Gun buyout: how much wlll the .Gov have to pay?

[silicosys4]

Instead of a confiscation of guns, how about the government volunteer to send any interested gun owner a nice shiny new gunsafe?
Seems a better use of tax dollars,
as long as it's not mandatory to use, just highly suggested...
And the govt. is not allowed to retain any record of combinations...not that they couldn't get into any safe if they wanted to.

As far as cost to the govt. for a confiscation with compensation at full market value,
The average value of my guns is about $600 or so, x roughly 350 million guns, that's $210 billion in guns alone, not counting the cost to implement a confiscation, which depending on the reactions of the citizens of this country, could be exponentially bigger.
Many people hold their rights to be far more valuable than the net value of their worldly possessions.

 

[Radagast]

The purpose of confiscation is not to remove guns from society. It is to drive possession under ground, making firearms ownership abnormal and antisocial. It's incremental totalitarianism.
The Australian 'buyback' had a 28% compliance rate. The numbers were boosted by counting accessories as firearms. A friend turned in a non functioning .22 with a scope and six mags. That was 8 'guns', in reality it was a selection of scrap steel.

Seizures of registered guns was 100%. Compliance in states without registration was much lower. So many SKS & SKK were not turned in that the Feds banned importation of milsurp 7.62x39.

If the USA gets to the point of mandatory confiscation then you have a choice of civil war or compliance. A better plan is to ensure it never comes to that.

 

[pockets]

how about the government volunteer to send any interested gun owner a nice shiny new gunsafe?

Great idea!
I'd even go for a tax incentive for those who purchase a gun safe in 2016.
It would provide a 'feel good' effect to the masses, while actually doing something useful.

.

 

[OldMac]

Only safes made in usa with American steel. Shipped and installed by Americans. You just pumped up an entire industry. That makes America safer.

 

[Bobson]

Now we're talkin.

 

[GBExpat]

The purpose of confiscation is not to remove guns from society. It is to drive possession under ground, making firearms ownership abnormal and antisocial. It's incremental totalitarianism.
The Australian 'buyback' had a 28% compliance rate. The numbers were boosted by counting accessories as firearms. A friend turned in a non functioning .22 with a scope and six mags. That was 8 'guns', in reality it was a selection of scrap steel.

Seizures of registered guns was 100%. Compliance in states without registration was much lower. So many SKS & SKK were not turned in that the Feds banned importation of milsurp 7.62x39. ...

Thanks Radagast!

It is good to have some of the actual details from inside of Occupied Oz.

 

[ironworkerwill]

''Unlawfully held guns cannot be counted, but in Australia there are estimated to be 260,000 to 6 million.''- source

That is a fairly large quantity of illicit firearms.


''The oft-cited statistic in Australia is a simple one: There have been no mass killings — defined by experts there as a gunman killing five or more people besides himself — since the nation significantly tightened its gun control laws almost 20 years ago.''- Source

By those standards, how many "mass killings'' occurred before that date? The answer 20(From 1900-1996. I omitted all mass murders before 1900).-Source

The New York Times lied about "no mass murders of 5 or more". Proof? There was 9 "mass killings" since that date- Source

The math, "because math don't lie, the people who use it do"- 20 mass murders in the last 96 years and 9 in the last 20.

.208 mass murders per year average before the ban v/s .45 after the ban.

If I am wrong, could someone please let me know. I would hate living out the rest of my days in complete ignorance. So PLEASE, fact check me.

*EDIT: further fact check. The "Times" did not lie in its standards of "mass murder". However, mass murder is mass murder whether it be machine-gun fire or poisoning a towns water supply. The outcome is the same.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

When Hillary spoke about an Australian-style buy back here, it was like when she said there ought to be a federal law that conviction for domestic violence means you should lose your right to own a gun for 10 years. Under the existing federal Lautenberg law, if you are or were ever convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence you are treated like a violent felon: you lose you right to own a gun for life. Australian style "buy back" here? Australian national gun laws were modeled on entirely different legal models than US federal gun control laws. Hillary is like that William S. Burroughs character who talked from the orifice on the wrong end of his body.

The talk of a US federal Australian-style "buy back" is nonsense. Australian gun laws were based on regulatory laws; US gun laws are based on criminal law.

When asked about the expense of buying back an estimated 300 million firearms from the 65 to 100 million estimated gun owners, US gun banners will honestly say they have no intention of paying for guns once they are declared contraband.

Federal gun control, according US v Miller 1938, is justified by the legal principle behind the Harrison Narcotics Act. Federal gun control laws are structured as criminal law, not as regulatory law, under federal usurpation of state police powers. Once banned federally, guns would be treated like prohibited heroin, alcohol or reefer: contraband to be surrendered without compensation or seized and destroyed.

Did the federal government "buy back" opiate drugs under the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Act? Did the federal government "buy back" alcohol under the 1919 Volstead Act implementing alcohol prohibition? Did the federal government "buy back" marijuana from possessors who could not afford the $500 tax stamp under the 1937 Marihauna Tax Act?

And the likelihood of the anti-gunners' dream of national gun prohibition enforced like the 1914 Harrison Act, 1919 Volstead Act, or 1937 Anslinger Act? Gallup Poll over the years: Should there be a law to ban possession of handguns except by police or other authorized persons?
1959 60% yes; 36% no; 4% undecided
2015 27% yes; 72% no; 1% undecided

Over the past half century, there has been a change in the general public's perception of gun prohibition and discretionary carry permit laws (may-issue as opposed to right-to-carry). The noise we are hearing from the Obama Admin, candidate Hillary, the front page of the NYT, is desperation, their last gasp.

But if they got their way, it would not be an Australian fair market value buy-back with some types of firearms legal; it would be Mr and Mrs America, turn them in or else, to make all America a (legal) gun-free Utopia like Chicago or New York City.

 

[MErl]

IW, it must be better to be burned alive than shot as the bulk of the entries on that list are arson after 96.

 

[TMCCOY]

It would cost the government far more than money.

 

[AlexanderA]

Carl N. Brown wrote:

Did the federal government "buy back" opiate drugs under the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Act? Did the federal government "buy back" alcohol under the 1919 Volstead Act implementing alcohol prohibition? Did the federal government "buy back" marijuana from possessors who could not afford the $500 tax stamp under the 1937 Marihauna Tax Act?

I believe that declaring something contraband, that was previously legal, is a "taking" within the meaning of the 5th Amendment. The difference with the examples cited above is that guns are "capital assets" whereas all these other items are "consumables" (they would be "expensed" in a system of accounting). In addition, the primary focus of the alcohol and drug acts was distribution, going forward. I don't think federal agents went door to door, collecting people's liquor stashes. Now, if ammunition (a "consumable") was declared contraband, there would be a stronger case that it was not a "taking" than for the guns themselves.

 

[joem1945]

"If the turn-in is mandatory, then it's a "taking." The "public use" could consist simply in melting the guns down. The government would have to pay fair market value (which would probably be unaffordable, even for the government)".

The gov will just crank up the printing presses and turn out as much worthless paper as they want. Demand GOLD INGOTS and GOLD COINS!

 

[Lord Teapot]

$500 for a handgun, $1000 for a rifle, $2000 for a shotgun, $4000 for a bb gun, $8000 for a paintball gun, $16000 for a blowgun, $32000 for a slingshot. and not a penny less.

 

[Spats McGee]

The purpose of confiscation is not to remove guns from society. It is to drive possession under ground, making firearms ownership abnormal and antisocial. It's incremental totalitarianism.

If anyone needs to find support for Radagast's position, I would encourage a Google search for Eric Holder comparing gun ownership to smoking.

 

[stressed]

Disgusting.

I would hope people on this forum have made peace and made their decision on what to do if this situation arises.

In the end, people intent on carnage could always turn to explosives and IED's to cause deaths here instead of guns.. Which we definitely don't want. You saw what two men did to the Oklahoma city federal building. More deaths then any mass shooting.