Firearms confiscation. How would it go down?

[Guest 270win]

AR's are now one of the most popular rifles in America. Who would have ever thought Wal Mart would be selling AR's. I'm not concerned that much about gun control with the current makeup of Congress. The president does not make up the laws.

[Guest ThePunisher]

I'm not concerned that much about gun control with the current makeup of Congress. The president does not make up the laws.

He just tramples the Constitution, and side steps Congress through executive fiat, bureaucratic bullying, bribing congressmen and senators (Obamacare), and totally ignoring the will of the people through Justice Department lawsuits brought by Holder. And he's hoping the ignorant will re-elect him to four more years so he can appoint more liberal SCOTUS so they will overturn laws that have upheld our liberties and freedoms up until now.

Edited October 8, 2012 by ThePunisher

[bvarnell]

Ever hear of Executive Orders?

Look at how many Obama has issued vs. all previous Presidents.

The president does not make up the laws.

[QuietDan]

I've tried to leave a detailed post about what I expect would happen after a Federal Firearms Confiscation was declared, and each time, I think I've hit some sort of keyword filter and I found myself kicked out of the post. It might be my imagination, but it's happened twice in this thread and never in another one. TGO David's board, TGO David's rules. I'll go carefully here.

I'm thinking the Governors of the various States would counter and strongly OPPOSE any move towards Confiscation by Federal Forces. They'd be on pretty solid ground from a Tenth Amendment perspective. I'm thinking the Governors of the various States would take approximately the same tack they took 150 years ago for the Civil War and proceed to raise State Companies, Regiments and Brigades to operate locally in conjunction with local Police, County Sheriffs and State Troopers for small unit guarding, patrolling and tactical missions, and in conjunction with the State's National Guard for larger unit tactical and strategic missions. All of this, of course, describes the raising and activation of the State-sponsored unorganized "mil#######." It would be just as described (and for the same purpose as anticipated) in the U.S. Constitution.

If things got ugly and stupid, we'd have to go with what we got, at the level of preparation and training that had been achieved up to that time. That would mean that you would have to decide in advance if you want to be capable and ready to be a Private, a Corporal, a Sergeant, a Top-Sergeant, a Lieutenant, a Captain, a Major, a Lieutenant Colonel, or a Colonel. Expect former or retired Military or Police personnel to be graded up about two grades, and expect there to be a shortage of qualified leaders for the MANY volunteers. Tennessee is the Volunteer State, after all, and after all this time. Such organizations would probably top out with leadership at the Colonel level before being incorporated as a unit of State National Guard.

Federal-level confiscation against the States was tried once, though at the time it was Sovereign-level confiscation against the various Colonies by British troops, and it ended badly. The first Confiscation mission involved the powder magazines and arms-stores in the Concord, Massachusetts area, and there were more casualties than the British expected, from so many quarters, that their mission remained uncompleted and the force was routed all the way back to Boston under nearly continuous gunfire. And there's been a few changes since in technology and organization that would make it an equally (or more so) bad idea now.

Edited October 8, 2012 by QuietDan

[runco]

It would start by sheep turning the guns/ammo in first. Then simply if you are caught with a gun/ammo, or word gets out that you might have guns/ammo, then simple government flexing of its muscle will occur. Knock at the door, take down, arrest, and no more guns/ammo. $10,000 fine per gun later, and 2 years in prison per gun later, you will will return to what you have left. After a few occuraces like this, the non-sheep, but intellectuals left will make risk/award type decisions, then there you have your answer.

[QuietDan]

It would start by sheep turning the guns/ammo in first. Then simply if you are caught with a gun/ammo, or word gets out that you might have guns/ammo, then simple government flexing of its muscle will occur. Knock at the door, take down, arrest, and no more guns/ammo. $10,000 fine per gun later, and 2 years in prison per gun later, you will will return to what you have left. After a few occuraces like this, the non-sheep, but intellectuals left will make risk/award type decisions, then there you have your answer.

Who would they turn their guns and ammo TO? The local police? I can't imagine the local police wanting to have ANYTHING to do with a Federal gun grab.

Who, the TSA? The TSA personnel are in the TSA because they were unsuccessful in delivering PIZZA. "Here's your pizza, and please put all of your guns and ammo in the trunk of my car."

Har!

Edited October 8, 2012 by QuietDan

[runco]

Who would they turn their guns and ammo TO? The local police? I can't imagine the local police wanting to have ANYTHING to do with a Federal gun grab.

Who, the TSA? The TSA personnel are in the TSA because they were unsuccessful in delivering PIZZA. "Here's your pizza, and please put all of your guns and ammo in the trunk of my car."

Har!

I would imagine it would be like the drug roundup, the hazardous chemical roundup, etc. As to who? Local leo or Fed, they have a sworn duty, if they personal object to the law, they need to resign their post or face termination. This is all hypothetical.

[QuietDan]

I would imagine it would be like the drug roundup, the hazardous chemical roundup, etc. As to who? Local leo or Fed, they have a sworn duty, if they personal object to the law, they need to resign their post or face termination. This is all hypothetical.

Agreed, all hypothetical. Confiscation is just something that can't be done by half measures. It'd have to be all at once, and everywhere, and it would be CLEARLY illegal, in opposition to the Second Amendment. The State Governors, most of them, just wouldn't stand for it and would counter it within the boundaries of their various States. They pass a State Law to forbid the Feds in their state, and forbid State and Local officers from implementing it. There's just not enough Federal officers to implement a confiscation when the States legally oppose them, and especially so if the States counter the Feds with force.

For the military, and to a similar extent, other Federal, State and Local officers, they will NOT execute illegal orders. It's counter to their commissions. And if they are met with physical opposition, the few stupid enough to try it would rethink it while receiving incoming fire. Imagine Federal officers being arrested by State Troopers, local Police, or even by the State's National Guard.

Edited October 8, 2012 by QuietDan

[Guest HvyMtl]

Simple, I bought an antique. It is not even listed as a firearm on the federal level, cause it is too old... Sorry, do not have a gun, I have an antique. Course that antique shoots 7.62x54r quite accurately.

[runco]

Consider an alternative acceptable solution. Imagine IF several more theater type situations happened, a couple more college campus massacres, and what if someone got a high capacity firearm into a football stadium jam packed, all within a short period of time, i.e. 1-2 years, the public will see past the 2nd amendment, and will want something done now. Then imagine a law being passed stating that the public has 1 year to turn in all weapons to some type of weapons dump, like when they setup to take household chemicals at the local strip mall parking lot, like when they ask for the public to turn in unused medications, like when you drop off your Christmas tree for recycle. Then like I said in the earlier post, the ones that do not turn in guns, you may or may not get caught. But the consequences of being in possession of any firearm will simply be met with severe punishment. Then the hold outs will not be able to fire the guns, will not be able to use in self-defense, and cannot even share with a neighbor/friend they have one. What if the law provides $10,000 for the information of and conviction of any person who may be in possession. Then this will cause brothers, cousins, neighbors, wives, sons, daughters, grandmas, and etc. to rat out the hold outs. Then what will be the point to be hold out!

I recall recently shortly after the Colorado theater massacre, I overheard several people on different occasions at work talking about guns in general. Most people I know don't know that I am a gun nut, so I just listened. These are some to the comments: Why is it so easy to buy a gun, why must gun freaks need more than 4-5 shots anyway. Why can't a hunting gun be the only legal gun to own. They should just ban guns period. My conclusion, the general public are ripe for major change in gun purchases/ownership, it will not take much more to push our society over the edge to make changes.

[JPR1959]

I'd be shocked if any state governments would refuse to help the feds out on this issue. Most states don't the finances, so the fed is their bell cow. I think there'd be 100 million really angry citizens, and I don't know how that would turn out. I hope it never comes to that.

Edited October 9, 2012 by JPR1959

[dlm37015]

its already started it started with the first gun control law.

[DaveTN]

It’s easy to say on a gun forum that its “already startedâ€, or that “gun control is comingâ€. But the facts show a different trend. More states are making it easier to carry. The worse the economy gets the more violent crime we are going to have. As more and more violent attacks occur, and they will, most states are not going to try to fix the problem by taking guns away from its citizens; they are going to recognize a need to be able to defend themselves.

States are going to have the final say on guns; not the Feds. The 2^nd amendment fight is over as far as ownership and carry goes; this is now a States Rights issue. Sure, just like the civil war some will give it lip service the rest of their life, but it’s been decided; you have a constitutional right to own a gun, and it is a right of the state to decide when and where you can carry it.

Sure, the Feds are going to try to outlaw some guns. Will they get AR’s outlawed to the point of where you have to turn them in? Doubtful. Will they get restrictions like the AWB on them? They will try. Will they get high capacity magazines outlawed? Probably.

I’m not giving up any of my guns, and I have no fears that anyone is going to be knocking on (or kicking in ) my door to take them.

Good grief…. Those of you that need a fight to fight don’t need to make up stories of things that are not going to happen. Your economy is collapsing around you. Your children and Grand Children are going to think you are idiots for selling out their future. Take on that battle; it’s one you can win, and it’s real. Instead of trying to figure out how you can run off and hide; stand up and fight.

[TrickyNicky]

^^^ This +1.

While I do agree with OhShoot and MrDavid, IMO too many folks seem like they almost want the UN to "come git em" most of the scenarios mentioned hear are nothing but laughable if your tin foil head gear isn't cutting off the circulation to your noggin.

The most likely gun control that would be successfully executed will be psychological, through "educating" kids little bit by little bit on the "evils and dangers" of guns one day there just won't be the interest for future generations. Once the interest is gone a sole voluntary buy back would suffice just fine for all bit the hold outs.

The good news is this is one scenario we all can combat. By mentoring and teaching young people the skill and pleasure of the shooting sports we do more for the cause in the big picture than by burying an AK and a few cases of munitions in the yard.

[JayC]

Dave,

You keep saying that carry is settled law, but it's not... We don't know how SCOTUS will rule, but there are a number of cases working their way through the court right now that will determine if our God given right to carry a weapon for self protection is protected by the 2nd Amendment or not.

Palmer vs Washington DC is one such case that has been working its way through the court system for the last 3 years, since the 2nd Amendment now impacts the states any ruling in this case would directly impact the states. Who knows how the court will rule, but the lawyer in the case is the same lawyer that was on Heller and McDonald, and he has spoken that this case in his opinion has a much greater chance of a favorable outcome than either of those two cases had...

You're right we fought a civil war over states rights and the states lost... If SCOTUS rules bear means to carry and is therefore protected under the 2nd Amendment... The states will have to come inline... A perfect example of this is Brown v Board of Education.... It may take 2 generations to correct the misdeeds, but it's coming...

As for the related concerns by others about changing the youth, they have a long way to go... go into a gun store today and really look at who is coming in and buying Glocks and AR's... They aren't grandpa there are a lot of 20's and 30's buying weapons today... The anti-gun lobby is 3 generations away from being able to educate away guns, worse case.

And I think Dave is correct the real battle sitting infront of us is a government (at all levels) that has grown out of control... which is taxing a lot, and spending even more... and instead of waking up and realizing we can't afford to these 'entitlement' programs anymore, we continue to throw good money after bad... money which isn't even ours, but money from our Children and Grand Children.

It's much more likely that we see an economic collapse, and a break up of the US over that long before anybody tries to come and take away any of our firearms...

It’s easy to say on a gun forum that its “already startedâ€, or that “gun control is comingâ€. But the facts show a different trend. More states are making it easier to carry. The worse the economy gets the more violent crime we are going to have. As more and more violent attacks occur, and they will, most states are not going to try to fix the problem by taking guns away from its citizens; they are going to recognize a need to be able to defend themselves.

States are going to have the final say on guns; not the Feds. The 2^nd amendment fight is over as far as ownership and carry goes; this is now a States Rights issue. Sure, just like the civil war some will give it lip service the rest of their life, but it’s been decided; you have a constitutional right to own a gun, and it is a right of the state to decide when and where you can carry it.

Sure, the Feds are going to try to outlaw some guns. Will they get AR’s outlawed to the point of where you have to turn them in? Doubtful. Will they get restrictions like the AWB on them? They will try. Will they get high capacity magazines outlawed? Probably.

I’m not giving up any of my guns, and I have no fears that anyone is going to be knocking on (or kicking in ) my door to take them.

Good grief…. Those of you that need a fight to fight don’t need to make up stories of things that are not going to happen. Your economy is collapsing around you. Your children and Grand Children are going to think you are idiots for selling out their future. Take on that battle; it’s one you can win, and it’s real. Instead of trying to figure out how you can run off and hide; stand up and fight.

[crashgordan]

http://www.gunbanobama.com/

http://www.gunbanobama.com/media/9506581/pvf_204_obamafactsheet_insert.pdf

it has happened around the world within the last century...

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated...

--------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

--------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

--------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

--------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

--------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

--------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

it can happen here... and while i agree it would be a fight, and a long process, don't think it's not possible and that there are many powerful people in government that want nothing more...

and with the technology of today, if you are known owner or suspected/rolled on by those who know you, its simply a matter of freezing your bank account, turning off your utilities, etc. until you can prove you are unarmed..

nobody has to knock on your door.

[Oh Shoot]

....States are going to have the final say on guns; not the Feds. The 2^nd amendment fight is over as far as ownership and carry goes; this is now a States Rights issue. Sure, just like the civil war some will give it lip service the rest of their life, but it’s been decided; you have a constitutional right to own a gun, and it is a right of the state to decide when and where you can carry it....

The national blanket permit reciprocity got within just a few votes of passing not very long ago. Think we would have had another civil war over it if it had? It'll probably come up again, too.

Reason I was against it, was that it would have established a precedent. Give everyone right to carry in most all states, later deny carrying in any but home state, or deny carry period, whatever. Once precedence is established, anything goes. Just like now we can be compelled to buy anything the feds tell us we must.

- OS

[Seabeejason]

Like this:

Shut down of electric and water supplies (Fed has been attempting to take control of both from states and local municipalities). Shut down of fuel supply. No fuel, no re-supply. Grocery stores would be empty in 1 day. After 3-5 days people would be getting desperate and panic would set in. Govt. "food trucks" would start coming through neighborhoods and demand trade of guns for food and water. Most people with wives and children would give up their weapons under pressure, no matter what they may say now. A few weeks of this and most guns would have been confiscated. After that, guns and possession of guns would be declared illegal and anyone seen/caught with one would be executed immediately. Incentives would be given to those who rat out friends/family with guns.

Very easily done. Anyone see a problem with this?

Well, considering I have the ability to hunt and grow my own food and filter my own water. I would likely tell those government stooges to kick rocks. If they refused to comply I would turn my guns on them, take their supplies, and they would be walking home. Simple as that.

To even accomplish something like this they would need massive amounts of food and water and soldiers to guard them. Our soldiers are American citizens themselves and where will the government get all that food and water? I don't think our farmers will be willing to provide supplies to a tyrannical government. Heck, farmers are some of the most heavily armed people in this country. Think about it.

[jtmaze]

The national blanket permit reciprocity got within just a few votes of passing not very long ago. Think we would have had another civil war over it if it had? It'll probably come up again, too.

Reason I was against it, was that it would have established a precedent. Give everyone right to carry in most all states, later deny carrying in any but home state, or deny carry period, whatever. Once precedence is established, anything goes. Just like now we can be compelled to buy anything the feds tell us we must.

- OS

I agree. Right now gun ownership is in the hands of state officials and they are a lot easier to control/get rid of. No law ever needs to be passed that the federal government has the right to say that they can override state gun laws then you will see carrying nonexistent and ownership not far behind.

Sent from my iPad in the back yard on a beautiful day…

[mcurrier]

Who would they turn their guns and ammo TO? The local police? I can't imagine the local police wanting to have ANYTHING to do with a Federal gun grab.

For food.

[mikegideon]

For food.

If you can't get food with your guns and ammo, then you need to turn them in

[Guest 270win]

AR's are some of the most common firearms out there when compared to 1994. They are sold at Wal Mart now. I am glad they are now being heavily marketed and sold more because then you don't have to worry as much about the govt trying to pull another 'assault' weapon ban. When I go to my gun club, the AR is one of the more common rifles. All sorts of people are buying them VS people who were buying them in the mid 90's.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There are still enough people in this country who will not let it happen. A total economic collapse will cause

other things that will pale when compared to something like confiscation. When our country is in question,

like who will be in charge, will be something to cling to your guns, constitution and Bible, because the chaos

will be very bad and you had better be prepared to survive if you can't keep the economy going.

Everyone around the world is having problems right now, not just us.

[mcurrier]

If you can't get food with your guns and ammo, then you need to turn them in

Agreed. However...city slickers ain't gonna be walking through the gated community subdivision shooting up the neighbors dog or cat for food, or even squirrels. Highly unlikely that there will be much actual "game" in the inner city or even the suburbs. Country folk...different story altogether. City slickers will give up their guns for food. Country folk will NEVER give up their guns PERIOD.

[Guest CCI]

Agreed. However...city slickers ain't gonna be walking through the gated community subdivision shooting up the neighbors dog or cat for food, or even squirrels. Highly unlikely that there will be much actual "game" in the inner city or even the suburbs. Country folk...different story altogether. City slickers will give up their guns for food. Country folk will NEVER give up their guns PERIOD.

Who do you think will win, if these pull into your town?

#! Edited October 17, 2012 by CCI