Posted on 08/25/2011 2:16:00 PM PDT by Iron Munro
For decades weve heard about gun turn-insGun Buy-Back programs sponsored by churches, civic groups, and various other misinformed do-gooder organizations. The very namebuy-backimplies that guns belong not to individuals, but to the government, or at least to the people who dont like guns. The programs have the stated purpose of getting guns off the street, which seems to give operators a pass from further scrutiny, even as they offer a tangible good such as a grocery store coupon or gift card in return for a gun, no questions asked, much like any other fencing operation. Finally someone has forced the question: Are these programs legal?
Attorney and author of the New Jersey Gun Law Guide, Evan Nappen, not only asked the question, he is offering a $5,000 bounty for anyone who can prove an affirmative answer. Nappen is specifically asking about the legality of a church-sponsored program in the state of New Jersey. As an expert on New Jersey gun laws, Nappen says he can find no provision in the states maze-like gun statutes that permit churches and civic groups, or the people surrendering (actually selling) the guns, to bypass the thicket of New Jersey state laws that require permits, background checks, and paperwork whenever a gun is transported or transferred.
Nappen also questions the no questions asked policy, and the immediate destruction of the guns, which might be stolen property, or could be evidence in serious crimes. Details of Nappens challenge can be seen on his web site, www.EvanNappen.com.
I dont expect Evan will lose the $5,000 anytime soon. He knows New Jersey law and it is pretty clear that there are very specific requirements which are not being met in these buy-back programs.
Under New Jersey law, anyone wishing to surrender an illegally possessed firearm must first state their intention to do so in writing to their chief of police or the head of the State Police. The statement must include their identity. Also, while New Jersey does offer some immunity from prosecution to a person who turns in a gun in this manner, that immunity is limited to the crime of illegally possessing the gun, not to any other crimes that might involve the gun.
Further, it is a direct violation of NJ law for anyone other than a licensed dealer to purchase a firearm unless they have a special permit from the state. There is no provision for exceptions, exemptions, or special dispensations, and again, there is a requirement that paperwork be filled out which includes the name and identifying information of both the purchaser and the seller.
Anonymous transactions are not legal in New Jersey. On top of all of that there is the issue of transporting the guns to the buy-back location. New Jersey has draconian laws regarding the transport of firearms and there is no exception for someone going to a buy-back. The fact is that in New Jersey, like most other states, there simply is no provision for suspending gun control laws for the sake of anti-gun propaganda events.
Gun buy-backs are legally questionable even when they are conducted by municipalities or police departments. When they are conducted by private entities, there is no cover of law to be found. Not for the organization sponsoring the event, not for the people working the event, nor for the people bringing guns to the event to turn in. Just because law enforcement chooses to turn a blind eye to the infractions does not make them legal. Police may claim a need to use use discretion and common sense when they enforce the lawweve all seen stories of a kids lemonade stand shut down due to licensing or zoning issues, or when the Salvation Army is gigged for not paying minimum wage when they give a wino homeless person a few dollars for helping around the thrift store, but this goes beyond discretion.
Wholesale disregard for laws that shouldnt exist by the very people who demanded that they be passed in the first place goes beyond the realm of sense. The New Jersey gun laws clearly infringe on the fundamental rights of citizens and are routinely used to ruin the lives of people who have no malicious intent or criminal agenda. Look up Brian Aitken for a stunning example. These are bad laws which do no good and cause great harm. They should be repealed, but until they are, they should not be ignored when it comes to the people who helped pass them.
Hollywood celebrities call for disarming the masses while they are protected by their armed bodyguards and their special dispensation carry permits. Legislators pass special exemptions and amnesty periods when they find one of their own snared in stupid gun laws. And well-meaning, peace-marching church folk call for stricter gun laws, but then expect to be able to openly defy those laws in the name of getting guns off the street. Its hypocritical, its wrong, and they shouldnt be allowed to get away with it.
Permission to reprint or post this article in its entirety is hereby granted provided this credit is included. Text is available at www.FirearmsCoalition.org. To receive The Firearms Coalitions bi-monthly newsletter, The Knox Hard Corps Report, write to PO Box 3313, Manassas, Va. 20108. ©Copyright 2010 Neal Knox AssociatesThe most trusted name in the rights movement.
there should be no laws whatsoever pertaining to the sale or purchase of a gun...there are far more lethal items than guns. Someone, somehow, has come to the conclusion that gun ownership somehow goes hand in hand with loss of rights...it doesn’t. Howcome we can’t read, and interpret the second amendment????? the government has no authority whatsoever to regulate my right to keep and bear arms....which word in the amendment don’t you understand???
” . . . the volume of a buy back program would seem to place the organization in the position of being a gun dealer without the proper FFA approvals. “
I think you mean BATFE. The Future Farmers of America really don’t have much to do with guns.
BTW, a gun buy back program would be legal in Missouri, but we’re in the free part of America. It is totally appropriate that somebody shut these ridiculous buy-backs down in states that require government permission to exercise basic freedoms. The liberals made these obscene laws, they should have to abide by them.
Private transfers between non-licensed individuals are 100 percent legal under federal law, so long as neither party has reason to believe the other is a prohibited person. Missouri, where I live, imposes no additional requirements on gun sales beyond federal law.
Here, even public auctions are pay-and-go affairs, since the auctioneer is not a gun dealer.
Need a handgun purchase permit from the Sheriff to do a private handgun transfer of any sort in NC, or the receiver has to have a CCW permit.
That includes purchase, giving as a gift, inheriting, etc.
If it’s a handgun, you need the purchase permit or the CCW permit.
Bookmark
I’d like to see gun clubs doing this sort of thing.
Buy up the guns from the ghetto no-goods, have the police department run their checks, sell the clean ones to the law-abiding citizens in the community at a discount, and use the profits to expand the firing range and teach carry and self-defense classes.
If someone steals your car (private property), and the police recover it, who does it belong to? Why are guns (private property) treated differently?
Eliminate the buy-back loophole. I’ve never liked the no questions asked part of these scams. They announce these buy-backs weeks in advance and are actually encouraging people to steal guns. They also allow felons to launder their “dirty” guns and get paid in return
Strange how often liberals 'accidentally' help criminals...
Private transfers between non-licensed individuals are 100 percent legal under federal law, so long as neither party has reason to believe the other is a prohibited person. Missouri, where I live, imposes no additional requirements on gun sales beyond federal law.
Here, even public auctions are pay-and-go affairs, since the auctioneer is not a gun dealer.
The no questions asked part of these buy-backs would violate the “so long as neither party has reason to believe the other is a prohibited person” requirement.The buyer is actually covering for the seller, no matter what crime may have been committed with that weapon or in obtaining that weapon. It would piss me off to no end if one of my weapons was stolen and bought and destroyed in one of these shams
Great question. But you know the aswer
Answer
But not a handgun - right?
Thanks for the correction - It was a brain burp!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.