These guns – erroneously labeled “assault weapons” were legal to buy when they were purchased. They STILL are legal to own – so far.
But, that phrase ‘mandatory buy-back’.
Let’s break it apart.
First, buy-back implies that the person wanting to get possession of the gun owned it at some prior time. Which, the gun-grabbers never did.
So, drop the ‘back’ part.
It’s just ‘mandatory buy’ at this point.
Now, there are a lot of things I DON’T know or fully understand. But, I spent a lot of time in business classes, and my favorite class was Business Law – specifically, that part of it known as the UCC – the Uniform Commercial Code. It governs all interstate commerce.
Even before that code was adopted, there was law relating to commerce. And, I have a real good understanding of the basic foundation of commercial law, which has the essential components of a commercial sale:
- There has to be both a buyer and a seller. The seller has to have legal possession of goods or a service, that the buyer wants to purchase. So far, so good. Gun owners do, as the term implies, OWN the gun in question.
- There has to be an offer, which is a pledge to purchase said good at a specific price – the specificity of the amount is essential. OK, those mandating the buying do make that offer.
- There has to be an acceptance. We may be heading into murky waters here – most of the gun owners are NOT accepting that offer.
- The transaction must be mutually agreed to. Again, this is a problem – the would-be ‘seller’ doesn’t want to sell.
- There must be no undue force or duress involved. Oooh, that’s another sticking point. I’m pretty sure that an offer that is phrased “sell or we’ll take it AND put you in jail” would be considered duress. So, take away that “Buy” part.
All of that is a problem. But a bigger problem occurs when you think about where the money is coming from. And, that would be the same taxpayers the government’s minions are trying to force to sell to them.