Gun buy-backs

[Patriot1775]

Politicians remind me of this quote from Kim Jung Ill in Team America: World Police...…..."Why is everybody so stupid"?

 

[NW Backpacker]

Aside from the lack of funding for buy-backs, I wonder of policy makers have a clue as to just how many firearms are out there?

Out of control federal spending should be troubling for all Americans.

They may know how many factory-produced firearms exist. They have no idea who owns guns if they were purchased from individuals or that were home-made, so there would be lots of non-compliance with a buy back.

If they confiscate by mandatory buy-back, I think the possibility of a civil war or other mayhem should be even more troubling for Americans.

Clever wordsmithing can not hide voluntary confiscation.

I don't think the Ds have "voluntary" in mind.

So the federal government TAKES money from my paycheck (BTW- to the tune of >$500 a week these days) and wants to give me some of MY money back in exchange for legally obtained property that I already own..... yeah, I'm thinking this is a case where violence just MAY solve a few problems.

Yeah, it sucks, but congratulations on being so successful! Many would love to have to pay that much in taxes.

I'd imagine at least someone will make the news for "domestic terrorism" by attempting to return the bullets first before the guns.

If 1% of the owners of scary black rifles do so, that could easily be over 250,000 someones.

If you're deeply concerned about federal spending but voted for/plan on voting for Trump, spare us the hypocrisy.

Budget agency predicts trillion-dollar deficits for years to come, as red ink explodes

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a grim update Wednesday to their economic outlook for the next decade, predicting average national deficits of $1.2 trillion every year through 2029, due in large part to recent budget and border security bills.

www.foxnews.com

I am sure I could make a dent in the budget if allowed, but I think most of the spending is mandatory for things like SS and Medicare; so please spare us the hypocritical virtue signaling. I am for SS since I will need it soon, so yup, I'm part of the problem.

 

[awshoot]

... It's definitely not a "buyback" if the government never owned it in the first place. But it's also not a purchase if the funds used to conduct the transaction were taken from the person "purchasing" - that's either theft, extortion, or both. ...

So how about: "confiscation with a partial tax credit"

 

[awshoot]

... My reading up on this has been that to date, all lower court cases brought on the basis of the Takings Clause as it relates to firearms have ruled against plaintiffs. It seems to me that there likely is a very big Supreme Court case in the future on this subject.

That's why the California model on banning "assault" rifles is so insidious. There is no obvious "taking." The law there allows time and death to take the guns away from the owner's estate. Without compensation.

Judge Benitez (CA mag ban case) addressed takings in his opinion: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf See pages 81-84.

The tired analogy is that property rights are like a bundle of sticks where each stick is one of the expectations one has in property. For example, using the property is one stick, selling the property another stick, admiring the property a third -- anything you can think of related to property is in that bundle. When the government takes all those sticks though, the 5th amendment comes into play and as of 2017, SCOTUS has incorporated the takings clause of the 5th against the states via the 14th.

As for gun owners, Benitez said this regarding the mag ban:

Whatever stick of ownership is left in the magazine-owner's "bundle of sticks," it is the short stick.

That judge is a poet. ;-)

 

[Boss]

They have to use a term like 'buy back' to 'sell' the idea to the blissful masses (or at least plant the seed in their minds)...it gives the appearance of legitimacy and fairness.

Like 'compromise' and 'reasonable, common sense gun control.' And if you AREN'T for those things, then by default, you're Unreasonable, Lack Common Sense...and ipso facto...shouldn't own guns.

See how easy that was?

Boss

 

[gmerkt]

Sorry, getting off track. No, to answer a question, I don't see any prospect in foreseeable future of any candidate getting into the presidency and making serious spending reductions. Including the incumbent. But I can imagine one getting in there are using a shortage of funds for not reimbursing gun owners for turn-ins. See, I said turn-ins, not BB's.

 

[gmerkt]

Judge Benitez (CA mag ban case) addressed takings in his opinion: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf See pages 81-84.

This was a very hopeful outcome, but about a week later Judge Benitez issued a stay of his own finding. He issued a statement that contained comments of a nature to indicate that he back-pedaled on his original finding. I don't think this matter has a final resolution yet. In a number of other cases, judges elsewhere have found in favor of magazine bans. In California, there is huge pressure involved in this issue, both from the public and in political corridors. I'm sure Judge Benitez has felt the heat.

In Wash. state, AG Bob Ferguson opined that he was very disappointed that a hi-cap magazine ban didn't make it via initiative process nor did it make it during the legislative session. I'd guess he doesn't feel any constraints arising from what Judge Benitez may think.

The over-arching problem with fighting these anti-gun court cases is funding. When gun owners take state laws to court, the state has every resource available to it on the taxpayer's dime. Their resources are pretty much inexhaustible. Especially when the fight is against a state with a deeply entrenched, long-serving political machine that is basically and at its core against guns. Gun freedoms and certainly others can get "courted" to death. We lose these fights through attrition,. Plaintiffs just get worn down and run out of money; the state ruling establishment sails on and the results justify their expense of litigation. And maybe this is all part of the plan. If the ruling establishment can keep SAF in court long enough, maybe they can kill that too by running it out of money.

 

[zenbreath]

 

[awshoot]

This was a very hopeful outcome, but about a week later Judge Benitez issued a stay of his own finding.
...
If the ruling establishment can keep SAF in court long enough, maybe they can kill that too by running it out of money.

I don't think he walked back the decision -- it was just a recognition that his decision was the first in a very long process that likely goes to SCOTUS and the 9th was going to do a stay no matter what.

Imagine what lawsuits SAF could do with the money spent on WLP's Italian suits.

 

[DB is Here]

Ok, thread has been cleaned. Lets stay on topic and away from the Political mud slinging please.

Thank you.

 

[Camelfilter]

A national gun buyback would be excellent! Just imagine all the outdated service weapons we would be able to buy & restore!...oh wait a minute...

Darn it.

They're talking about plain thievery!

I thought we had laws against that. Fundamental established laws with which our great Nation, the United States of America is built upon. Our Constitution.

Hmmmm. That's really odd. All there constant blathering ALMOST made me forget.

But I didn't.

 

[Ken Mac]

At least one of the 2020 candidates has mentioned gun-buy backs on the federal level. Notwithstanding all the obvious negative aspects of this proposal, I wonder about funding for any such scheme. The CBO recently announced budget deficits for future years. They suggest that at anticipated spending levels, we can expect annual federal deficits of over a trillion dollars per. For 10 or 15 years ahead. The national debt is already 22.5 trillion dollars. Of course sustained over-spending at this level will be disastrous for our nation in every way imaginable. But strictly as to guns this kind of debt over-hang will give policy-makers every reason to welsh on funding for any proposed gun buy-back. More likely, any federal gun control proposals will include "confiscation in place" for certain classes of firearms. Like California, where grandfathered "assault" rifles are not transferable upon death of the owner. They must be turned in without compensation.

Aside from the lack of funding for buy-backs, I wonder of policy makers have a clue as to just how many firearms are out there?

Out of control federal spending should be troubling for all Americans.

You did not note that she said it would be a mandatory buy back.
It is always too easy to spend free money[money you did not have to earn].

 

[Ken Mac]

A national gun buyback would be excellent! Just imagine all the outdated service weapons we would be able to buy & restore!...oh wait a minute...

Darn it.

They're talking about plain thievery!

I thought we had laws against that. Fundamental established laws with which our great Nation, the United States of America is built upon. Our Constitution.

Hmmmm. That's really odd. All there constant blathering ALMOST made me forget.

But I didn't.

Look at red flag laws. No due process, prior to grabbing a persons property.

 

[Hueco]

A national gun buyback would be excellent! Just imagine all the outdated service weapons we would be able to buy & restore!...oh wait a minute...

Darn it.

They're talking about plain thievery!

I thought we had laws against that. Fundamental established laws with which our great Nation, the United States of America is built upon. Our Constitution.

Hmmmm. That's really odd. All there constant blathering ALMOST made me forget.

But I didn't.

Trump should run on an anti-gun buyback platform where the FED gives a tax credit to anyone who cleans up an old weapon and/or buys their first

 

[Ken Mac]

Should note, all the buy back programs I have heard of, they destroy all the firearms.

 

[Jcon268]

As hard as the Dems have pushed for anti-gun legislation, it is still a secondary issue to them. I learned this when I watched Swalwell bite the big one after pushing a predominantly anti-gun campaign. They want guns gone, don't get me wrong....I just think they want other things perhaps a bit more. Anyone running on a specifically anti-gun platform with nothing else to offer their constituency seems to have fallen flat on their faces.

 

[titsonritz]

Ok, thread has been cleaned. Lets stay on topic and away from the Political mud slinging please.

Thank you.

Killjoy

 

[Boss]

Should note, all the buy back programs I have heard of, they destroy all the firearms.

If involuntary, and later gets overturned by a court...would make it kinda hard to get your firearm(s) back. *Shrug*...oh well...

Boss

 

[awshoot]

A national gun buyback would be excellent! Just imagine all the outdated service weapons we would be able to buy & restore!...oh wait a minute...
...

I know you were joking but it was a useful one -- it took my mind directly to the notion of a government for the people and by the people. IF that is truly the case, the only gun "buybacks" that actually truly exist, are those in which the citizens buy back what we let the government (made up of us), use.

 

[GOG]

They never owned it/them, so a "buyback" is confiscation no matter how it's phrased.
They've sown the wind, let them reap the whirlwind.