Hope y’all will excuse a dumbass question (especially if already answered)…but wouldn’t gun manufacturers and new gun dealers be* in favor* of the buyback and destroy? Wouldn’t that decrease the supply of used and increase demand for new?
It’s been raised a couple of times and nobody has really answered it.
[shrug] If you’re willing to get rid of your gun in a buyback program, is it likely you want another?
There have been a number of times I have gotten rid of something cheaply, then regretted it and bought new.
But what I was referring to was that if these buyback guns were to be sold at auction, it seems likely that the buyer would be a used gun dealer or a buyer looking to save a few bucks instead of buying new.
No kidding! I think if you read what I’ve posted in this thread, you’ll see I’m very far from suggesting the doctrine definitely applies here.
Why do you suspect this? Had you even heard about this legal concept before this thread? In point of fact, rational basis is not relevant here. And while it’s true that “some coercive element to the whole proceeding” is relevant, the whole ballgame is the definition of “coercion.” So that’s a bit like saying that you suspect the definition of commerce might be relevant to application of the commerce clause.
Here are a few examples, if you find a way to systematically explain them, let me know and I’ll share the fame and fortune with you:
[ul]
[li]Even though the permit is completely discretionary, a state cannot condition a permit to expand a beachfront house on the owner agreeing to grant an easement to the general public to use the beach.[/li]
[li]Even though a state can otherwise place any conditions it wants on use of its intra-state roadways, a state cannot condition their use on waiver of your Equal Protection rights or Fourth Amendment rights.[/li]
[li]Even though the state is free to give or not give welfare benefits, it cannot condition them on taking a loyalty oath, or going to church, but there is a split about whether it can condition them on drug testing, or agreeing not to leave the state.[/li]
[li]There’s a split over whether the government can condition money for HIV/AIDS prevention on the organization also advocating against prostitution.[/li][/ul]
I could go on. The point is that contrary to your completely unfounded speculation, there is nothing that definitively separates these cases from my loans-for-no-profanity example or a money-for-no-guns scenario. We can come up with lots of potential distinctions, but none explain the entirety of the doctrinal mess.
Or they can just do my idea, which is better than your idea, which is why your so emotional about it. 
Guns aren’t garbage. Good try though.
Sure they are: they’re a material something that someone wants to get rid of, which is basically the definition of “garbage.” CF One man’s trash.
No, and your aggro attitude about it is unnecessary. I asked the question legitimately. I appreciate your elaboration.
Kind of, yeah. They have better things to spend their money on than an innocuous program to help people get rid of things they no longer need. I also have no problem with the police being involved, because some public officials would need to be, and the police are ubiquitous and have a building and some employees already. Having the government (or even the cops!) get involved in public projects doesn’t scream “communist gulag” to me so much as “well, yes, that’s what I pay taxes for”. I’m all for them making it easier for people to dispose of the sort of things that you don’t want to just toss in the dumpster.
No, they’re not, they’re far more dangerous and far more worthwhile getting rid of. That is worth spending tax money on.
You joke, but the company I work for does have some cocaine (“street grade”, which is definitely not a purity level you’ll see in the Aldrich catalog) that is kept in the controlled substances cage that was bought from the police. Having to deal with Schedule I compounds sucks, by the way.
[hijack] Every time I see this thread title I wonder for a moment, “Who is Sue Arizona?” Am I the only one? [/hijack]
So when you said:
You really were just talking about collectors that already own one?
And you were talking about honesty?
Why does it have it? What does your company do?
John Galt’s country cousin. She has an uncle in the discount-furniture business.
Thanks for being honest about the true intentions of these programs.
By definition, collectors collect (aka own). Fanciers may admire and longingly fantasize about their special little snowflake of an armament, but until they put down cash and buy, they are not collectors.
What, to reduce the number of guns on the street? That’s the opposite of a secret. No one ever suggested they do this because the city is hurting for scrap metal.
And it’s no secret to the NRA. Hense they are suing to stop it.
I’m a synthetic organic chemist. I believe it was bought as a starting material for further synthesis to potential new drugs, presumably triple reuptake inhibitors. Cocaine is actually Schedule II, which makes dealing with it and derivatives of it slightly easier than Schedule I, but still tedious when it comes to the paperwork. You can buy cocaine from suppliers like Aldrich, but the free base is about $420 a gram. Aldrich specs it at 98% by titration and 97% by HPLC. My guess, however, is that if you’re going to do any real research on cocaine analogs it’d probably be cheaper to buy material that was confiscated, learn what it was cut with, and purify before use if needed. That should be all that’s needed for initial screening, where the target amount for synthesis is normally something like 50 mg per compound. Once a lead is selected, however, it’d go over to chemical development for design of a complete synthesis from simpler starting materials.