Democratic Congressman Calling For Federally Enforced Gun ‘Buyback’ (Video)

Democratic Congressman Calling For Federally Enforced Gun ‘Buyback’ (Video)

The buyback would not be optional, and those who choose to keep their guns would suffer the consequences.

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) announced in April that she is preparing to introduce legislation to create a federal law allowing firearm confiscation orders.

Such laws are generally referred to as Extreme Risk Protection Orders, and California, Indiana, Oregon, and other states, already have them in place. Dingell believes the ability to seize firearms is crucial for pubic safety.

In California an order to take guns can be issued without the gun owner even knowing. And in Indiana, the state on which Dingell is basing her federal legislation, individuals who have their guns seized have approximately 14 days to go to court to “make a case” to get them back.

take our poll - story continues below

What is your top alternative to Facebook? - FIXED

  • What is your top alternative to Facebook?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Truth Uncensored updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Now, a sitting member of Congress is publicly proposing a ban on so-called military-style semi-automatic rifles and advocates criminal prosecution for Americans who refuse to take part in a mandatory buyback program.

Eric Swalwell, a member of the House Intel Committee wrote in USA Today that the federal government should “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy the buyback by keeping their weapons,” — exempting gun clubs and law enforcement officials. Which means that it is not voluntary, and the buyback prices could be for a fraction of their worth. 

“[W]e should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons,” wrote Swalwell, who does allow for such weapons to be kept in police stations and shooting clubs.

Tucker Carlson characterized the proposal as effectively being a gun “ban” because authorities would “make [citizens] felons” if gun owners don’t take action and surrender weapons.

Fox News reports:

Swalwell disagreed, offering that the gun owners could keep their weapons in a “safe” spot like a fish & game club.

“So, we should confiscate this entire class of firearms,” Carlson said. “Do you think we would have a Civil War?”

Swalwell said something must be done to save lives in the wake of recent mass shootings.

“You just made them into felons,” Carlson said. “You wrote that.”

Carlson added that the U.S. Capitol Police, who he said are effectively Swalwell’s bodyguards, would still be able to hold weapons if they wanted.

Swalwell took exception with Carlson’s characterization of Capitol Police as “bodyguards,” saying he was “denigrating” officers.

But, Carlson noted that he does not have what could be described as a police detail protecting him at all times, nor do the majority of law abiding citizens who legally purchased their guns, who Swalwell is going after.

More to the point, does Swalwell really think that the millions of gun owners in the United States are going to forcefully hand over their legally owned guns when there are millions of criminals they could go after. The answer is an emphatic NO.


 

Join the conversation!

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.