Norwalk Police Schedule Gun Buyback For Feb. 2

  • Comments (21)
The Norwalk Police Department is conducting a gun buyback program Feb. 2 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.
The Norwalk Police Department is conducting a gun buyback program Feb. 2 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Photo Credit: File Photo

NORWALK, Conn. – Gun owners who want to give up their weapons in return for a cash payment can do so at a Norwalk Police Department buyback program Feb. 2 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., the department announced Tuesday.

The program, funded by an anonymous donation of $5,026, will be held in the Community Room of police headquarters at One Monroe Street. All working firearms from residents and non-residents will be accepted.

The guns will be turned over to the state and destroyed.

“We are grateful for the generosity of the Norwalk resident whose donation of $5,026 has made this program possible,” Norwalk Police Chief Thomas Kulhawik said in a statement.

Visa gift cards will be given to those who bring in guns in the following amounts:

• $50 for rifles and shotguns;

• $75 for handguns;

• $100 for assault weapons (described as “any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the firearms listed or which meet the requirements as listed in Connecticut General Statutes 53-202a”).

All guns must be unloaded and bagged or boxed. They should be in working condition; guns that are considered junk will be accepted but will not be eligible for reimbursement.

Additionally, the guns should be transported to police headquarters in the trunk of a car, and ammunition should be brought in a separate bag or box.

Only individuals are eligible for the program, not businesses, according to the department. People bringing guns are asked to park in the department’s visitors parking lot and use the side entrance to the Community Room on South Main Street.

Residents who want to make a donation to the buyback program should send checks to the department made payable to The Norwalk Police Department. Write “Gun Buy Back” in the memo field.

  • 21

Comments (21)

You are 100 percent correct in your understanding of the 2nd amendment . I would suggest that Sturm44, Ken P,and pony tail steve have someone with a bit more education than the 2nd grade read it to them. They seem to be right wing wackos and as we all know that is now covered under obamacare as a mental illness..I just read some of pony tail steve's past posts and he seems to have an advanced case of the disease.

LOL. I actually have books & research papers on my shelf written by scholars about the 2nd Amendment that I have read. How about you?

Perhaps you should read the book "A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America" by left winger Saul Cornell where even he admits that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right.

Of course, he then goes on to twist all meanings to explain why pretty much any gun control can be passed anyways. But you would enjoy that part.

Mmmm Hmmm, please tell me more about myself. I've needed a good therapist for years & you must be excellent being able to diagnose me over the internet.

Its too bad the Supreme Court disagreed with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in both DC v Heller & McDonald v Chicago. I'm sure you could explain to them the errors of their ways.

The 2nd amendment says: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Each state has a militia today. They are called the National Guard.

There is no authority under the constitution for individuals to have guns. If the founding fathers wanted us to all have guns — particularly guns in schools — don’t you think they’d be smart enough to say that?

That’s not what they said.

Grammarians would note that the amendment has a subject and a predicate. If you pull out the clauses, the basic right reads “A well regulated militia… shall not be infringed.”

Up until President Bush, no president in history had the audacity to re-write the Constitution through interpretation. Every other president had defined the Second Amendment to apply to the “people” as the people’s rights, in the same way that the Tenth Amendment applies to the “States” or to the “people.”

The Second Amendment doesn’t apply to individuals. To believe this you would have to concede that the Founding Fathers, who were clear and careful throughout the document, erred.

Sorry Tim T, your understanding of the 2nd Amendment is outdated & incorrect. The collective view of the amendment has pretty much been given up even by progressive legal eagles like Laurence Tribe. Scholarly research performed over that last 30-40 years shows that an individual right was what the founders had in mind. I suggest reading some of the research done by David E. Young, Stephen P. Halbrook, Clayton Cramer & David T. Hardy.

The Supreme Court in DC v Heller (2008) agreed 9-0 that the amendment guaranteed an individual right to own a firearm. The 5-4 split came with where to draw regulatory lines. Note that several of the authors listed above are mentioned in the ruling.

You understanding of the militia is also flawed. The National Guard did not exist until 1903, so they certainly weren't referring to that in 1791. If you check federal code (which state code is similar to) you will find how the militia is defined:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Basically every able bodied adult is a member of the unorganized militia.

Its interesting that liberals do not understand the 2nd amendment.
They are the people that will believe anything they are told, and never question anything. Mob mentality if you will.

Well Tim, once again your ignorance shows thru in many ways. First the National Guard is a professional military force, not a militia. Look it up, i forget when exactly the Dick act passed but it will explain things for you.

The founders, when asked about the militia said that it is the entire body of the people.

As for the idea that they didnt intend for people to have guns, thats laughable, not even Dianne Finestien trys to say that. They had NO police force, they had NO standing army, they most certainly meant the people and if you dont think there were guns in schools you again prove your stupidity. Heck until only one generation ago we had widespread school rifle teams. Nope, if Sandy Hook happened in 1800 every father in the town would have been EXPECTED to show up armed to protect the kids and anybody standing in their way would have been run out of town.

If you are correct, perhaps you can explain where a well regulated militia was mustered from in an unarmed society?

The 2nd Amendment has ALWAYS been known by scholars & jurists to apply to the people, a President cant change that. Recent rulings by the SCOTUS backs that up.

Are you aware of what the CT constitution says on the matter? Section 1 article 15 "every citizen has the RIGHT to BEAR arms in defense of himself & the state" So even if your upside down logic were correct it wouldnt matter in CT.

But dont worry Tim, none of the guns used by the guys you support will be turned in. Your criminal buddies will still be abvle to prey on people who ignore their right to self defense.

In closeing I'll address this comment;

"If the founding fathers wanted us to all have guns — particularly guns in schools — don’t you think they’d be smart enough to say that? "

Then as now, laws weren't written explaining what we CAN do, they were written explaining what we could NOT do. The 2nd Amendment is a statement of restriction limiting the govts power to legislate, just as it says. They didnt need to say anything about where we could carry a gun because the answer would have been anyplace. That too is clear if you do a little research. The only thing they really debated about was a need to state the obvious, to many it seemed a waste of space, they had just won a war of independence WITH CIVILIAN MILITIAS AND CIVILIAN ARMS. Only an idiot would think they wanted an un armed population.

Bravo! Nice to see a post based on reality instead of lies hyperbole!

lets thank the Mayor for an outstanding move years too late.Lets thank Tom for setting up ovetime and extra help surpassing any buy back money that was free I'm sure this program comes with expenses.

So when will the council move towards more officers on the street?Now that Joanne is gone one less negative vote for Dick.

The Daily is understnding crime sells ads crime sells web time crime in Norwalk is still rising.

Some one tell Dick buy back on the weapon of choice lately has been the knife,this surely suggests knives are the next thing that has to be talked about,

This all looks good but what about the fr!ggin cime Mo?

If they think cold weather stops crime or slows it down its not so,it only slows the bleeding.

Figure out what the "street value" is for those guns, then add that to your tax bill. The point of a buyback is not to have a municipality recreate a gun show. The point is to get guns off the street. I wish the Norwalk Police Department well: I do admit to a certain amount of skepticism but, again, hope it has some success.

I just read that post on this subject on norwalk topix...very interesting...Ihowever question if it will happen..I would love to hear what others think

Please post the link of the article you just read on topix that has to do with Norwalk gun buy back program.

I would be curious to know who sets the prices. A new, AR15 is around $1300. I would think selling it for $100 would be a grand mother that does not want it in the house!!!
Going to be interesting to see the numbers.

No one who has purchased a firearm legally would turn them in for that amount of money.
Now for the people who stole them yeah it is free money.

I bet there are thugs stealing guns from their thug friends to bring in. What are they going to do, report it?
I really am curious how many guns they will net.

I'm curious as to how the NPD arrived at the buyback values of $50 for rifles, $75 for handguns, and $100 for assault weapons. Are those really the street values of those guns?

I doubt it, though I buy guns from legal dealers not on the street. I cannot imagine an evil assault weapon, especially as described in the article one being a real assault weapon capable of select fire, costing a mere $100.

Matter of fact I think it a terrible injustice that if a person brought a select fire weapon in they not be arrested. Its a FEDERAL crime & a police chief giving people amnesty for ANY gun crime in this climate should be cause for termination. We need to get the criminals off the streets.
Instead we are inviting illegal gun owners to turn in things they cant even legally posess for money. So once again, we let the violent criminals walk free patting ourselves on the back for making them less dangerous? Its so illogical as to be insulting that we accept it.