Mandatory Gun Buyback is a Silly Euphemism

That's the subheading for David Harsayni's most recent piece at The Federalist.  Since the mass shootings that have taken place since May, several Democratic candidates for President have called for "mandatory buybacks" of modern sporting rifles like the AR-15.  Robert Francis "Beto" O'rourke has been the most out front with this proposal.

“I want to be really clear that that’s exactly what we are going to do,” the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate said. “Americans who own AR-15s, AK-47s, will have to sell them to the government. We’re not going to allow them to stay on our streets, to show up in our communities, to be used against us in our synagogues, our churches, our mosques, our Walmarts, our public places.”

Harsayni points out why this is simply confiscation by another name:

What Democrats propose can be more accurately described as “the first American gun confiscation effort since Lexington and Concord,” or some variation on that theme. Although tax dollars will be meted out in an effort to incentivize volunteers, the policy is to confiscate AR-15s, the vast majority of which have been legally purchased by Americans who have undergone background checks and never used a gun for a criminal purpose.

The “mandatory gun buyback” exemplifies the impracticality and absurdity of do-somethingism (although Biden’s proposal to ban “magazines that hold bullets”—so most guns—is also a contender!). Democrats are ready to instantaneously turn millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals overnight for refusing to adhere to a law that retroactively transformed the exercise of a constitutional right into criminality.

He goes on to remind readers that in 2017, the most recent year for which we have data, there was a "near-historic" low of 7,032 murders committed with handguns, and 403 committed with “rifles” of any kind, not only “assault weapons,” and by comparison, there were 1,591 homicides committed with knives, 467 people killed with blunt objects, and another 696 with fists and kicking during the same time span.

A better way to deal with these criminal misuse of firearms is criminal control, not gun control. But control criminals is now what the gun ban lobby is all about, they are about taking away the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Reason Magazine Gun Ban Scenario is Very Plausible

Sebastian over at the blog Shall Not Be Questioned has a post on a Reason.com article that looks back a few years after hypothetical new restrictions on semiautomatic weapons have been enacted.  It is an article that includes some well placed links to articles that help support the thesis laid out.  The article's point is that even after the ban, the country is even more divided but no less armed.  I agree with Sebastian that it is a very plausible scenario.

Let's look at some of the scenario. The author starts out by point out that after years of failure at the legislative approach (with some exceptions in places like California and New Jersey), the strategy chosen by the gun ban lobby was to shift the a campaign of making gun ownership socially unacceptable, similar to what was done with tobacco in the 90's. Then, the author suggests, legal changes would be possible.  He links to an article from yesterday's Market Watch to show this is already under consideration.

But unlike the 90's when there was no alternative to the anti-tobacco messages in the media, today, such anti-gun messages played only to those pre-disposed to agreeing with them:

That's "sort of" because, while anti-gun messages were a big hit with some media platforms, they were immediately countered by vigorous counter-efforts through opposing channels by pro-gun groups. That was something that never happened during the battles over tobacco. American culture—and media, with it--was far more fragmented than it had been in the days of unchallenged anti-smoking ads.

So the anti-gun message found an audience among those who were already predisposed to listen. These were people whose politics were generally left of center, and who followed media outlets to match. The result was declining gun ownership among those who were already wary of the practice. Before the anti-gun campaign, researchers found that "44% of Republicans and independents who lean to the Republican Party say they own a gun, only 20% of Democrats and Democratic leaners say the same," but now the number of left-leaning gun owners started to fall even further.

But, and here is the cautionary note because we are seeing it playout in the aftermath of the Florida school shooting with the President's directive on "bump stocks" and even offering to consider raising the age to legally purchase semi-automatic rifles from 18 to 21, the cultural onslaught (like what we are seeing with the Florida students demanding something be done), assisted by the a fumbling bunch of Republicans, had enough impact to flip congress and the White House, and with it, major changes—including on gun control.  The article points out that millions refused to comply with the new bans, again, linking back to articles about how only a small number of people complied with real confiscation and registration schemes in places like Connecticut.

The article goes on to describe the specific changes and how the gun issue became more partisan issue than ever.  It is a good and very believable read and I highly recommend the article.

Judge to Rule on Injunction to Stop Fredericksburg " Gun Give Back"

The Fredericksburg Free Lance Star reports this morning that a hearing is scheduled for 1:00 pm today to decide rather to grant an injunction against a so-called "Gun Give Back" planned for this weekend.

Virginia Law requires any locality that wants to hold a "Gun Buy Back" event to pass an ordinance that specifically allows the event to take place.  They also must put any firearm acquired by the event to be offered for sale to an FFL.  Such schemes typically give the owner of the firearms gift cards or cash of around $100. Fredericksburg apparently thinks it can get around this requirement  because instead of giving something to the gun owner, they found a benefactor  to give small donations to one of four area charities.

VSSA made contact with the City Attorney last week after learning of the scheme. No surprisingly,  Kathleen Dooley, the city attorney, told VSSA that we were interpreting  the statute incorrectly and that the event in question is not covered by the law.

The injunction was filed on behalf of Patricia Webb, an FFL in the area.  Dooley not only is asking that the request be denied but is also asking that the city be reimbursed for its cost in defending the action.

Talk of Confiscation

Since the Sandy Hook school shooting on December 16th, the gun ban lobby has been almost giddy with the prospect of getting everything they want on their long wish list, especially a renewal of the Clinton Gun Ban. But in some places, the talk is of confiscation or forced compensated confiscation (so-called buy backs).

This report by a New York CBS affiliate notes that New York Police are actually considering how they would go about collecting all those "assault rifles" in the event the ban is renewed.

The last time the ban was enacted, existing firearms were grandfathered.  Would the new darling of the media, West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, go along with a ban that also called for confiscation?