No Destruction of “Collectibles” at Jacksonville Turn-In

There will be a gun turn-in event this Saturday in Jacksonville, Florida. While these events are commonly labeled with the propaganda term, “buyback” the guns were never owned by the people attempting to buy them. The event will be held at North Jacksonville Baptist Church, 8531 N. Main from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Organizers are offering $50 for firearms. In a new twist, the Police Athletic League will also receive $50 for each firearm turned in. People are supposed to be able to turn in firearms on a no-questions-asked basis.  The Sheriff’s office, which in Jacksonville is also known as the police, will be running the event and will check firearms to determine if they are stolen. Over the last year, 2,035 firearms have been turned in . . .

Of those, 33 have been found to be stolen, the thefts occurring as far back as 1969. This percentage is slightly higher than usually seen at these events.  Private buyers have little to fear of buying stolen firearms at these events.   Florida even has a website where firearms purchasers can check to see if a firearm is listed as stolen in the state.

There’s another aspect of this turn-in that makes it different. From


How the collectible firearms are disposed of wasn’t explained.

Ballistic tests will not be run on all of the firearms collected. That is easily understandable, because ballistic testing costs money, perhaps as much as was paid for the firearm, and results in little usable information.  It would be silly to run ballistic tests on every .22 rifle that is brought in, and ballistic tests on shotguns are generally useless.






Numerous examples of private sales at gun turn in events

Recent article about private buyers at Milwaukee event

Phoenix article: pictures of private buyers

Some counties in Florida have a special provision to require background checks on all guns sold on property where the public has the right of way.  The ordinace has been preempted by state law for people with valid concealed carry permits.   It does not appear that Duval county has such a local ordinance, but I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the Internet.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten Permission to share granted as long as this notice is included.


  1. avatar Rich Grise says:

    Your tax dollars at work. :-/

    1. avatar DJ9 says:


      And I wonder who determines what is “collectible” and what is not?

      (Somewhere in South Miami, a newly-elected leader pops the magazine out of his pistol and starts banging the butt on the workbench, bringing the first meeting of the High Point Gun Collectors Association to order…)

  2. avatar Mark N. says:

    Such curbside activities are clearly illegal in California, where all transactions must be processed through an FFL (unless of course you happen to be an FFL).

  3. avatar former water walker says:

    Gee 50bucks? That is pathetic. It’s a wonder anyone turns anything in. You generally get $100 for a junk Hi-Point in Chicago. BTW a woman was shot in the leg while riding in a bus on Chicago’s Southside. She SAT on it…luckily it only grazed her and was 22…how it got there is .another story…

  4. avatar Gunr says:

    So, where do I and all the other guys and gals on TTAG line up for the bus to take us to that $50 pot of gold? Geez, I can hardly wait! I never thought I’d get that much for my $1300 tack driver. Such a deal!

  5. avatar Dickie J says:

    Looks like I’ve got plans for Saturday.

    1. avatar Gunr says:

      So how many hard earned bucks are you gonna give away to get your tack drivers off the street?
      See ya there!

    2. Please take pictures and notes. I would like to write a followup article.

  6. avatar Timm says:

    I wonder if the folks that surrender their 2nd amendment rights will ever wish they hadn’t?

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      That’s a very interesting question, but it’s not particularly relevant to the topic of this article, is it?

      Nobody selling a gun at one of these events is “surrendering” anything. They’re voluntarily disposing of personal property they no longer want in exchange for a small sum of money. In some cases, that pittance is a tiny fraction of the market value of the gun, and they’re getting screwed, but nobody is forcing them to sell at the “buyback”. So how are they giving up their 2A rights?

  7. avatar Jon in NH says:

    An interesting footnote in NH law: gun buy backs are illegal here. 🙂 I wish I knew the history of the legislation.

    1. avatar DonS says:

      Last year’s legislative silliness effectively outlawed “buybacks” in Colorado. By requiring a background check for every transfer where the transferor is not an FFL, a “buyback” would have to have an FFL on hand to run background checks for every transfer – on every person authorized by the transferee to possess the firearm after the transfer.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Do transfers to state agents at gun “buybacks” qualify for this special treatment, or did they exempt themselves?

        1. avatar DonS says:

          They did not exempt themselves. The list of exemptions does not include ‘law enforcement’ or other state agencies/agents.

          Oddly, the new law specifically requires a background check when the transferor is not an FFL. The status of the transferee is not mentioned. The plain-English reading of the new statute indicates that if a non-FFL transferor sells a gun to an FFL transferee, a background check on the transferee is required.

          Colorado Revised Statutes 18-12-112.
          (1) (a) On and after July 1, 2013, except as described in subsection (6) of this section, before any person who is not a licensed gun dealer, as defined in section 12-26.1-106 (6), C.R.S., transfers or attempts to transfer possession of a firearm to a transferee, he or she shall:

          (I) Require that a background check, in accordance with section 24-33.5-424, C.R.S., be conducted of the prospective transferee; and

          (II) Obtain approval of a transfer from the bureau after a background check has been requested by a licensed gun dealer, in accordance with section 24-33.5-424, C.R.S.

          (b) As used in this section, unless the context requires otherwise, “transferee” means a person who desires to receive or acquire a firearm from a transferor. If a transferee is not a natural person, then each natural person who is authorized by the transferee to possess the firearm after the transfer shall undergo a background check, as described in paragraph (a) of this subsection (1), before taking possession of the firearm.

          (the exceptions described in subsection (6) don’t say anything about “unless transferee is an LEO or other state agent”. They’re mostly about gifts to family members, temporary loans at shooting ranges, having your gun repaired, etc.)

  8. avatar jon says:

    Hmm, too bad I don’t have the cash right now (or expertise to know whats good and bad), it’s only about an hour away and I could use a highly discounted gun.

  9. avatar Zachary marrs says:

    Is that a marlin .357/.44 magnum carbine? Whoever turned that in will burn in hell

    1. avatar DJ9 says:

      Zachary, to me, that looks like an Ithaca M-49 lever-action tilting-breech single-shot .22. The checkering is fairly unique on this model, and it matches what I can see on the grip area of the rifle in the photo.

      I’ve bought and sold those for less than $75, but that was in the pre-panic world; no idea what one would bring nowadays. Given the impossibility of finding .22 ammo in many areas, some folks may be giving up on cheap old .22 rifles and cashing them in for whatever they can get. Kinda sad.

  10. avatar JoshuaS says:

    See, here I like something…the ability to search if a firearm is stolen. My mother got rid of two handguns, including an actual WWII 1911 that saw combat, because when her dad died she knew one of them he had stolen (in the 1950’s). If she had asked me I could have told her it wasn’t the 1911 (he got that serving in WWII). But in lieu of that, hey the ability to search without incrimination!

    Why couldn’t we have this and something similar for background checks (essentially public access to NICS), provided privacy rights are safeguarded. Rather than trying to make everyone go through an FFL, just make this option available so that people can do the “responsible” thing on their own accord, without the unnecessary paperwork, 3rd party fee.

    One of the few things that makes private party sales still worth it in California is that you do not pay sales tax….so that cannot be it

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      What you’re describing, public access to NICS so private individuals could run background checks, was proposed back in the 1990s during the Brady Bill deliberations and again last year during the post-Sandy Hook gun grab attempt. The Democrats rejected it both times.

      You see, for Dems, it never really has been about safety or crime reduction or keeping guns out of bad guys’ hands with background checks. Mandating background checks for all transfers is all about banning private sales of firearms, because only FFL’s can run the check. This creates a fatal funnel whereby the government can come along and throttle FFL’s out of existence through ATF regulations, paperwork mandates, license fees and approvals, as well as general harrassment.

      If the Dems really cared about or believed in background checks as an anti-crime measure, then they’d allow public access to NICS. Instead, they don’t allow it because they want to force all sales through that FFL process, which the government controls and can then squeeze until firearms sales get snuffed out entirely. This is why “common sense” gun control is so wrong. We’re dealing with sneaky snake zealots whose ultimate goal is complete civilian disarmament, regardless the impact on public safety.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        Constitutional Carry or Fight!

      2. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Actually, I’m beginning to believe that Dems oppose this because they would be exposed as ineligible due to past convictions. Maybe that’s why they rely so heavily on gunzels, er, bodyguards.

      3. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        I have repeatedly called for public access to NICS – for employers, at the very least.

        This is especially true in light of increased security requirements post 9/11. The Democrats don’t want it, as you state, for the reason you state as well as another reason:

        If the public (and especially employers) had access to NICS, suddenly a large cohort of Democratic voters would be out of a job.

  11. avatar Anonymous says:

    ?? They are all collectibles.

  12. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

    When I left NYC for FL, I did so without knowing what the future would hold for me in a new state. Seeing the changes (mostly to the positive) I have come to consider myself fortunate. Florida is not perfect, but it SHINES in comparison to the grimy state boots being held against the throats of firearm enthusiasts in the northeast or in Cali. Moleon Labe.

  13. avatar dave says:

    Collectibles will not be destroyed… but, but, but….what about those poor guns that are to be struck down in thier prime and not afforded the opportunity to become collectibles?

    Replace the word guns with just about anything else and you probably have a violation worthy of a felony rap.

    1. “Collectibles” are entirely in the eye of the beholder. I wonder if officers compete to see who will be on the detail deciding if that Remington 870 or that pump action J.C. Higgins .22 is “collectible”. I wonder who the collector ends up being…

      1. avatar JaxD says:

        The “collectibles” will probably end up on

        1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

          No, they’ll probably end up in some LEO’s closet, or, they’ll be bundled up and sold off to raise money for more modern guns to equip their SWAT forces.

  14. avatar Cameron B says:

    I like restoring hack jobbed milsurps that will be going strait to the compactor unless i get there first. lets see if i have that day off.

    See you there Matt.

  15. avatar Nick D says:

    I wonder how much I can get if I turn in a functional zip gun? Some pipe, some springs, a nail, and a 2×4 all cost less than $20. If I can get a $50 gift card, or cash for each one I turn in, I might be able to start up a small business selling the government useless junk.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      Go for it, and report back!

  16. avatar Fuque says:

    “Buyback” program makes as much sense as the term ” giving back to the community”.. both imply that something was taken and needs to be given back..

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      I think ”giving back to the community” is a Progressive’s way of describing their “Community Service.”

  17. avatar Edgehill says:

    Dean, Your last paragraph that the ordinance requiring background checks on public accessible property is preempted is incorrect. That ordinance is actually written into the state’s constitution, so it can not be preempted by law. What preempts the law is that if you have a concealed carry permit, which is also part of the state’s constitution.

    Just making sure your readers who try this know the law that they may be stepping into.

    1. Than you. I will check my sources. I do not think Duval county, where Jacksonville is located, has such an ordinance in any case. The Wikipedia article agrees with your statement:

  18. avatar JaxD says:

    Not far from where the better half works. Might be worth checking out.

  19. avatar Cody says:

    Yes, I live just north of J-ville. i might have to take a trip this weekend.

  20. avatar Mark says:

    Might have to head up to Jacksonville Saturday to add to the collection 🙂

  21. avatar JG says:

    Also the comment about the prohibition of open carry and it not being a problem for non threatening exposure I believe is specific to handguns. For rifles it is not as restrictive I believe.

Write a Comment


button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email