Mandatory Buyback Possible/Impossible?

[Matt_SERE]

After the 'buyback' fails. When will the .gov 'sellback' the rifles to the public?

 

[amm5061]

Anybody who fails to turn them in gets their yearly tax return seized.

Joke's on them then, because I always end up owing.

 

[Coda]

I wonder what the buy back value will be for all the 80% builds????

Oh that's right, never mind........

 

[Boris]

The bumpstock taking should teach you something about .gov giving you anything, constitutional or not.

They will fracture gunowners like the herd of cats that they are with gradual shit, just like UK. First it's really the assaulty ones, so FUDDs can get onboard, then there will be more and more restrictions, until airguns and BP is also dangerous ... then it will be knives and shit. Don't believe me? There are plenty of countries with knife bans or restrictions. .gov has time ... and it's running out for 2a supporters. Soy generation is rising.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

After the 'buyback' fails. When will the .gov 'sellback' the rifles to the public?

About the same time they return the bump stocks they stole from citizens and compensate Slide Fire Solutions for their 60,000 bump stocks and the costs of closing, restarting, and for their lost revenue.

 

[mbullism]

On the upside, once they ban them then you'll be able to sell them privately without having to FA-10 them...

ETA: sarcasm, meaning I don't need a drivers license to actually drive

 

[MaverickNH]

You can never prove a Buyback doesn't work until you have 90%+ compliance. Then it doesn't matter if it worked or not - they have your Guns.

 

[JackOfAllTrades]

Realistically, how a buyback would work:

There would be a period of time in which owners could sell back their guns under the program. Once this time ended, it would be a crime to be found in possession of such a prohibited item, probably with fairly stiff penalties like a felony conviction. Periodically, amnesty periods would be implemented to allow gun surrenders, with or without compensation, to allow holdouts to change their minds and surrender without legal risk.

Not sure what is meant by "working". Some would surrender their guns, some would bury them in the garden. From time to time, non complying gun owners would get strung up by the law and suffer serious criminal consequences. Probably won't be seeing these guns at public ranges or on facebook, and getting these guns will be a bit harder, but by no means impossible. Mass shooting will continue to occur, either with contraband weapons or weapons that are still legal, and the gun control debate will continue on.

I don't really see any outcome where there are door to door raids to collect, more just a general atmosphere that encourages gun owners to keep their contraband hidden.

Assuming that some sort of federal buy-back/confiscation plan get passed and signed into law and upheld by the courts, I believe that it would play out much as you describe. A buy-back window, an amnesty window, and then.... well, that is where I think it will get interesting.

In some states, you will see enforcement by the local authorities. MA, NY, NJ, CA, CT, etc. Many of those states have de facto registries or licensing to own or possess, so they have lists to work from.

Some states will cooperate with the feds, but not seek out the now prohibited firearms.

However, some states will probably declare themselves sanctuary states and refuse to enforce the federal law. Here is where it is going to get interesting. When the states start ignoring federal law that the politicians care about things get messy. The times this has happened, we have had violence that may or may not rise to the level of civil war.

There are quite a few "normal people" who are suddenly publicly stating that confiscation is their line in the sand. They will not comply. For each common man who gets nabbed for that illegal Ruger 10/22 with a thumbhole stock in their closet (read the text of the 2019 assault weapons bills) one will turn in their rifles and another will be more resolute in their defiance. The more defiant the hold outs are, the more the push to enforce the confiscation. You have a positive feedback loop that will result in violence.

The question is who backs down first.

My opinion is that confiscation is unlikely. A bill would have to pass the House (easy), the Senate (much harder), the President (who knows), the circuit courts (mixed bag), and then SCOTUS (I think it would fail post Heller).

 

[MaverickNH]

“Let’s be honest,” said Representative David Cicilline of Rhode Island, the sponsor of the current assault weapons measure, who described himself as a “huge proponent” of the ban. “Every other bill that we’ve done tries to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. This is the one piece of legislation that keeps a particular weapon out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. A lot of people have enormous objections to that.”
Divided Democrats Step Back From Assault Weapons Ban

An admission that AWBs are directed against gun owners without expectation of reducing crime and violence. I’d presume then that such a ban’s purpose to to prevent resistance against planned governmental tyranny. If liberal lefties just wanted to harass gun owners they would push all those other bills that, combined, may either raise or lower crime and violence - experts disagree.

Am I wrong?

 

[swampy]

Democrats: We can't go door to door and deport 11 million illegals

Same Democrats: We can go door to door and confiscate 110 million full semi automatic rifles

What if 110 million rifle owners went to them all at the same time? We could make it a parade with flags, marching drum corps, and 21 gun salutes.

 

[AHM]

What if 110 million rifle owners went to them all at the same time? We could make it a parade with flags, marching drum corps, and 21 gun salutes.

You'd have trouble finding any politicians to salute after the first one.

 

[MaverickNH]

The 2020 Democrats and the New Politics of Gun Violence

The movement for tighter gun legislation has been revitalized, and supporting gun control is not the risk it once was.

www.newyorker.com

“Asked if they would support a voluntary-buyback program of the kind that Australia instituted in 1996, encouraging people to give up their assault-style weapons, forty-two per cent of the likely voters said that they “definitely” would, and twenty-nine per cent said they “probably” would.”

There you go - 71% of assault weapons off the street without a mandatory buyback.

“...two-thirds of Americans favor a ban on assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons.”

Hah! Is this supposed to make the those in the 40% of households with guns think they are the hold-outs on gun bans?

 

[HuntMaine]

Being the costs of that size of buyback would make democrats cry at 300-400 billion they would try to limit that and have local law enforcement do it. That would backfire as a large portion would not plus it would likely dictate that a new division and large increase in law enforcement would be required. Knowing democrats they would make the case it needs to be a special division and group and fund some new confiscation group to target firearm owners. They would have rights to enter your home without a local search warrant, bring in your friends and neighbors at will to prod them about you etc. Actually this was down before if I recall in Europe in the early 1900s and ended badly