Presumed Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris voiced support for a mandatory “assault weapons” gun buyback program in 2019, but experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation the program would be ineffective at getting guns off the streets and would be illegal.

Harris voiced her support for a mandatory “assault weapon” buyback at a campaign event in New Hampshire during the 2019 Democratic presidential nomination campaign. Her proposal would mean Americans would have to turn over any firearms deemed “assault weapons” in exchange for compensation. According to But confiscating so-called “assault weapons” through a buyback program would likely violate the Second Amendment because it would require establishing a fundamental ban, and would be ineffective because Americans have failed to comply with similar laws in the past, experts told the DCNF.

“I think the key constitutional question is whether it's constitutional to prohibit private citizens from possessing certain types of firearms,” ​​Amy Swear, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation's Edwin Meese III Center for Law and Justice Studies, told DCNF about the prohibitions that underpin mandatory buyback programs. “Are those statutes that prohibit possession or sale constitutional? And if we're talking about so-called assault weapons, which are really just semi-automatic firearms with certain cosmetic features that don't affect their lethality or function in any way, the answer is absolutely not constitutional.”

“This is unconstitutional… I think the constitutional issue isn't whether the money that was confiscated will be returned, but that the government confiscated it in the first place,” Swear continued.

There is also limited evidence supporting the effectiveness of gun buyback programs in the United States, and little evidence that voluntary programs reduce gun-related violence or crime. According to According to a meta-analysis conducted by the RAND Corporation in 2023, the study suggests that mandatory buyback programs, like those implemented in countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom, would face difficulties in the United States due to “the number of firearms that are typically classified by law as assault weapons.”

Kamara: “I support a mandatory share buyback program.”

That means forcibly confiscating guns from millions of law-abiding gun owners. She's a dangerously liberal! pic.twitter.com/Mgb329MkSV

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) July 30, 2024

Swearer compared Harris' proposal to the 1994 Assault Weapons Act. ProhibitedThe law would make it illegal to “manufacture, transfer, or possess a semi-automatic assault weapon,” including an explicit ban on AR-15s, a ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and prohibit certain features, including modifications such as pistol grips and barrel shrouds.

“If the Supreme Court were to consider something like the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban today, keeping in mind that the Supreme Court had not ruled on the constitutionality of that ban at the time – it was simply a ban on future sales – I think it would almost certainly be found unconstitutional,” Swearer told DCNF.

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004, and all legal challenges to it failed, including without review by the Supreme Court. According to To the Congressional Research Service.

Harris said in 2022 that “offensive weapons” are “weapons of war” whose purpose is “to kill large numbers of human beings quickly.” According to Swearer said the term “assault weapon” refers to semi-automatic rifles that have features that “are not really important as a measure of lethality,” such as barrel guards to protect the user's hands from heat and pistol grips that are preferred for comfort.

“As we have repeatedly argued in multiple challenges to various 'assault weapons' bans, semi-automatic centerfire rifles are not only portable weapons, but are commonly possessed for lawful purposes,” Adam Kraut, executive director of the Second Mendment Foundation, told DCNF. “Given that, Ms. Harris's [buybacks] “It would not be unconstitutional. Furthermore, the government cannot buy back something it never owned in the first place. That would likely amount to expropriation and would be subject to various legal actions.”

Swearer said Americans would also likely be slow to comply with “assault weapons” bans and mandatory buybacks.

“Americans are notoriously reluctant to comply with these arbitrary and capricious gun control laws,” Swearer told DCNF, “So when you look at other similar bans, with or without gun buybacks, whether the government pays for the guns to be repossessed or not, Americans are really unwilling to surrender guns that were lawfully in their possession until 10 seconds ago and that they paid for.”

Illinois also passed a bill that will ban the sale of “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines” in 2023 and require owners of “assault weapons” to register their firearms by January 1, 2024. Since the law went into effect, the majority of sheriffs in the state have refused to enforce the regulation. According to To the Court News Service.

David Kopel, research director at the Independence Institute, told DCNF that a mandatory buyback would likely mean removing firearms from Americans' homes all at once, which would be a dangerous endeavor.

“There are places where so-called 'assault weapons' laws have been enacted, where gun owners are told, 'Just register your gun and you can have it,'” Kopel told DCNF. “The actual registration rate is only around 1% or 2% of the total number of firearms owned. So her program cannot be successful without mandatory door-to-door searches, which is extremely dangerous to both law enforcement and the public.”

In 2017, there were an estimated 393 million civilian-owned firearms in the United States, but only 6.06 million of them were registered. According to According to a survey conducted by Small Arms Survey.

“It is unlikely that the vast majority of gun owners would submit to a mandatory 'gun buyback' or compensated confiscation,” Kraut told DCNF. “As of 2020, million In the United States, AR-style firearms are just one of a small number of categories of firearms that politicians refer to as “assault weapons.”

There is inconclusive evidence as to whether “assault weapons” bans reduce overall homicides and firearm-related homicides. According to According to a 2024 meta-analysis by the RAND Corporation, the studies provided inconclusive data on whether banning high-capacity magazines would reduce firearm-related deaths.

Harris' campaign later walked back the vice president's pledge to mandate a firearms buyback, a campaign official said. said “Harris has supported gun control legislation in the past, so critics, including Swearer, are skeptical that her policy shift is genuine,” The New York Times reported in July.

“If you look back to when she was attorney general of California, you'll see that she signed some of the dissents in DC v. Heller,” Swearer told DCNF.[Which] “In essence, we're saying that we don't think there are any individual rights that should be taken into account, that we don't even have an individual right to own a handgun in the first place. So, at this point, any attempt to back down on this kind of statement, or anything to do with firearms, is probably more political than it is genuine, because her consistent refrain throughout her career has been the polar opposite of backing down on gun control policies.”

In 2008, Harris signed an amicus brief arguing for a handgun ban in a landmark Supreme Court case. DC v. Heller To return, According to The amicus brief also argued that the Second Amendment “only provides for the right to bear arms in connection with a militia” and “does not apply to laws passed by state or local governments.”

According to The New York Times, Harris still supports a ban on assault weapons, despite changing her policy on mandatory buybacks during her campaign.

“The term 'buyback' is a lie,” Kopel told DCNF, “and the term 'assault weapons' is a lie, because the government never owned the guns in the first place… This is simply a confiscation, with compensation allegedly being paid, but a forced seizure of property.”

The Harris campaign did not respond to DCNF's request for comment.

As an independent, nonpartisan news service, all content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation is available free of charge to any legitimate news publisher with a large readership. All republished articles must include our logo, reporter byline, and affiliation with the DCNF. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.