Skip to comments.Sen. Feinstein suggests national buyback of guns
Posted on 12/24/2012 8:40:00 PM PST by neverdem
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said that she and other gun control advocates are considering a law that would create a program to purchase weapons from gun owners, a proposal that could be compulsory.
We are also looking at a buy-back program, Feinstein said today in a press conference. Now, again, this is a work in progress so these are ideas in the development.
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.
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 cant refuse. Instead of $200 a gun, Uncle Sam might offer $500.
Feinstein also said that that former President Bill Clinton had volunteered, on a phone call, to help her get a new gun law passed.
[Clinton] was talking about the battle back in 1993 with the bill that, interestingly enough, was introduced and passed within the year fo 1993 and went into effect in 1994, she said. And, of course, he was president and the White House came alive and was very very helpful in enabling the passage of that bill both in the senate and in the House. So, to have him part of the team again is really quote special for us.
These days, most Americans wouldn't survive in the woods for a month and almost none for a year. Nor are the woods in any condition to support them as they once were.
I thought her legacy was passing millions of acres of Death Valley into a ‘monument’ where no recreation can still happen.
She engineered that, and thousands of people are still mad about it.
And if the governors stand up and say no to the Feds, it’s over. They can easily organize everyone into militias.
Don't make me laugh. They can do whatever they want, and the 'American' people won't do squat.
Supreme Court cases that cite natural born Citizen as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term natural born citizen to any other category than those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof.
I would offer that if they in fact propose to offer us a price for the surrender of our freedom, it will be met with a counteroffer for which they are unprepared.
Perhaps one ought not be troubled by such thoughts on a beautiful Christmas morning such as this. And yet storm clouds do lurk ahead, ever more menacingly for the stubborn refusal of our leaders to recognize objective reality in so many areas of life. It would appear their lust for power knows no bounds save the practical limits that (at least) some citizens may soon choose to impose upon them.
As a matter of history, it would hardly be an unprecedented occurrence. As a matter of American history, it would exceed the life experience of even our great-great-grandparents, some of whom heard the stories of the last time, first hand.
In the recent years of American decline, I have feared that the Irish poet Yeats' cautionary words were coming true: the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity. Perhaps instead we have reached a historic moment when sunken conviction may be stirred back to the surface before the kettle boils over and spills all. For now, the heat has certainly been turned up.
Rosie O’Donnell has an armed bodyguard.
The same Sam Donaldson who just got popped for DUI a couple of days ago??
Very true. All it means is thta CW2 will be very bloody and bitter, if they intend to disarm us "the hard way."
Years and years ago there used to be a program were you could buy your relatives out of hell, dont want to mention the denomination lest I offend, but would this be along same lines?
Sen. Feinstein has done the impossible. She has underestimated the intelligence of the American people. I guess she will not be poor.
“They can easily organize everyone into militias.”
From what I’ve heard they’re already organizing and growing in membership.
That is what I was getting at, pass a registration law and then make law biding Americans scared to comply because they know it will be used to take those same guns away as in 1994.
I have said and will continue to say as loud as I can - GET INVOLVED IN YOUR STATE POLITICS.
It is doubtful that we can do much in Washington other than, at best, a stalemate. It is much easier to accomplish things right now at the state level.
If this goes down, I wouldn’t want to be in a state that is Dem controlled.
Right up there with the “cash for clunkers” idea.
Sam is wrong as usual.
The Constitution defines who the country belongs to, and tea partiers fit the bill, not the anti-Constitutionalists.
Beyond that, the Declaration defines our rights as God-given.
America is a Republic. That Republic does not “belong” to a group of voters that out-cheat and/or out-vote the rest. That’s why Franklin answered the woman who asked him what kind of government the Founders created, “a Republic, madame, if you can keep it”.
The Second Amendment is profoundly KEY to that. Like another posted, people who set out to infringe on that right or any other, are PRECISELY the people America does NOT belong to, because they are trying to destroy the Republic, not keep it.
This country could turn into Rwanda X Bosnia in an eye-blink.
These people = The democrat party = the media = Fienstien, Obama , Pelosi, Costas, Reid, Caty Couric,
Notice they are all democrats. They are ALL the EXACT SAME communist peice of crap , every single democrat wants to empower the government and at the same time take away our individual rights like gun ownership , to take away our freedom and even right to own property(slavery/socialism).
EVerything democrats do is to empower government and at the same time dis-empower the individual be it gun control, Obamacare , big government solutions, government schools , a million gov programs that “help” people no actually enslave people
capitalism can coordinate engineers, accountants ,business people, managers , shippers, drivers, factory workers ,miners etc to produce a watch for $1 one dollar at the dollar Tree. And with Google we can buy anything on the freed market .So what do we need government for? nothing except military and keeping illegals out of the country( border control , international issues). Leave us alone gov, . We don't need the thousands of government agencies at all levels of government that cripple the private sector and take away our freedom
Well said and spot on target.
Yep. And what concerns me most is that so few people seem to believe it could ever happen here. As though our iPads and ear-buds and laptops and 60" HDTVs somehow immunize us from the consequences of our most important decisions. Perhaps it's the "normalcy bias" at work. Whatever.
When the central planners finally fail to print or tax away enough money to finance their Ponzi schemes and the power goes off, food delivery stops, and hoards of urban dependents take to the streets, only those who took the time to plan and prepare will have a chance.
I know. Even admitting that such a thing might be worth pondering is to risk being labeled as a "prepper", or worse. By the standards commonly enunciated by what today laughingly passes for a free press, I might just be "worse". So be it. I plan to live.
seems theyre about the only peoples that fedzilla has sold weapons to, in order to buy *back*...
***Trade in your tired aged liberal politician***
Not only her but every Hollywood and Wall St billionaire in the USA has armed bodyguards. Most of them are good buddies and financially support the likes of Schumer, Nadler, Bloomberg, Feinstein, and others. While those with political and "elite" status will have their own in-house protection, they want the sheep and cattle fully disarmed because they want them kept as serfs and subjects.
Because they controlled the propaganda message, they were able to turn public opinion against what they viewed as the uncontrolled Tea Party, into a so called racist mob. These "elites" control the Democrats and many of the Republicans. They've been attempting to portray Constitutionalists as enemies of the state, and they are coming for your rights. They divide and conquer and most of us are too hung up and detached with their phony left v right tactics to see through their fog. They want us sheep (just as on 9-11) to believe that having their security blanket is better than freedom.
These racist bxstards (and they are racists) will attempt to divide and conquer again by using propaganda to vilify and turn society against legal firearms owners.
Back in the 90s didn’t the hellhole state of CA have a mandatory turn in program for certain SKS rifles, and didn’t it flop big time?
I posted the recent stats from Australia upthread, and I never maintained that Australia has no gun deaths at all, so why are you showing me this?
Damian Leeding died btw.
I also made it clear that we have an entirely different culture, our population isn’t as ‘diverse’ as your is in the US and a large portion of the gun deaths included in the stats are suicides and accidents.
Comparing Australian stats with the US is not only futile, in most cases the numbers are quoted quite dishonestly...by US sources. Manipulated to make you feel better maybe?
Stick to the facts.
Crime falling across Australia
4 March 2012
Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Justice Jason Clare today released the Australian Institute of Criminologys (AIC) annual report into crime trends which shows the crime rates continue to fall across most major categories.
This is a good result for law enforcement agencies across the country, but we still have a lot more work to do the recent shootings are proof of that, Mr Clare said.
Thats why a couple of weeks ago I announced that the Australian Crime Commission would conduct a National Intelligence Assessment of the illegal firearm market and its links to gang activity in Australia.
The Federal Government and State and Territory Governments are also working together on nationally consistent legislation to tackle criminal organisations.
The key statistics in the AICs Australian Crime: Facts and Figures report are:
Break-ins have been cut by about half since 1996;
Car theft has dropped by about 61 per cent over the past decade;
The overall number of violent crimes decreased in 2010 except for the offence of kidnapping and abduction;
Of the five categories of violent crime, four recorded a drop in the number of victims between 2009 and 2010 homicide, assault, sexual assault and robbery;
The most common weapon used in homicide in 200910 was a knife. Knives were involved in 39 per cent of all homicides;
Firearms used in 13 per cent of all homicides;
There has been a 27 per cent drop in the number of homicides between 1996 and 2010, with a drop of 11 per cent between 2009 and 2010;
The homicide rate is 1.2 per 100,000 population;
The number of victims of robbery in 2010 is the lowest on record since 1996, with 14,582 victims. Robbery victim numbers peaked in 2001 with 26,591 victims;
Murder and sexual assault occurred most frequently within residential settings - 61 percent of murders occurred in a residential dwelling and 63 percent of sexual assaults occurred in a residential dwelling;
Assault rates decreased from 801 per 100,000 people in 2009 to 766 per 100,000 in 2010;
In 2010, there were 17,757 recorded sexual assaults, down from 18,807 the previous year;
The rate of fraud victimisation dropped by 11 per cent from 2009 to 2011 and, since peaking in 1998-99, has declined by 35 per cent;
In 200910, the offending rate for people aged 15 to 19 years was almost four times the rate for all other offenders (6,751 compared with 1,821 offenders per 100,000);
In 200910, 2,767 arrests involving heroin were made an 81 percent decrease in arrests over the past decade;
In 200910, cannabis accounted for the highest number of drug-related arrests with 57,170 arrests - an increase of three percent from 200809; and
In 2009-10 the number of cocaine arrests increased by 47 per cent rising to 1,244 from 848 in 2008-09 but cocaine arrests remain lower than for any other drug type.
This annual publication is compiled from information provided by sources in each state and territory, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
The full report can be accessed online at www.aic.gov.au and a summary of the reports findings is attached.
That's not an explanation. So you are just making things up.
The NRA is no friend to liberty.
Really? What organization has done more to support the 2nd Amendment, gun rights, safety, instruction and education?
They are also on record having supported limiting magazine sizes
That's a lie. One director five years ago, not the organization. Your as dishonest as Obama.
NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth, NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968,
In case no one told you, this is nearly 2013. Did you ever hear of Harlan Carter, Neal Knox and Cincinnati? It appears you are the person whose head is in your colon.
Federal funding of a police force in every school. Yup. That's about what I said:
What police force? You're heavy on accusations, allegations, disinformation and outright lies and very light on facts.
SAF on rights. Had the NRA stuck with safety, instruction and education as my post suggested, they'd have been on solid ground. Putting Federally funded officers in local schools is tyrannical.
One director five years ago, not the organization.
The organization elected the director. Would you like a list of more NRA directors who have a very active record supporting Federal gun control?
The stats quoted include SUICIDE AND ACCIDENTS
As previously indicated, the use of firearms to inflict fatal injury declined over the period examined. This decline is most conspicuous in the case of non-handgun firearms (Figure 4), illustrated by a comparing two time periods: 1991-1995 and 1997-2001 (the year 1996 was excluded because of the Port Arthur homicides in which 35 people were killed in an incident involving one offender who used military style firearms, leading to subsequent firearm reforms). The mean number of handgun related deaths between 1991 and 1995 was 28 and the mean number of other firearm related deaths was 371. Between 1997 and 2001 the mean number of handgun related deaths was 39 and the mean number of other firearm related deaths was 210. A comparison between the two time periods reveals that while other firearm related deaths decreased by 43 per cent, handgun related deaths increased by 36 per cent (although care should be exercised when comparing these proportionate changes due to the relatively small number of handgun deaths that occur in Australia each year).
THOSE WHO QUOTE ANY INCREASE IN HOMICIDES BY GUN IN AUSTRALIA APPARENTLY HAVE AN AGENDA.
In total there were 5083 registered deaths attributable to firearms in Australia between 1991 and 2001. Suicides committed with firearms accounted for the majority of these deaths (77%), followed by firearms homicide (15%), firearms accidents (5%), firearms deaths resulting from legal intervention and undetermined deaths (2%). Over the 11 year period the number and rate of firearm related deaths has decreased (Figure 1 and Table 1)
Each time I have provided this information about Australia, it’s interpreted as if I am recommending gun control in the US. I’m not. I just resent the misleading information you are provided with - we are a different country with a different history and culture - and population mix. I think you need to keep your guns, but you also need to stop manipulating our statistics in your arguments.
They want to offer to buy our guns with our own money? Very clever, these politicians, eh?
Well, while I fully respect that line of reasoning, at this point I, myself, am “all in”.
I will use every legal means to resist: that includes sending some money to NRA and GOA and JPFO, writing my congress critters, and doing whatever I can locally in the RKBA community. Take a liberal to a range, teach someone to shoot while it’s still legal. That sort of thing.
If they come for my guns first, so be it. But having had this conversation with some of my pals in local law enforcement, the Federales are going to need their own special ops guys do the dirty work. And they might want to start with the cops. Or maybe not, depending on their taste for lead.
Oh, and remember to B.L.O.A.T.
Our Constitution limits government power and grants almost all of it to the people.
Feinstein and her ilk want to flip that on it’s head.
Frankly, it’s time to roll back 90% of government, starting today.
Please post your evidence. Despite being a gun rights advocate for more than 35 years, the Second Amendment Foundation remains in the shadows of larger Second Amendment advocacy groups...
The organization elected the director.
The people of California elected Feinstein and Pelosi, didn't they? You're a Californian just like them.
The military will follow orders.
Gun prosecutions under Obama down more than 45 percent
Exclude DC, Chicago, LA, Philly, E.St.louis & Baltimore and wed probably have the gun murder rate of Switzerland.
It is going to get worse this new year.
God help us.
They will go for every thing.
Federally funded armed guards is an exercise of police power. Just because they are not nominally police doesn't change that. Hence, it is you who are the spin artist here.
Example: You had to add "education and training" to your qualification of a gun rights organization, even though I had already acknowledged the NRA's effectiveness in that light (also noting their failure to go to that strength with their proposed prescription). You did that to try to force me to agree that the NRA is the leader in that regard, thus holding them as an effective gun rights organization, which they are not.
That's duplicity and misrepresentation on your part. Your projections match the tactics of a Democrat in that regard.
Example: When I posted about how background checks that the NRA has supported to this day were abused with FIST, you didn't acknowledge it at all. Despite the fact that the NRA had warning of such and witnessed said abuse before the fact, they supported it anyway. Hence, they continue to support what is effectively gun registration by another name.
You just left that one alone. That's dishonest too. So you can fling crap all you like, but so far, it looks to me like you are wearing it.
Never, never, never give a government increased police powers without serious consideration along with obvious and quickly exercisable means to rescind that extension of federal power. Yet that is exactly what the NRA proposes. Never do it in the heat of the political moment. Yet that is exactly what the NRA has done. Once said "armed guards" are in place (and doing not a damned thing 95% of the time in return for their fat paychecks, health care plans, and crooked retirement funds foisted upon States teetering upon bankruptcy), there is every reason to expect both failure to act and abuse of power. So the net effect I see with the NRA proposal is that "retired police officers" will get TWO outrageous pensions instead of one. Worse, the school district faces the prospects of crippling lawsuits should they refuse by following some other more cost effective path.
You are very heavy on personal attacks, having offered NOTHING in the way of exculpatory evidence upon behalf of the NRA.
You're very heavy on lies, allegations and accusations.
The NRA is the premier gun rights organization in the US if not in the world. In case you didn't notice, the anti-gun nuts attacked the NRA, not the GOA, JPFO or SAF.
Federally funded armed guards is an exercise of police power.
Nowhere was there a call for a national "police force" for schools as you asserted. Why do you find it necessary to lie?
When I posted about how background checks that the NRA has supported to this day were abused with FIST, you didn't acknowledge it at all.
You lied when you stated the NRA is no friend of liberty and the organization supported limiting magazine sizes.
Are you sure you aren't Feinstein or a clone?
I don’t get what you’re trying to tell me, I supplied stats on GUN DEATHS in Australia which include suicide, accident and homicide as well as gun deaths that are the result of deaths caused by law enforcement officers in the course of their duties, and you quote me a reduction in gun related prosecutions - which means what? CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON?
Talk about manipulating statistics, I think that might just take the cake.
with whose money???
LAPIERRE: Now, the National Rifle Association knows there are millions of qualified and active retired police, active, Reserve, and retired military, security professionals, certified firefighters, security professionals, rescue personnel, an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained, qualified citizens to join with local school officials and police in devising a protection plan for every single school.
We could deploy them to protect our kids now. We can immediately make Americas schools safer, relying on the brave men and women in Americas police forces. The budgets -- and you all know this, everyone in the country knows this -- of our local police departments are strained, and the resources are severely limited, but their dedication and courage is second to none. And, they can be deployed right now.
FORMER REP. ASA HUTCHINSON, R-ARK.: Thank you, Wayne...In my home state of Arkansas, my son was a volunteer with a local group called Watchdog Dads (ph) who volunteer their time at schools, who patrol playgrounds and provide a measure of added security. President Clinton initiated a program called Cops In School, but the federal response is not sufficient for todays task.
Whether theyre retired police, retired military, or rescue personnel, I think there are people in every community in this country who would be happy to serve if only someone asked them and gave them the training and certifications to do so.
I’m married to my AK. Marriage equality after all. You can’t take that away from me Feinstein.
Thank you for the post and the ping. The NRA haters are as irrational and ignorant as the Palin haters.
Not for sale Di.
If you were a person who owned a gun, but decided to get rid of it because you have morally decided that guns are bad, it would be nice if there was an inexpensive way to be sure that the gun you are getting rid of would never again be used.
Doesn’t have to be a government program; some private company could make a killing playing on the liberal angst over the guns they bought.
Let me get this right; You are going to take my money under threat of force, then you are going to take that money and “buy” my guns under threat of force? And this stupid bitch wonders why gun owners are paranoid.