Implementing a gun ban in the US. A logical progression.

This is a logical thought exercise on how I think people at various levels of federal, state, and local governments will respond to attempts at implementing, and enforcing gun registering, bans, and confiscation.

I believe there is people in positions of power that truly want to rid the US of guns, and other things that can be used as weapons. I also believe that they won’t achieve their goal.. The question is how far they will get before things break down. They will have gun registration first, which some may comply with, and support, and then you will have the gun bans which most local authorities and citizens will openly reject.

You may have higher level people in the justice department and ATF that may put resistance to even enforcing such laws. Those people will be quickly replaced. You will have a good portion of lower level people that will not agree to the plan, so they will either drag out things as slowly as possible, or flat out screw with the implementation in such a way that it will put a monkey wrench in the system. Depending on how many of those there is, it may be easy to find out who is causing the problems, and who isn’t. If there is enough, then the higher ups won’t know who is telling the truth. If there is few, they will quickly be isolate, and replaced.

Depending on how well the federal and local governments implement a registration system, it may speed up, slow down, or totally put off any gun confiscation plans. Once the people in power think the registration system’s implementation is relatively complete. Then they will start moving through with ideas, and finally laws, requiring people to turn in certain registered firearms that have been determined to be too dangerous. Or it will be like the current AWB they are floating that will ban transfers to the point that you will basically have to surrender them to the government after you die. Anyone that gives them to their children, or sells them will be criminals, along with the people that get the gun.

You will have a portion of the state governors and legislators that will welcome the gun restrictions and bans. And you will have a portion that does not. The ones that don’t may come in different levels of contempt. Ones that act like they are helping carry out the word of the law, but drag their feet, and turn in total false numbers, while actually doing nothing. And the ones that tell the federal government point blank to “stick it where the sun doesn’t shine” The really uppity ones will threaten the federal agents with arrest if they try to enforce any gun regulations in their state.

You will have some, if not the majority, in the local law Enforcement that will refuse to carry out such activities, as local sheriffs have made clear, as demonstrated by another thread. That is even if the state governor does support such a gun ban. They will just refuse to comply with the orders from the statehouse and the federal government. Like California. You have some pro gun sheriffs that will readily hand out CCW permits, while you have others that have contempt for gun owners. Compliance with, and enforcement of firearms bans would follow along the same lines.

You will also have local prosecutors that would refuse to pursue gun ban violations or the like.

If it just goes to that point, and they push it no further, then you may have a situation where there is a law on the books, but no one (or very few places) really enforce it. Most of the places across the country would have no enforcement of the law, and people would use the banned guns openly with no fear of repercussion. You would have sections of the country where the law it “technically” enforced, but no one will actually bother you unless you carry the banned firearm openly down main street and threaten people with it. You will have areas where it will be partially enforced. In those areas, as long as keep the firearms inside and hidden, then they are not going to actually raid you house to look for them no mater how much your neighbor complains to the police that you have them. They just want you to appear to follow the law. And finally, there will be places where the bans will be fully enforced. They will make searches of houses that people have reported as possibly having such banned items. They will also look through purchasing record to find the houses that most likely have such weapons and raid them.

It would be about like Canada was when it had it’s gun registry. In the majority of Canada the local mounty would not even attempt to enforce registry or gun violations. You could have an unregistered gun right in the back seat of the car when they pull you over for speeding, and the mounty wouldn’t even ask you about it. He would just give you your speeding ticket, and send you on your way. There was only a few parts of Canada where the gun registry was actually enforced with any vigor.

You may have a situation where overzealous local authorities, combined with willing federal agents may make a raid, or several raids which will cause an open firefight between citizens, and local people. Depending on how big the localized revolt is, it may be crushed, or it may draw in support from outside. If it grows to much, then it may prompt the president to declare marital law to bring in troops to settle things down.

If there is no flashpoints, and things stagnate at that level, then the question is, will the federal authorities try and push things any further than that? It will be obvious to them that no one is actually paying attention to the laws. If they try to send in federal agents into states that are not enforcing the gun ban to raid houses of people that have obviously got a lot of banned guns, then you may get the local government, and law enforcement interfering with the situation to some level. They may just obstruct the operation. They may actually try and arrest the federal officers. If the federal officers actively resist arrest, then you may actually have a situation where there is an open gun battle between federal and state law enforcement.

Or you may have a situation where local citizens fight the federal agents with the blessing of the local government. If a home owner, or a group of home owners shoot dead a few federal agents trying to do a banned weapons check, the local authorities may treat it as a justifiable self defense shooting, and not lay any charges on the local citizens that shot the federal agents. Or they may even show up to help the local citizens shoot the federal agents.

If the president doesn’t jump to the martial law level, then it will lead to the next logical step in the struggle. It will only take a couple times where a group of federal agents is arrested, shot, or killed, without any condemnation from the local government, or action against the people shooting them, before the federal agents will start refusing to follow orders. The central office can order all the raids they want, but the actual federal agents that would have to carry out that raid would just flat out refuse to do it. Some of the smarter federal agents will see the writing on the wall from the get go, and refuse to raid the first house to begin with.

Once it gets to the point that the federal agents refuse to do anything, the only option left to actually attempt to enforce the law, will be the military. To get them involved, the president would probably declare a state of martial law after an incident like I stated where the county law enforcement was shooting at federal agents that where doing gun sweeps. The question will be what side will the military take if martial law is declared. If they side with the federal government, and put troops on the ground to go after the local law enforcement that shot up the federal agents, then we will step into a gorilla style civil war. If half of the military sides with the people, and half with the federal government, then will have an old fashion civil war. If it sides with the people, then there will probably a citizen supported military coup that will hold things down until another president, and group of high level officials can be put in place that will respect the word of the constitution.

The only way out for the federal government before or after martial law is declared, is if the congress and house of representatives sees that it’s going to end bad, and either repeals such laws with a veto proof majority, or they impeach the president to stop the situation before it’s gets any worse.

Only time can tell how far it will go, and which way it will go.

historically, what follows disarmament?

tyranny, concentration camps & ultimately, mass genocide

This is much ado about nothing.

There will be no gun ban. At worst, Obama will somehow get an assault weapon ban pushed through to appease the liberal base and make them think they got a win.

If the Dems tried an outright ban they would get crushed again in the 2014 mid-term elections. The economy is still going to suck worse than it does now, and the last thing the Dems want to do is give the Republicans anything to point to like a gun ban.

The Republicans are imploding and stand for nothing. All the Dems have to do is keep from doing anything idiotic.

Originally posted by minnow
historically, what follows disarmament?

tyranny, concentration camps & ultimately, mass genocide

I know, but I was not really intending to contemplate what happens after full confiscation happens. I was just contemplating the activities at the various levels which would play out in the attempt to try to implement such plans.

reply to post by Mr Tranny

1) The Federal Govt will attempt to Federalize Local Law Enforcement (fr fusion centers to Operation Cable Splicer).
2) Under National Martial Law (the one where all of the Executive Orders start getting executed) the Congress will be suspended for 6 months and thus all power will be in the Executive Branch (even the civilian justice system will be replaced by military justice - hence the term "martial law").

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


Yes I know what martial law is, but there is a high likelihood that such abuse of the constitution and power will cause the military to turn against him in part, or in total. It is common knowledge that there has been plenty of military units that have fragged their commander because he was wanting to do something they thought was suicidal, or just plain stupid.

If there was a time for such a thing, this would be it.

...........edit............
And in regard to forced federalizing of state and local agencies. The governor could call the state’s national guard to try and obstruct any such attempt. I am pretty sure the national guard would ignore any orders from the white house in such a situation, and strictly follow the orders of the governor. Then the only option the president would have after that is to send in national military. That again would drop down to the question of the military siding with the people or the president. If the president gave them the order to attack the state national guard, I don’t think there would be a very high likelihood of them complying.


Then you could have another option. When the local rebellion happens, or the state calls out the National Guard to kick the federal people out, and the federal government does nothing. The federal government would basically roll over and play dead. That could lead to the federal government just becoming a passive force that no pays attention to any more. The states would basically just fall back onto themselves because the federal government just gives up. That is not likely, but it could happen.

One small case in point: Little Rock Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957.
Governor Faubus called out the National Guard to enforce segregation in schools
President Eisenhower called out the Army to enforce de-segregation in schools.
No shots fired, Little Rock Central High School admits a handful of african american students - many kids in school "missed" most of that year, it was quite disruptive to the educational system as not only were the public schools affected, also the private/church schools.

My point is: who knows what would really happen if the states and fedgov disagree to the point of calling out the military - it HAS happened before, it could happen again.

ganjoa

reply to post by Mr Tranny


Sure it is of course you won't want to see what they're progressing us to. Want to know? Just do some reading:
Nazi Gun Control

I don't think America was ever free...if we were you'd have the right to do all the drugs you want (This would also weed out the derelicts of society which would kill themselves off with overdoses) We'd have the freedom to smoke anywhere we wanted to (cigarettes) And no second hand smoke is not a killer if they never put 20,000 other poisonous things into them that isn't found naturally in tobacco, we'd have the freedom to drink anywhere we want as long as not driving because that does infringe on other's rights for safety on roadways, but you get the point. I think everything outside of murder and theft or infringing on others' rights should be given to the public. We never were free. Don't even get me started on gay marriage, when does government have the right to tell ya how to conduct your sexual lives/preferences and such?

Come and get'em