New AWB Details Released: Get Involved Now

[John Canuck]

Assuming she thinks the fed would buy guns, rather than just take them, I wouldn't expect her to plan on paying very much per gun, and what ever was going to be paid could just be borrowed. Billions isn't very much any more when you are spending other peoples money.

 

[armaborealis]

I wonder how Feinstein proposes the federal government finance the possible buy back program. The country is broke yet buying back all these privately owned guns would require billions. Anyway, I wouldn't be selling mine back so it's a moot point.

The fed is printing $1 trillion next year. Money is not a problem.

Additionally, it is unclear that anything need be paid, and if they do pay anything it doesn't have to be fair market value. 5th amendment doctrine on the subject of eminent domain is an absolute mess. There are at least four ways to define "property" and another three or four to define if a seizure of that property has occured. I could make a good argument that seizure of everyone's "assault weapons" or "mags" is NOT eminent domain that requires compensation under current Supreme Court interpretation. The courts have stated that the .gov does not need to reimburse people for seizing "noxious" property. For example, if the gov finds that your cow herd is infected with some disease and orders cattle destroyed they don't HAVE to compensate you. The gov can impose regulations on polluting industries, even shutting them down, without being required to pay for the factory. So I can very easily see an argument being made that mags and "assault weapons" are noxious evil devices like mad cows and thus no "just compensation" is required.