Gun buyback program "worth considering"

[stevebla]

Some happy thoughts. Annual NICS checks are on pace to reach 30,000,000 in 2016 more than double 2009 Obama's first year. I see lots of young people and women at the ranges. The ranges are more crowded than they used to be. Be vigilant, VOTE, join gun rights organizations. Over 150,000,000 NICS check during Obama's terms, greatest firearms salesman ever.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf
2009 14,033,824
2010 14,409,616
2011 16,454,951
2012 19,592,303
2013 21,093,273
2014 20,968,547
2015 23,141,970
2016 7,682,000
137,376,484

 

[AlexanderA]

Sam1911 wrote:

It's pure hot air.

That's true, for now. What worries me, though, is that Hillary's push for gun control is an indication of the public mood. For Hillary to be doing this means that she's calculated that gun control gains her more votes than it loses her. This is a reversal of Bill Clinton's assessment that the Democrats lost the 1994 election because of the AWB.

And it doesn't have to be a nationwide change of mood. All that matter are a few swing states like Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado. It appears that suburban voters there are beginning to look favorably on Australian-style gun confiscations.

 

[yugorpk]

She can't do anything without Congress just like Obama can't do anything without Congress. Stock up on parts and ammo for the upcoming panic then ride it out. Trump will destroy the Republican party at the national level but Congressional seats are not a nationally elected positions.

 

[Skribs]

Words have meaning and that includes the legal codes and statutes. The problem, which you have pointed out, is their interpretation. And that is where the problem really lies. One can interpret most anything from anything but that doesn't mean the interpretation is factual.

Best thing to do is to hold their feet to the fire and nail them to the wall with our own legal arguments and attacks.

I'm not talking about interpretation. I'm talking about the terms politicians use and define, regardless of their technical correctness. There was an "assault weapon ban". Saying "assault weapon is a fabricated term" might be correct, but it's also not going to save you from felony charges if you have contraband as it is defined in the law.

Similarly, if they implement a mandatory gun buy-back program, you can say "well I didn't buy any guns from them, so they have nothing to buy back." While you are semantically correct, you will still be in violation of the law if you don't sell your guns that qualify under the mandatory buy-back program.

There are technical definitions and legal definitions, and they don't have to be congruent with each other. Failing to comply with the law as it is defined will result in breaking said law, no matter how technically correct you are.

ETA: I'm not worried about what the public thinks now, but how easily they can be swayed. I'm less concerned for pressure on politicians and more concerned about the image of guns in the media. If the media demonizes us, it's easy for people to support gun control.

 

[H.m.B]

Sam1911 wrote:
That's true, for now. What worries me, though, is that Hillary's push for gun control is an indication of the public mood. For Hillary to be doing this means that she's calculated that gun control gains her more votes than it loses her. This is a reversal of Bill Clinton's assessment that the Democrats lost the 1994 election because of the AWB.

And it doesn't have to be a nationwide change of mood. All that matter are a few swing states like Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado. It appears that suburban voters there are beginning to look favorably on Australian-style gun confiscations.

I have to agree. I don't think it would take much to push an Australian-style policy here.

If you look at what is contained in their policy (Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy: Australia)

You'll see that, minus the outright ban/buyback, a lot of what is contained in their law is already present, in one shape or form, in many of the anti-gun states and local jurisdictions in this country. Following info extracted from link provided.

1996 National Firearms Agreement and Buyback Program

The resolutions agreed to at the APMC meeting on May 10, 1996, provided for
the establishment of a uniform approach to firearms regulation that would
include:

• A federal ban on the importation of "all semi-automatic self-loading and
  pump action longarms, and all parts, including magazines, for such firearms,
  included in Licence Category D, and control of the importation of those
  firearms included in Licence Category C." The sale, resale, transfer,
  ownership, manufacture, and use of such firearms would also be banned by the
  states and territories, other than in exceptional circumstances (relating to
  military or law enforcement purposes and occupational categories, depending
  on the category of the firearm);
  
• Standard categories of firearms, including the two largely prohibited
  categories (C and D), which include certain semiautomatic and self-loading
  rifles and shotguns, and a restricted category for handguns (category H);
  
• A requirement for a separate permit for the acquisition of every firearm,
  with a twenty-eight-day waiting period applying to the issuing of such
  permits, and the establishment of a nationwide firearms registration system;
  
• A uniform requirement for all firearms sales to be conducted only by or
  through licensed firearms dealers, and certain minimum principles that would
  underpin rules relating to the recording of firearms transactions by dealers
  and right of inspection by police;
  
• Restrictions on the quantity of ammunition that may be purchased in a given
  period and a requirement that dealers only sell ammunition for firearms for
  which the purchaser is licensed;
  
• Ensuring that "personal protection" would not be regarded as a "genuine
  reason" for owning, possessing, or using a firearm under the laws of the
  states and territories;
  
• Standardized classifications to define a "genuine reason" that an applicant
  must show for owning, possessing, or using a firearm, including reasons
  relating to sport shooting, recreational shooting/hunting, collecting, and
  occupational requirements (additional requirements of showing a genuine need
  for the particular type of firearm and securing related approvals would be
  added for firearms in categories B, C, D, and H);
  
• In addition to the demonstration of a "genuine reason," other basic
  requirements would apply for the issuing of firearms licenses, specifically
  that the applicant must be aged eighteen years or over, be a "fit and proper
  person," be able to prove his or her identity, and undertake adequate safety
  training (safety training courses would be subject to accreditation and be
  "comprehensive and standardised across Australia for all licence
  categories");
  
• Firearms licenses would be required to bear a photograph of the licensee, be
  endorsed with a category of firearm, include the holder's address, be issued
  after a waiting period of not less than twenty-eight days, be issued for a
  period of no more than five years, and contain a reminder of safe storage
  responsibilities;
  
• Licenses would only be issued subject to undertakings to comply with storage
  requirements and following an inspection by licensing authorities of the
  licensee's storage facilities;
  
• Minimum standards for the refusal or cancellation of licenses, including
  criminal convictions for violent offenses in the past five years, unsafe
  storage of firearms, failure to notify of a change of address, and "reliable
  evidence of a mental or physical condition which would render the applicant
  unsuitable for owning, possessing or using a firearm"; and
  
• The establishment of uniform standards for the security and storage of
  firearms, including a requirement that ammunition be stored in locked
  containers separate from any firearms. The minimum standards for category
  C, D, and H firearms would include "storage in a locked, steel safe with a
  thickness to ensure it is not easily penetrable, bolted to the structure of
  a building."

As scribs stated earlier, "Federal control may be hibernating, but local controls are blooming in some places." The apple is not falling to far from this tree. Words do have consequences!

 

[Pilot]

The buy back in Australia was mandatory. Turn them in, get cash for them or go to jail. I suspect this is what she is talking about.

In my experience 99% of the guns turned in at voluntary buy back programs are junk. Many don't even work. I have a few propped in the corner that are better tomato stakes than rifles. If Hillary wants to give me $200 each for them she can have them. I'll use the money to buy more ammo or another AR.

The problem is you won't have a choice. At first it will be all semi auto pistols, and rifles. So that Ed Brown 1911 you have? Kiss it good bye for whatever they want to pay. You just can't give them a few old rifles. Then if you don't you are a criminal. Then revolvers are next, and then any bolt action rifle with a capacity more than three.

 

[AlexanderA]

yugorpk wrote:

She can't do anything without Congress just like Obama can't do anything without Congress. Stock up on parts and ammo for the upcoming panic then ride it out. Trump will destroy the Republican party at the national level but Congressional seats are not a nationally elected positions.

Yes, but there are such things as "coattails." A blowout Democratic victory will carry congressional seats with it. This is especially true of the Senate. Control of the Senate is on the knife edge anyway. A shift of just a few seats, in so-called "tossup" states, means that Democrats will be in charge. In turn, that means that Hillary's Supreme Court appointments will be easily confirmed. And again, that means that it would be just a matter of time before the Heller decision was overturned.

The upcoming panic will be well-justified. Make no mistake.

 

[ColoradoShooter77]

Lets say the average cost per gun in the hypothetical buy-back is $500 per gun. 300,000,000 guns x $500/gun = 1.5 TRILLION dollars. That's probably on the low end too!

 

[H.m.B]

According to this source (Australia: A Massive Buyback of Low-Risk Guns), the Australian gun buy back cost $230 million (USD) or roughly $359 per gun although prices varied by gun type. There is no reason to believe that $500 per gun would be paid since most "volunteer" buybacks average $50-$200 per gun. What was interesting in this report was that the buyback program only removed about 20% of the total stock. I wonder what the compliance rate would be here if something like this ever did pass?

"The most novel feature of the National Firearms Agreement was the decision to support the new restrictions on gun types and ownership by attempting to buy back a substantial fraction of the stockpile. An expert committee developed a price list, which would be used by all states so as to prevent any shopping around among states. Between 1996 and 1997, 643,726 prohibited firearms were handed in. Prices were set to reflect “fair value” (market value). Individuals with permits could also turn in firearms that they had failed to register. Total public expenditures were about $A320 million ($U.S. 230 million), approximately $A500 ($U.S. 359) per gun. The buyback program was financed by an additional 0.2 percent levy on national health insurance.

Estimates of the total stock of guns were few and drew on limited survey data. Estimates ranged as high as 11 million, but the high figures had no known provenance. Gun Control Australia cited a figure of about 4.25 million, building on the only academic estimate, then roughly twenty years old. The most targeted population survey of gun ownership was conducted by Newspoll; the resulting estimate was approximately 2.5 million firearms in 1997, after the gun buyback. If that is approximately correct, it suggests that there were about 3.2 million firearms in 1996 and that the buyback led to the removal of approximately 20 percent of the total stock. In U.S. terms that would be equivalent to the removal of 40 million firearms."

Reference link is a good read.

 

[ColoradoShooter77]

So at 200/gun x 300,000,000, that's 600 Billion dollars, the cost alone here would be a deterrent.

 

[H.m.B]

Really?

Cash for clunkers program cost $2.8 billion. An $840 billion stimulus plan that the Obama administration pushed through Congress in 2009. The F-35 program will cost $1.5 trillion over the next 55 years it is expected to be flying, up from an estimated $1 trillion. Student loans account for over $1 trillion in debt. Lots of examples out there of big expenditure items and programs. Now a days, what's a trillion dollars to the federal government?

Point is, even if it cost over $1 trillion, with HRC as president; probable changes in the USSC with justices who most likely 2A; possible coat tail politicians to the house/senate; local pols who just have to keep their pledge to the populous on gun control; it's not out of the realm of possibility that something like this could occur. I'm seeing a lot of left-leaning taking place that, quite frankly concerns me. Heck, even one of the Koch brothers is thinking that Hillary could be a better choice for president. Second Amendment applies to people of this great nation yet it seems to be that anti-gun is becoming a democratic issue more than ever before

 

[ColoradoShooter77]

We'll be in a debt crisis before it gets to the point of a gun buy-back. By the time HRC is done, we'll be 30 trillion in debt and the entitlements will take up 80% of the federal budget. There won't be any money for a buy-back.

If the govt tells me they will give $200 for a rifle that I've got $1000 invested in, they can kiss my backside.

 

[greenmtnguy]

If it comes to it on a federal level, there won't be any 'buy back', merely compulsory confiscation, under a Democrat regime.

fortunately, this country has alot of land and alot of PVC pipe.

 

[v35]

We'll be in a debt crisis before it gets to the point of a gun buy-back. By the time HRC is done, we'll be 30 trillion in debt and the entitlements will take up 80% of the federal budget. There won't be any money for a buy-back.

You're contradicting your own point. There isn't any revenue now for the expenditures authorized by Congress. That has not prevented them from approving additional spending.

The national debt is now well past the point of no return. Everyone knows it. Lack of funding will not bear one iota upon decisions such as this. Sure, perhaps they'll offer you $1000 for every handgun, long gun, whatever gun, operable or not. They could offer a million dollars. The amount doesn't matter, because the money will be worthless.

 

[DoubleMag]

''Its pure hot air now''

Hot air is all around us. However, once contained in a balloon....

 

[G.barnes]

The gun companies also need to add some pressure too. After all we are their main revenue not the government. What we can't have neither can police or secret service. That's how you get through to these people take away their protection and make them vulnerable to all the crime that's committed. If every gun owner left California to the criminals and cartels, their police were armed with whatever was legal by their stupid laws. How long would it be before the politicians changed their minds. If they weren't smart enough to do it, they'd he dead and someone smarter would step in.

 

[Slamfire]

At best, the buy back program will be pennies on the dollar. Maybe you will get $200 for your $1500 rifle or pistol. Maybe you will get less, you certainly won't be compensated for the actual cost, or appreciated cost.

 

[TimSr]

I personally have no problem with a voluntary program ... that's between the organizer and individual (for whatever reason they wish to turn it in) but somehow I don't suspect that's what she is alluding to.

"Voluntary" would have to apply to the buyer as well as the seller, which it rarely does as far as the taxpayer is concerned. I'm tired of my tax dollars being wasted on this stupidity, and actually paying criminals for the privilege of destroying evidence for them. Why is it that whiners can't get enough background checks for law abiding, but when helping criminals liquidate their stolen junk, it has to be "no questions asked"?

 

[ColoradoShooter77]

The pessimism on the future of guns rights is astonishing. Just put a fork in the 2-A and hand'em over. (barf).

If the GOP can hold onto the House, even if Hillary is elected, there won't be any gun control legislation passed.

Right now, the voters are reading the GOP the riot act for capitulating this last 4 years, I don't think they will continue on that path.

The GOP needs to put their foot down and not give her anything, zero, zilch, nada.

 

[Skribs]

Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but I recently lost all my guns in a tragic boating accident. Does anyone have any advice for me?

 

[Rancher5]

Horizontal only way to keep your Freedoms,Never relinquish

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Trueamerican02]

She is crazy mandatory gun buy back? Really she will get my green tips first

 

[tark]

Don't know if this is true, but I heard of a local buy-back program where the guns were destroyed at the turn in point, right before your eyes.

What a great way to get rid of a murder weapon Let the government give YOU money so THEY can destroy crime scene evidence for you. Evidence needed to prosecute you!!

Talk about doing the crooks a favor..

 

[BigBore44]

I used to think that we were on the verge of registration/confiscation. But I honestly don't see it happening. ~80,000,000 gun owners last time I checked (it's been awhile). That's eighty...million. How many are active or former military? And not just low ranking enlisted (no offense meant to any enlisted) but people with pull and connections. Or active or former LEO's? We are THE MOST formidable civilian force on the planet. And we let a few hundred people in Washington scare us. Why? They have no power that we don't allow them to have.

I'm not suggesting an overthrow. I'm simply stating fact. Washington knows very well that they really don't want to tick off 80,000,000 people who have several hundred million freedom dispensers.

 

[Ignition Override]

Beware of proposed legislation in state govts. Remember post-Sandy Hook when one, maybe two state Reps were recalled in Colorado?

National media seem to only want to keep our focus on Washington.

Any new President has only a certain amount of 'political capital' (support) for major New legislation. Pres. Obama had his eye on creating the "The Affordable Care Act", and was forced to scrape together every vote he could muster or $weeten with deals for certain states.

Blowing support on major new gun legislation would leave too little support for any additional legislation which claims that it will visibly help people.