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

[Dean Weingarten]

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...fs-deputies-at-gun-buyback-2nd-amendment-win/

 

[Dean Weingarten]

A definite trend to oppose these turn in events, mislabled as "buybacks"

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]

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.

 

[Cosmoline]

"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]

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]

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]

Viva la Libertarians!

 

[taliv]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

Even Webster has defined the term to mean forfeiture

How 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]

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]

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]

BOY"S lets drop it!

 

[gp911]

Libertarians 1
Deputies 0
Grammar Nazis -2

The missing verb post made me out loud

 

[ngnrd]

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]

The missing verb post made me out loud

Indeed. Very funny.

 

[Cosmoline]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Wait...did somebody say sports tickets?

 

[JohnBT]

" 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