Home / Gun Ownership / Unintended Consequence: Colorado’s Gun Control Law Kills Gun Buy-Back Program.
Print Friendly and PDF

Unintended Consequence: Colorado’s Gun Control Law Kills Gun Buy-Back Program.

Written by Gary North on July 25, 2013

A liberal group wanted to hold a gun buy-back program. You know: where law-abiding but terminally naive citizens turn in their guns, and criminals don’t.

Well, it can’t be done the way the group planned. The group wanted citizens to come down and sell their guns, cheap, to the group. Well, under the July 1 gun control law, the group cannot pay for any guns. It’s not licensed.

To go through with the plan, the group must find a licensed gun dealer to host the event. Then the people with guns to sell must come to the gun dealer and sell them. Then the group can legally buy them — after the mandatory background checks, purchase by purchase.

The local police chief called off the event. It’s illegal.

So, the gun control law will leave more families armed.

This is another manifestation of the law of unintended consequences. It is an unbreakable law, unlike Colorado’s gun control law.

Continue Reading on www.dailycamera.com

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

12 thoughts on “Unintended Consequence: Colorado’s Gun Control Law Kills Gun Buy-Back Program.

  1. Mike Egan says:

    You just can't fix stupid – and never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups (i.e. Government)

  2. Brave Native says:

    This would be one instance that I hope the CO police departments "Pressure" gun dealers to NOT be the one that aids in the buy back process. Police in my state say that they would rather have citizens armed ! I still live in America where it is my GOD given right to defend myself.

  3. As a rule, I assume most 'unintended' consequences of laws are actually 'unacknowledged' consequences. By that I mean they were intended, but not admitted. In this case, it seems the unintended consequences actually may be unintended.

  4. Last I heard, 30 of the 64 Sheriffs in Colorado were suing the state over the law. For them to do as you suggest would be entirely consistent with what they are already doing.

  5. Navy Vet says:

    The migration of stupid genes from California to Colorado has devastated that state. Denver will end up being another Detroit. Such a shame for a beautiful state. I feel sorry for the really good people in Colorado.

  6. Liberals have one agenda – dis-arm all of America, fortunatly liberals were born with an active STUPID gene.

  7. Not necessarily. Liberals do want to disarm Americans. However, they want the government to have all the guns, and they are trusting the government with the power that will eventually be used against them. The liberals are forgetting that one day they may have to rebel against an authoritarian government, either right-wing or left-wing or a combination of both. They are just focused on instilling trust in the Almighty State that they forget this truth.

    If the liberal wants to be consist, then he must also advocate the disarmament of the military and the police. (Actually, that might not be such a bad idea after all, coming from a libertarian perspective; we should disarm federal agents who seize raw milk, as Ron Paul suggested).

  8. Mike Hughes says:

    I'm still waiting for liberals to give an HONEST answer to WHY they want to disarm honest people. And that they don't like guns is NOT an acceptable answer!

  9. US Army (retired) says:

    Actually 50 of the 64 Sheriffs in CO are suing the State over the law.

  10. You think the Colorado antigun liberals who passed the recent gun control laws intended to make it harder for antigun groups to run buybacks?

  11. Re this so-called "buy-back" illegal under recent Colorado law or not, the thing is as specious as the proverbial summer's day is long, and here is why, should anyone be interested.

    The guns were/are owned by individuals, naive or not, they were never owned by the organization running tis""buy-back". That being the case, erxactly how does anyone "buy-back" that which was never theirs. Could someone please explain that to me. I readily admit to the possibility of being handicapped by that which might loosely be called an engineering background, but 2 + 2 still = 4, at least when last I looked. Given that fact, how is it that these gun "buy-backs" come to be, and since the people running such things are actually the buyers of guns, shouldn't they be required to undergo the same background check as is required on Joe and or Jane Every Person, your ordinary, law abiding gun buyer?

  12. Touche.