Swalwell: $15 billion to buy back assault weapons is 'less than the cost of loss'

[TexasTowelie]

AMES, Ia. — Rep. Eric Swalwell said Thursday in Iowa that he’s the only Democrat in the 2020 presidential race who wants to both ban and buy back military-style assault weapons — a plan that he said could cost around $15 billion to carry out.

Swalwell said it’s an issue he’s putting at the forefront of his campaign and that his plan would cost “a lot less than the cost of loss” that gun violence in America causes.

“Those guns belong on our battlefields, not in our schools,” he told more than 100 people gathered at Iowa State University's Memorial Union.

Swalwell received applause when he said he is the only candidate calling for a national ban and buyback of military-style semiautomatic weapons. He said he also wants to enact universal background checks and invest in mental health services.

Read more: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2019/04/12/election-2020-eric-swalwell-assault-weapon-ban-buyback-iowa-state-mental-health-democrat-candidate/3436741002/

[brewens]

1. That could be interesting. I know a lot of gun enthusiasts that paid way too much for their

assault style weapons. All frightened that Obama was gunna git their gunz! It's those guys that often own more than one. Not near as many people have or want them as those guys think.

I'd like to see just how many part with those for any kind of good price. They can't get enough at the gun shows or from dealers. I bet they sell, and wouldn't ever admit it.

[better]

2. I like the idea, but personally, I think this is the wrong track.

I think the much more sensible, affordable, and effective approach would be to ban and buy back extended capacity magazines. For all weapons, full stop. It would avoid the battles over things like pistol grips, which don't make a weapon any more dangerous, while drastically limiting the amount of carnage a shooter can unleash before having to reload, and that undeniably is relevant to our recent spate of mass shootings. Gun nuts could still own their flashy AR-15's, just not the part that actually does make them better suited to mass shootings than the traditional ranch/hunting rifle.

And further, unlike "a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine and two or more of the following list of prohibited features:" language we've seen in the past, if magazines are limited to say 5 rounds, the kinds of high capacity magazines we know are ubiquitous in mass shootings actually present an immediately identifiable violation of law, even from a distance and only by their silhouette. No ambiguity, no legal definition wrangling, no loopholes. If you're in violation, we can all see and know it immediately. I suspect that would make enforcement a great deal easier.

[Indygram]

3. I like this idea in combination with Beto's idea

Beto wants to stop selling assault rifles and ammo but not confiscate them from people who currently have them. Doing that in conjunction with a buy back program would be great!

[aikoaiko]

4. Gun confiscations like this are wrong.

[TexasTowelie]

5. I don't believe that he is proposing gun confiscation.

Politifact from May 2018:

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/may/10/revolution-radio/california-lawmaker-called-assault-weapons-ban-not/

[aikoaiko]

6. If you have to turn in your gun or go to jail, that's gun confiscation.

From your article:
"Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons," he wrote. "The ban would not apply to law enforcement agencies or shooting clubs."

How is this not a gun confiscation?

[TexasTowelie]

7. I can only refer to the legal definition:

To appropriate property to the use of the state. To adjudge property to be forfeited to the public treasury; to seize and condemn private forfeited property to public use.

https://thelawdictionary.org/confiscate/

The loophole, at least in my opinion, is whether the forfeited property is put to "public use." If the assault weapons are destroyed or even locked away forever, then are those weapons being used publicly?

If you want to debate the semantics further, then I suggest that you find an attorney since I am not one. Even better, go ask Swalwell himself.

[aikoaiko]

10. I don't have any questions for Swalwell -- he's made himself clear.

He wants to take away very popular rifles from people who already possess them.

[TexasTowelie]

12. You did ask a question though.

How is this not a gun confiscation?

I guess it's rhetorical and let it go. I'm not attempting to sway anyone to vote for Swalwell.

[aikoaiko]

13. Yes, I did ask a question of you -and you answered as best you could.

I’m fine with your answer.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

8. And the cost of enforcement?

[TexasTowelie]

9. Read the article.

It doesn't sound like they are conducting door-to-door searches. As far as the cost of enforcement is concerned, it would most likely be a fine in a sufficient amount to cover the enforcement costs, but Swalwell can speak better to that issue than I can. If you have questions, then ask him instead of me.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

11. Oh, I did read it, and my question was more rhetorical, to add to discussion, than trying to get a

specific answer out of you specifically. I do think it's disingenuous to think that the majority of gun owners would be happy to get rid of their guns for the right price, and it's also important to think about how, in the carceral state we live in, what noncompliance with a buyback would look like when people put forward these ideas.

[TexasTowelie]

14. I can't speak for the majority,

but I occasionally run across articles reporting about gun buybacks and the number of weapons purchased. Some of the people that sell those guns back to the police do so with the ease of mind that they are recovering a portion of their investment without inadvertently supplying weapons that could end up in the hands of criminals.

I don't fault Swalwell for offering an idea and making this a central tenet of his platform since gun control is as much a life and death issue as health care. It's almost a certainty that another mass shooting will occur between now and the first primary so Swalwell's proposal will be examined and he may gain traction with it, other candidates may incorporate it into their platforms, or it will be dismissed.