It usually takes a little time for the really good and the really gawdawful bills to surface. But now at the midway point, I think we have a nominee in the latter category.
It’s Del. Mark Cole’s HB 2528.
Del. Cole has introduced legislation that says local police departments can’t set up gun buyback programs unless they SELL THE GUNS BACK.
So, we buy guns from people to get them off the streets. Then apparently because some Delegates can’t bear the thought of any gun actually being, say, melted down, we require the police department to sell the guns back to licensed dealers. From whence they end up back on the street.
I pretty much thought the purpose of gun buyback programs was, well, to buy guns and not to sell them. Current law, by the way, allows police departments to sell the guns if they wish.
Of course HB 2528 passed the House. But it limped out with 33 negative votes, a fairly high number of “no” votes from a group that generally believes that an armed society is a polite society.
We will await its fate in the Senate.
Seems the Virginian Pilot agrees with you.
Gun buy backs are a joke anyway. Numerous studies have shown they do not reduce crime. They are only on the books to make politicians looks good.
If we ignore that fact and instead believe gun buy back programs take guns from bad people then I don’t see why selling them back into the system where presumably good people could buy them would be a bad thing? . . . I mean the government could even make a few dollars!
The item missing from this blog post is that you believe guns themselves are what leads to crime. Come on, go ahead and say it. You don’t trust Virginians with guns.
Grozet – Nope, that’s not what I said. The current law allows police departments to sell the guns if they wish. This is a mandate – and may actually result in the state losing money. I’m pretty comfortable letting local police departments make the decision that is best in their community.
It seems we’re forgetting something. A licensed dealer does two things for America that the current system of “buybacks” (how can you buy back something you never owned) don’t.
They provide a means for rescuing historic or valuable firearms.
If these guns are sold, they can’t be sold without a background check. Despite what some would tell you, licensed dealers perform NICS checks, and there is no such thing as an unlicensed firearms dealer. Further, the dealer pays $2 to the Commonwealth to do something the federal government will do for free.
How is this not a win-win?
The real purpose of gun “buybacks” is to put on a show for politicians and police to look as if they are doing something to reduce crime, while at the same time to send a message that owning guns is a bad thing and that we need to “get them off the street”. It also helps to segregate the serious gun owners, who won’t fall for this, from the gullible ones who just want to get rid of their old relics and who don’t care about the right to bear arms.
It has no effect on crime, and it’s not the business of government to buy a citizen’s means of self defense, any more than the government should be having bible or typewriter buybacks.
Tess has a point, Ms. Amundson, about rescuing valuable relics, but you need to understand that politicians have no business doing this in the first place.
By opposing the sale of “off-the-street” guns to Federally licensed firearms dealers, you reveal the true anti-gun belief that any citizen who owns a gun should be considered a criminal.
There’s simply no other way to interpret your position, since the bill puts what can sometimes be very valuable firearms back “into” the very same system that distributes new firearms straight from the manufacturer.
If you have a problem with licensed dealers selling used guns to citizens who are checked, then you have to have the same problem with licensed dealers selling new guns to citizens who are checked, since there is no difference in the procedure.
Now how the state can “lose money” by offering for auction a firearm before it may then be disposed of “in an appropriate manner”, is quite beyond me, maybe you would care to try that one again?
The fact is, this bill is a win-win-win. It allows the old folks to clear out the attic and remove unwanted firearms from homes where they may be stolen, and it has potential to provide the valuable of these firearms to good law-abiding homes where they will be well cared for and secure, and in all that, provide a little bit of extra income for the local police department.
Good point, Tess. I’d certainly support an amendment limiting this to antiques or valuable weapons.
So you feel people should only be able to own antique firearms? I really don’t grasp your position on this.
Ms. Amundson, please allow me to point out that you have talked yourself into supporting this bill as it is currently written. By the very nature of good business, while all guns must be offered at auction to licensed dealers, only the ones that are valuable will be bought.
Dealers are businessmen, who are not interested in junk that will not sell. The bill in its current form, then allows any guns not auctioned to be disposed of “in an appropriate manner”.
We don’t need to legislate applicability to guns of value, the very nature of this bill does that automatically.
Why is government’s purpose to put ANY kind of LIMIT on law-abiding citizens?
If the dealer chooses to purchase a firearm after a so-called “buyback”, and re-sell it to a legal purchaser in a lawful transaction, why on earth would anyone want to limit it?
Capitalism is good for the economy. This bill supports capitalism.
Ms. Amundson, the logic behind this program escapes me; it is a feel good program that has no effect on crime. Do you think MS-13 gang members will be lined up at the collection point to turn in their weapons for a $100 Wal-Mart gift card? Obviously, no. The persons turning in weapons are most likely model citizens who have somehow come into possession of firearms they would not normally want or own. An example of this would be family members inheriting a gun collection from a deceased loved one. They know nothing about the guns, how they work, or how rare or valuable they may be. They simply want them out of the house. I don’t judge them for that decision; they have free will to do as they please with their private property. Where I do take issue is the government spending taxpayer money to “buy back” private property it never owned in the first place. Instead of giving $100 gift cards for guns the gov should direct these citizens to the local gun store where they will get fair market value for their property and the security of knowing that a licensed dealer took possession of the arms. Remember, a licensed dealer MUST perform a background check to transfer the firearm to anyone else that does not hold the same dealers license.
No historic or functional firearm should be destroyed….even economical firearms have there place. Does the poor law abiding citizen not have just as much a right to self-defense? Of course they do. Saving those guns form destruction and putting them back in the hands private citizens is a good thing.
….assuming you believe in such things as self-defense and the second amendment.
When the police confiscate a car used in drug trafficing the car is used by the department or auctioned to raise funds. To crush and recycle confiscated cars would, apropriatly, be labled as poor stewardship of the public trust. Cars injure and kill more citizens than guns ever have. This argument still would not stand up as a reason to destroy cars. Guns are at the bottom of the list of tracked accidental deaths in this country and this state. Guns gathered by the police represent real value and to destroy them is an injury to the coffers of this great commonwealth. The guns in question belong to the citizens of Virginia. Do not destroy our valuable property. That is irresponsible and inexcusable. Auction them and destroy the ones with no value. Official fiscal responsibility and acountability to the taxpayers demands this. We citizens will no longer tolerate our public servants destroying our property. Respectfully, Jason M. Rogers.