I do not believe the solution outlined in the op is unconstitutional. It is no different than Cash for Clunkers. But I may be missing something. And there are numerous impracticalities inherent even in that reasonable proposal.
Cash for clunkers was very different, No one was forced to give up their cars. Gun buy back programs usually net a bunch of shitty non or barely function weapons that have sat in the basement or under the bed for a few decades. Guns aren't shitty old cars.
Ok, you went off the rails here... forced? Who is talking about forcing anyone to do anything? Read my post... voluntary. Shit... I'll just quote it here: If our goal is to reduce the number of guns available to loonies today - in addition to stricter background checks and waiting periods and sales rules - what kind of incentive to turn over a gun, would a gun owner respond to?
Sorry, not so off the rails. Gun buy back gets ya shitty old guns and widows guns. Voluntary gun buy backs don't do shit. You want a gun buy back program to work you have to force the sale. Cash for clunkers you got money toward a new car. People who had cars got new better cars. They already showed that they would trade money for cars and this program incentivised them to do so again sooner than they would have done eventually any way. Gun buy back gives people money for something they have already shown they are willing to pay money for. When they bought the gun they already showed that they value guns more than a certain sum of money. Thus the only guns you get from gun buy backs are ones that are busted or have ended up in the hands of someone who didn't buy them in the first place.a few people who need money will sell off guns they otherwise would choose to keep if they had more cash. It doesn't compare well with cars and if you want to make a buy back worthwhile you have to either mandate it or offer super valuable incentives.