The Dark Side of Gun “Buybacks”

Amid brutal inflation and widespread fears of a recession, Americans are pawning their possessions and working extra jobs to make ends meet. Soon, many more Californians may be trading away their guns to the state government to afford food and gas.

In a move that raises concerns about California’s intentions and timing, Governor Newsom’s office recently confirmed that the state “is launching the largest gun buyback program in the nation.”

Newsom had previously tweeted about the program on May 31, during a surge of liberal anti-gun sentiment after the Uvalde school shooting. Confirmation from his office came shortly after the Supreme Court’s historic Bruen decision, which held that the Constitution protects the public carry of firearms for self-defense (a ruling Newsom attacked as “reckless” and “radical”).

The governor hasn’t yet offered details about the “buyback” initiative, except to say it will be the biggest in the country.

And it’s remarkably timed, to say the least. With consumers suffering under the worst inflation in 40 years, and California having some of the highest living costs in the country, the notoriously anti-gun state will have serious economic leverage when it encourages residents to voluntarily disarm.

Many Americans have probably never considered the potentially exploitative side of these firearm trade-in programs.

Guns for Gas

Consider this: in May 2022, as the average price of gas in California was skyrocketing above six dollars a gallon, the Sacramento Police Department ran an event offering fuel gift cards for guns. While the $50 cards wouldn’t even buy a full tank at those prices, public demand for relief still caused the police to run out of cards in under an hour.

California, with the highest gas prices in the nation, was using those prices to encourage disarmament. Making matters worse, the State of California itself is largely responsible for those extreme gas prices—through a combination of taxes, regulations, and refusal to allow new local fuel production.

Let’s be clear: no government should ever put people in the position of choosing whether to keep their tools of self-defense, or trade them to the state in order to afford other basic necessities like fuel or groceries.

If a government can create the circumstances to force this kind of choice—purposely or otherwise—it is simply too powerful, or too broken, and must be reined in. The state should not have this kind of leverage over citizens, especially when their natural right of self-defense is involved.

A Tyrannical Dream

Of course, if you’re a California politician who deplores both guns and gas vehicles, you’ll likely see the whole situation as a win-win—pushing residents to either drive less, or give up their firearms.

The problem isn’t limited to gas, however. The same danger exists whenever a government is both hostile to gun ownership, and engaged in massive economic regulation that drives up the cost of living.

In this respect, a “groceries not guns” program raises the same concerns as the as the gas card swap. So does the typical cash “buyback” offer.

It’s awful to imagine the most vulnerable members of our society being forced to choose between feeding their families, or having the means to protect themselves from violent criminals.

Pressured Trade-Ins

To prevent this form of creeping disarmament, we should be wary of so-called “buybacks”—that is to say, trade-in programs—when they are funded and run by government institutions.    

To be sure, we certainly have a fundamental, natural right to voluntarily sell or trade our own property—including to the government, if one so chooses. That decision belongs to the individual.

But the government, for its part, should not be using taxpayer funds to create the circumstances for, and promote the disarmament of economically struggling people—especially when the state’s own policies have made everyday life unaffordable. This is the rarely-discussed side of gun trade-in programs.