kennedy (suppose there was doubt in that case, and a second gunmen was suspected :rolleyes:), a "no questions asked" buyback might trash any new lead in an investigation, and offer fast immunity of someone involved in a big or bigger crime, like, say, a serial killing. As citizens, we might even make a class action suit possible by challenging the LE agency for that reason, and another of subverting fair trade opportunity in an otherwise LEGAL commodity like FIREARMS. Government isn't supposed to compete in private COMMERCE. I'm no lawyer, but I believe some sophisticated laws and case law exist on that topic.

Fremmer
February 21, 2013, 11:52 AM
The correct definition is irrelevant, just like the programs are useless and irrelevant.

But they sure are a feel-good pr event.

soonerfan85
February 21, 2013, 04:38 PM
How about we make these buy backs into trade fairs. Biden could trade me a new Versamax for my old Mosberg semi auto .22. Heck, I'd settle for a Citori O/U if all he wants me to have for home protection is two shots.

If you enjoyed reading about "Libertarians vs. Sheriff’s Deputies at Gun Buyback – 2nd Amendment Win" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!