Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) not only wants all the assault rifles, but she also has a plan for snagging all of the weapons she can get her paws on. Her plan now consists of a buy back program that will purchase the weapons from gun owners.
Feinstein says that this is just something they’re looking at right now, but as the Washington Examiner noted, there are others out there that appear to be further along in the decision making process:
Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-N.Y., already discussed the possibility of a buy-back law for his state, but he made clear it would be a forced buyback.
“Confiscation could be an option,” Cuomo told The New York Times yesterday when discussing semiautomatic weapons. “Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”
Australia implemented a mandatory buyback program in 1996 following a mass shooting. “The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns and put in place a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons,” USA Today recalls. “The buyback led to the destruction of 650,000 gun.”
A buyback program may actually skirt one potential issue involving an outright ban on all assault weapons, and that is compensation for private property. By instituting manditory buyback, this avoids a potential challenge in court that could prevent a new law from being implimented.
Now, it’s worth noting that Andrew Cuomo is talking about doing this in New York, and he has no power outside of that state, but Feinstein isn’t exactly a friend of gun owners, and I would imagine that she thinks Cuomo’s efforts are a hell of an idea.
With public opinion seeming to swing in the direction of Feinstein and her supporters, possibilities like this are looking more and more realistic.
Of course, there is a real possibility that an outright ban will never take hold, regardless of opinion. After all, the American public can be pretty fickle. However, some advocates are already wringing their hands at the possibility…and even have an idea of what to do if they can’t make it mandatory.
Some liberal activists want the policy imitated here. “That would be like destroying 50 million guns in America today,” the Center for American Progress’ Matt Miller wrote after noting that Australia eliminated 20 percent of the weapons in the country. “The Australian ‘outlaw and repurchase’ option is one approach. But if Congress balks at banning certain weapons entirely, it could make gun owners an offer they can’t refuse. Instead of $200 a gun, Uncle Sam might offer $500.”
Of course, Miller doesn’t understand that when you’re talking about guns that can cost thousands of dollars, it’s not that hard to refuse $500. Instead, you’re likely to get crap guns that are worth maybe $100 that are getting turned in for that $500. Hell, I’d take advantage of it for some crap guns I’ve got around the house.
However, for a custom built AR-15 that I spent $2,000+ for? Not gonna happen.