‘Cash for Guns’ Event Scheduled for Dec. 10 in Morgan Hill

Gun owners in southern Santa Clara County will get a chance Dec.10 to turn in their weapons for cash at an event sponsored by the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office and law enforcement agencies.

Police say that when gun owners surrender unwanted guns at the South County Gun Buyback event at the Morgan Hill Outdoor Sports Center, “No questions will be asked about who owns the guns or where they came from.”

In return, the law enforcement coalition will pay cash and “help create a safer environment where it is harder for the suicidal, children, and criminals to access dangerous weapons,” police said in a press release.

“An unwanted gun is just waiting for a child’s curiosity, or a criminal’s bad intentions,” Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen said. “Let’s not just cross our fingers that there won’t be a tragedy. Let’s work together to make sure that every gun in this county is legal, locked, and owned by a responsible person.”

The buyback event at the sports center at 16500 Condit Road will be from The sponsors will pay $100 for handguns, rifles, and shotguns and.$200 for ghost guns and assault weapons.

Police said:

  • Firearms must be functional.
  • Limit 5 firearms per person.
  • All guns must be unloaded and transported in the trunk of your car.
  • You must remain in your car. No ammunition is allowed.
  • Funds are limited to a first come, first serve basis until funds run out.
  • We reserve the right to limit the funds paid to an individual.

The sponsors are Morgan Hill and Gilroy police departments, the Morgan Hill Community Law Enforcement Foundation, Santa Clara County Behavioral Health Services, the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office, Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, and county supervisors Mike Wasserman and Otto Lee.

 

15 Comments

  1. Where is the data? Where are the studies that show this type of nonsense has any effect on gun violence or any other gun related crime?

  2. Little to no effect on gun violence or removing guns from the hands of criminals, felons and gangs.
    The truth is the vast majority of these firearms turned in were sitting in a closet or safe at home and were not being used by the owner anymore for legal purposes, such as hunting, target shooting or personal defense.
    .
    Hobbies change, people get old, children cannot use an inherited firearm,
    it is too hard to sell a firearm to someone who can use it legally.
    People need money now, that in less than 2 years the Biden-Harris administration
    has destroyed the economy, investments and savings.
    .
    The majority of my dozen or so firearms were bought through the local free “Trading Times” newspaper for way less than $100 in the 1980s.
    I wonder who (the sponsors or local PD/ Sheriff’s office) gets first dibs on the valuable firearms turned in by the unknowledgeable person or owner who mistakenly turns in a firearm worth hundreds to thousands of dollars?
    .
    Pure “feel good” virtue signaling and maybe even a scam to get access to some good pieces.

  3. Turning in your gun to stop gun violence is like getting a vasectomy so your neighbors will stop having more children.

  4. Jut an Observation,

    All above forgot to understand one major issue, this is NOT compulsory, it is voluntary.

    Thus you all have nothing to argue about.

    What I do love is that as of Jan 1 2023 the “gun harm reduction ordinance” in San Jose is executed.

    Again, it deals with MITIGATING the cost of harm done by the irresponsible ownership of a firearm.

    The name of the ordinance, if you want to claim it is supposed to reduce gun CRIME or prevent gun MISMANAGEMENT it would have been called

    As I pointed out, in order to hold the insurance of a firearm, in order to determine WHICH firearm actually was involved, the grove patterns, or a sample discharge, would be registered by a PRIVATE agency, NOT THE STATE. Thus it is NOT the state requiring registration of a firearm as well.

    Thus it would not be any violation of the 2nd amendment.

    Basically, it is a means to rule out innocent people being charged for irresponsible management of a firearm.

    I cannot understand why the picture is so unclear to many people. This is VERY MUCH a logical and necessary course of action.

    Now granted if the state files for a subpoena to get records from the insurer due to probable cause, a court will determine whether the subpoena is valid, or also possibly a search warrant. Thus the courts will provide due process to protect the 2nd amendment.

    But what that means is this CAN cut off the continued use of a specific firearm used in a crime, that could mean in the end the destruction of that weapon, so no more crimes from it will occur again.

    Wouldn’t that reduce the number of firearms used in crimes?

    So many people misinformed

  5. Hello JAFO, you could not be more wrong. Nobody commented on whether it was compulsory or not. They were commenting on the efficacy. My comments were intended address another issue: the complete and utter waste of government money on a program that will do absolutely no good other than to fill resumes for a bunch of silly bureaucrats. The people who push these kinds of programs are very unserious people. They should not be in charge of millions of dollars of taxpayer money. In fact, they shouldn’t be in charge of anything.

  6. Just an Observation,

    It just seems to me, that one less gun in the risk of being used in crime, WILL make it so no crime using THAT gun can occur. Especially when there is in effect too many guns floating around. Simply put people with unstable emotions are VERY likely to do something impulsive that with a firearm is VERY dangerous.

    In effect the Gun Makers encourage a weapons race in the community, they arrange it so it is easy for a criminal to get a gun to justify making it easier to sell a gun to a so called “good person”

    This s a variation of being a CIVIL WAR PROFITEER and people like yourself encourage it. This is simply gun and ammo companies constantly prodding the people to get more powerful and more destructive forces. No wonder ASSAULT WEAPONS appear to be the most popular now.

    But no one ever decided to point that out. Still to me, the fact that you want people to stop selling guns that they DO NOT NEED means you are threatened somehow from it. Or are we now going to get back to old time west living and people will start shooting each other for any trivial reason?

  7. So, you mean if someone turns in a gun, there might be less chance of it getting in the hands of a person who broke into your house and then stole it from you and then goes out and uses it to rape your wife or daughter or perhaps rob you? Sounds like a good idea. If guns made us safer, the USA would be the safest country in the world, am I correct? That is not faulty logic like the NRA uses.

  8. Just an Oddservation,

    Your oddpinion is not an observation.
    Your obtuse opinion and lack of understanding that a firearm is an inanimate object and does not pose harm to anyone by itself is laughable, but common among the uninformed public.

    Try to focus on the criminal and the behavior.
    “It just seems to me, that one less criminal in the risk of causing a crime, WILL make it so no crime is committed or occurs. Especially when there is in effect too many criminals released from prison or not punished floating around.”

    Your entire hyperbolic argument continues to make you look ridiculous and confirms you have no knowledge of the topic.
    Like your oddservation of “No wonder ASSAULT WEAPONS appear to be the most popular now.”
    Any weapon used in an assault is an assault weapon.
    Assault: make a physical attack on.

  9. JUst an observation,

    Lets clarify what is an ASSAULT WEAPON. one definition states:

    Drawing from federal and state law definitions, the term assault weapon refers primarily to semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that are able to accept detachable magazines and possess one or more other features. Some jurisdictions define revolving-cylinder shotguns as assault weapons. Legislative definitions do not include fully automatic weapons, which are regulated separately as Title II weapons under federal law. A key defining law was the now-defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. At that time, the United States Department of Justice said, “In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use.”

    So that should clarify that.

    Again, instead of recognizing that gun manufacturers are profiting on a domestic weapons arms race on the public, the poster above just wanting to insult another poster personally, and also tries to change the subject.

    But yes, if a gun bought back from the public is determined to be destroyed, then that weapon cannot be used in a crime. Why not give people a choice to help make our lives safer? Why is it so bad to sell a gun to someone who will destroy it? This is not harming anyone’s rights to a gun is it? Talking about misinformed again.

    There are so many ways that public policy can encourage the people to help make us more safe, this is one along with the likelihood of establishing the requirement of insuring every weapon owned upon purchase. Time to take this situation as one would say “up a notch”.

  10. Looks like the high school debate team showed up over the weekend – maybe the 2nd string?
    .
    My high-schoolers turned in better arguments on their opinion papers than the anti-2nd Amendment talking points parroted above – but California is ground zero for the low information voter.
    .
    Sure it is a ‘voluntary’ program, but so was investing with Bernie Madoff or the Democratic Darling Multi-Million Dollar Donor of Crypto, FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried.
    Now those “voluntary” investors will have a hard time getting their money back or true value of their so-called Crypto investments, but hey they can just be satisfied that they contributed million$$ of potential life savings to Democratic Campaigns.
    It may even get them a college loan cancelled or a pass on paying their rent or some other handout “out” of being and acting like an adult.
    .
    This program is just pure “feel good” virtue signaling and a partial scam in which the Fair Market Value of an asset is not being paid to the asset owner – any legal firearms owner that does not get an appraisal or check the value online before turning in a valuable piece is being duped.
    .
    Another ‘Cash for Clunkers’ government program.

  11. Just an Observation,

    I am amazed that people like CA Patriot do not understand that by constantly insulting people is NOT a as he put it a “debate strategy” And in fact he went off tangent to discuss anything other than the topic in this story.

    Selling a gun is NOT an investment. It is not even related to ANY investing. Why bring up something that has nothing to do with the policy nor the choices people can make?

    As I pointed out earlier, CA Patriot’s seems to not understand the methods that are proven to be effective regarding Dale Carnegies book “How To Win Friends and Influence People”. In fact he supports the strategy of “How To Gain Enemies and Alienate People.” Your obviously expecting that your point of view is the ONLY one that people should comply with.

    It demonstrates that some people live in closed circles or what is described as “echo chambers” and when someone decides to contribute alternatives in their “space” they personally attack them.

    In the end, you are just complaining that people have a choice, right?

  12. If one truly believes that guns themselves are such a threat to society, I suggest that we publish a list of all the homes that don’t have guns. That way you would know where you could send your children to play and they would be safe. By logical extension, this would make people on the list much safer. Burglars would not be interested in trying to break into your house to steal your guns because you’ve already gone on record that you don’t have any. Maybe you could even place a state approved sticker on your front window that reads “no guns on premises.”

    The list and window stickers would be completely voluntary. Is anyone interested in publishing their address and stating that they do not have weapons in their home? Stickers anyone?

  13. JUst an Observation,

    OMG you really cannot stick to the subject can you? This toxic “Whgat Aboutism” is crazy. You can never answer a simple question.

    Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in “what about…?”) denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin ‘you too’, term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.

    The communication intent here is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism, the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy.”

    In fact your logic is akin to giving those without a gun a yellow star on their clothing, right? You are in effect trying to “target” those without weapons for abuse with that logic right? Again you are promoting a weapons race in the U.S., if one guy has a gun you have to have a bigger and more dangerous one right?

    Stick to the subject, and answer my simple questions:

    Selling a gun is NOT an investment. It is not even related to ANY investing. Why bring up something that has nothing to do with the policy nor the choices people can make? In the end, you are just complaining that people have a choice, right? So if a person chooses to sell a gun to be destroyed, what about that is it of yours? What economic interest do you have to tell us that we have no right to destroy a gun?

    This really is getting like a broken record.

  14. Who are you talking to Steven? Your “friends” on a news article comment section?
    Are you that hard up for friends?
    But, just maybe, consider that a ‘friend’ points out when someone makes a fool of themselves in public and
    posts nonsensical comments like a JAFO.
    .
    Were you following your advice and methods when you were doxing your landlord on SJI and SJ Spotlight?
    When you were bragging about how you were a deadbeat tenant?
    or arguing with the SJI moderator about your doxing posts being deleted? and
    How you were archiving all your deleted comments on your google drive? (lol)
    .
    That behavior had you soft banned from the comment section and your entire history deleted
    – which as others have commented, was most likely to your benefit if anyone decided to do a search on your social media posts.
    .
    You really need to gain some self-awareness son.
    .
    Stick to OCD daily waste-water posting, an oracle of knowledge or advice you are not.
    .
    Just an observation from a friend.

  15. Just and Observation,

    Boy did I strike a nerve, no one here is in fact discussing the topic anymore and is targeting me?

    This is a bit humorous.

    Still no one wants to answer the questions:

    Selling a gun is NOT an investment. It is not even related to ANY investing. Why bring up something that has nothing to do with the policy nor the choices people can make? In the end, you are just complaining that people have a choice, right? So if a person chooses to sell a gun to be destroyed, what about that is it of yours? What economic interest do you have to tell us that we have no right to destroy a gun?

    It looks like what we have here is a group that says to another, WE HAVE GUNS AND YOU BETTER GET ONE TO DEFEND YOURSELF.

    I think I got it right when I pointed out:

    “In fact your logic is akin to giving those without a gun a yellow star on their clothing, right? You are in effect trying to “target” those without weapons for abuse with that logic right? Again you are promoting a weapons race in the U.S., if one guy has a gun you have to have a bigger and more dangerous one right?”

    This is really the argument people have made here. It in effect is a threat to anyone that doesn’t have a gun.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *