Hypothetical: What would happen if the Supreme Court ruled possession of handguns was illegal?

[cherokeeprogressive]

Would the government actually embark on a program to confiscate them? How would it be done? What would be the consequences?

[alittlelark]

1. Hell woud have frozen over to ABSOUTE ZERO....

.....not much movin' around or happening.

[PoliticAverse]

2. DU would have to upgrade its servers. n/t

[Politicalboi]

3. At first I would laugh

Then I would think about how long it will take for mayhem in the streets. Teabaggers armed with misspelled signs. LOL! If they stopped making ammo, it would be a start.

[cherokeeprogressive]

4. Ammo would be made at home.

You'd have to outlaw brass, primers, gunpowder, and probably lead as well, all as individual products.

Misspelled signs? My guess is you'd have anti-gun nuts out there with the signs, attempting to discredit RKBA supporters. Ever notice how those signs you see are held by someone in the back of the crowd, facing the opposite way as everyone else, so no one can see the sign but the person photographing it?

[bluedigger]

5. Hypothetically?

There would be a period of voluntary amnesty for people to turn them in, combined with confiscation of any found during "routine" searches. Eventually including prosecution for those that were retained. Door to door searches would probably result in insurrection, if the government were foolish enough to attempt it. That would be my guess, anyways.

Oh, yeah, and only criminals (and government operatives) would have handguns.

[cherokeeprogressive]

6. That's pretty much exactly the scenario I envisioned.

Amnesty, probably combined with some kind of incentive. After the amnesty period, confiscation during random searches with a hefty penalty possibly including incarceration.

Door-to-door searches would be met with gunfire in nearly nearly every neighborhood. Not pretty.

I wonder if the anti-gun people would cheer that kind of scenario.

[shadowrider]

36. Don't worry, the door to door searches would be done by

the Mexican and Canadian Army's (As one banned but now back poster once said).

[Common Sense Party]

8. "No, Officer. I no longer have a handgun. It was taken from me by a criminal with ninja skills

when I tried to defend my home and family. Now I arm myself with canned beans.

"Yes, you can search, Officer. But you will find no gun here.

"Please, please don't take away my beans, Officer."

[Meiko]

9. Never happen

The politicians are aware that such a decision could quite possibly bring on a country wide upheaval. It could escalate to the point where the entire country is engulfed in civil unrest. There is no way the government has the manpower to go door to door looking for guns unless they used the military and that would throw more fuel on the fire. There would be riots, shootings and possibly the formation of militia groups that would carry out attacks on the government. Although nobody knows for sure what would happen I know it would be ugly and do serious damage to our republic.

[Logical]

10. Never happen. And if it did then once again only criminals would have guns.

[safeinOhio]

11. They already did.

In Chicago vs Macdonald the court said states can ban handguns from places, other than the home and certain citizens from possessing them, like criminals.

[permatex]

12. He's talking about a nationwide ban where it would be illegal

to even posses a gun no matter where. My personal feeling is that there would be total insurrection once the govt. tried going door to door. As far as deploying the military to aid in confiscation, some units might obey but I suspect the majority would either sit by or join the insurrection.

Any way you look at it, this country would be done.

[safeinOhio]

14. He said handguns

As many as 28% of American household have a HANDGUN in the home. Even though it'll never happen, I don't think there would be an insurrection if the rules on HANDGUNS were made more restrictive.

This post is a typical NRA fear tactic to suggest something like this would ever happen. Much like Obama's secret 10 point plan to take away grandpa's shotgun.

A more likely situation would be, what would happen if there was a large increase in political assassinations of elected officials by right-wing radicals with handguns? I see that as way more likely to happen as there has been a large increase in that kind of talk by the right wing after the half Irish man was elected. Very little talk about a total ban on handguns. A lot of talk about an insurrection by right wing radio host and none by left wing radio host about a total ban on handguns. So, let's talk about reality.

[permatex]

15. He said a total ban on handguns

and I think you got it wrong, the minute the govt. tried to go door to door and confiscate, and with the first govt. shooting of someone who doesn't turn in their gun, would trigger an outcry leading to an insurrection.
Of course thats just my opinion and I readily admit it could be wrong, but I don't think so.

But this is all a moot point as a handgun ban in this country will never happen.

[safeinOhio]

47. They'd never go door to door.

They have the master list of NRA membership and that is all they would use.

[cherokeeprogressive]

51. Only an absolute fool would believe or even suggest that EVERY handgun owner

was a member of the NRA. I am not now nor have I ever been. That fact alone pretty much puts to rest your bullshit meme about anyone discussing RKBA being a right-wing NRA member.

I know the game though... It's played all the time. What folks do is try to end discussion by shaming others. "Your having a gun means you have a little penis and are trying to compensate." It's nothing new, but it is becoming less and less effective each and every time people like you attempt it.

[safeinOhio]

54. I'd bet only 10% of gun owners belong to the NRA,

but about 90% of NRA members own guns. I've never asserted discussing RKBA makes one a right-wing NRA member. However, the topic of this thread boarders on typical NRA fear mongering like Wayne Lapierre spouts everyday.

It is completely insane to suggest that this administration is thinking about taking away anyones legal handgun.

[gejohnston]

55. I think it is closer to five or six percent

based on 4.4 million NRA members and the often cited 80 million gun owners.

[cherokeeprogressive]

56. "They have the master list of NRA membership and that is all they would use."

I guess I misunderstood when you prefaced that statement with something like (and I paraphrase) "They'd never go door to door."

Silly me I thought you were implying that all handguns could be confiscated using the "NRA Master List". I took that to mean all handgun owners were NRA members.

[safeinOhio]

57. I've always thought it strange

that radical gun owners fear the government being able to trace handguns or long guns on the premiss that they could come and take them away. Then they join and pay dues to the NRA, so that puts them on the list of gun owners. I've heard of cops that target cars with NRA bumper stickers. You'd be safer with a peace sign on your bumper.

I'm a legal gun owner with a CCW and try to always follow the law. I favor the registration of all legal handguns, but not long guns. But, that's just me. I catch hell from both sides and that suits me just fine.

[S_B_Jackson]

13. Sales of pvc pipe and axle grease would explode.....

and the Coast Guard might find itself indudated with "Rescue Calls" from all the capsized boats.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. Before this happened...

...there would have been a long stretch where congress debated and worked to pass such a law to begin with. These types of movements usually begin as knee-jerk reactions to some unfortunate event out of which handguns were demonized. Therefore the real question is, what could that event have possibly been? I would conjecture that at that point in US history many would be leaving the country for a better one offering more hope. Most probably this would occur after a second civil war, the outcome of which was some successful secessions.

In short this would be far in the future and the US would not be the country it is today in almost any sense. Most state governments would have changed simply into regional arms of the federal government. Some further signs would be:
-all commerce would be subject to federal control
-efforts and expenditures for gather intelligence would focus primarily on domestic targets rather than foreign
-major changes to the military commands, realignment of and consolidation among National Guard, State Guards and various special police units
-mandatory military service, mandatory ROTC
-oppressive taxes

[DanTex]

17. Handguns are illegal in many other countries.

The consequences would less murder and gun violence. Also, right-wing gun crazies would get upset. But those people are already upset, so that wouldn't be much of a change.

Politically, it would be unlikely to occur in the US. But if it did there wouldn't be any "confiscation". There would be some kind of amnesty/buyback period during which the law abiding handgun owners would turn their guns in. Not everyone would turn in their handguns, but the vast majority would. Some people would keep their handguns illegally, but if they are ever caught in possession of a gun they could be sent to prison.

[Lizzie Poppet]

20. You couldn't be more wrong.

"Not everyone would turn in their handguns, but the vast majority would."

You couldn't be more wrong. I have absolutely no doubt that compliance would be under 20%, and possibly far under.

I also sincerely doubt that there woudl be a significant decrease in homicide or gun violence. Given that the rather large majority of these crimes are committed by persons with significant criminal records, and that these persons are highly unlikely to comply with a gun ban (they're already breaking the law by possessing guns), the remaining pool of potential crimes that might be averted by a ban is relatively small. The inevitable low rate of compliance with a ban would reduce this pool even further.

The most significant effect would probably be a negative one: tens of millions of (formerly) law-abiding gun owners, who would previously have been counted on to cooperate with law enforcement in most any given situation would suddenly have every reason not to. Creating an adversarial relationship between millions of citizens and law enforcement (for no real benefit) would be the height of stupidity.

None of this will ever happen, of course. Broad bans of firearms are not a potential political reality in this country.

[DanTex]

23. I could be a lot more wrong!

For example, if I repeated NRA taking points like you just did...

[shadowrider]

34. Using logic and reason is now an NRA talking point? Sheesh, who knew? n/t

[Lizzie Poppet]

45. Nice try.

Actually, that's a fib: it was an absolutely fucking pathetic try. Not only did you complete fail to address any of the points made, you blurted out a completely unwarranted* assumption couched in a manner that made it an implied ad hominem.

You're spectacularly bad at this.


*Not an NRA member, and have no idea what that organization's "talking points" might be...

[shadowrider]

46. If you're female, I think I love you..:)

If you're male, forget that comment. (just for the record).

[permatex]

21. Yeah,

how well did alcohol prohibition work? How well has the drug prohibition worked?
You have no grasp on reality when it comes to gun rights in this country.
The only thing I agree with you is it is unlikely to happen in this country. How long do you think any congress would last that enacted a gun ban in this country? We only have to look at 1994 as a recent example.

[DanTex]

25. Yes, because guns are just like alcohol and drugs!

Do you guys all go to the same indoctrination camp?

[permatex]

26. Alcohol and drugs have killed far more than guns

but to answer your little snark, the principle is the same, when you try to ban a popular item, there is a backlash.

[oneshooter]

48. How would you pay for them? The Forth Amendment is still in effect, isn,t it?

[Arctic Dave]

43. So you are saying gun ownership is an addiction?

Betty Ford is going to have quadruple the size of the clinic.

[PavePusher]

61. Are you saying that all drug and alcohol users are addicts?

That is the clear implication of your question.

[Arctic Dave]

62. The implications are significantly higher if you do.

[gejohnston]

22. outside of UK, name one.

I bet you can't.

[DanTex]

24. Japan.

[permatex]

28. And yet the criminals have no problem getting guns.

[DanTex]

30. Actually, the UK and Japan have far less homicides and gun crimes than the US.

But don't let me disturb your fantasy worldview.

[shadowrider]

33. Japan has less homicides?

A man goes crazy and kills his family of 5, then kills himself. According to the crime (police) statistics, there were 6 suicides instead of 5 murders and one suicide.

See, it keeps the homicide rate down.

[DanTex]

37. Yes, Japan has less homicides. Far less, in fact.

The US has far more homicides than any other developed nation. We also have far more permissive gun laws. 2+2=????

[gejohnston]

40. a lot of it has to do with culture

and it being kind of a police state. The way they count murder/suicides and cold cases as suicides does not help either. Oh yeah, the whole "developed" nation vs "undeveloped nation" is so 1950s.

[Meiko]

66. I see your avatar is the Air Force symbol

I am retired AF myself, 20 years as a crew chief. I am sorry but I have spent more than a little time in Japan and I can't agree with your Japan is a police state comment. The Japanese have a very ordered society and guns are not part of their culture and history like they are here in the US. Their crime rates are low as you would expect. It's a great place to live.

[gejohnston]

67. Not a police state in the same way China is

It is kind of a soft police state, that is to say obedience to authority figures and they don't take their version of the BoR very seriously the same way we do here. Plus the whole home visit thing. Not something you notice living there and not having any negative interaction with the cops or their legal system, but something you read about in human rights blogs, like a preference for forced confessions.
Perhaps police state is the wrong term, since they are democratic, but their civil liberty protections seem to exist in theory only.
I was at Kadena in the late 80s, and loved the place how about you? If I could, I would live there, Okinawa anyway.

[Meiko]

68. Yea

I never had any negative interaction with the police. Of course being on active duty you tend to steer away from that sort of thing. I was stationed at Misawa, the snow was great it was a fantastic area. The entire country is outstanding as far as I am concerned. I always said if I ever won the lottery and had lots of money I would live there. Then I realized I don't play the lottery but it was a nice dream anyway.

I find the Japanese very obedient to authority and will most often comply without question. You see so few disturbances there like you do here it is hard to judge, they just don't have the same social problems. Their society is not perfect but it is interesting and I always felt extremely safe there. I could walk the streets all hours of the night and nobody ever bothered me. I tried to travel inside the country as much as I could and the Japanese people were always friendly and helpful, never a problem or an attitude issue. Lot's of drinking going on.

[littlewolf]

71. retired Navy here ...

stationed in Kami-Seya ... and Hanza Okinawa ...

my Japanese friends would tell me that all police are highly respected
except those in traffic division because of speeding tickets ....
used to laugh alot over that

[gejohnston]

29. I'm impressed, I actually could name a few more

although their crime rates don't have a thing to do with their gun laws. That is the advantage of actually living and traveling in some of those countries rather than simply pointing to them on a map and mimicking a talking point.

[shadowrider]

31. Don't forget Mexico, Jamaica and Somalia

How're their murder rates?

[DanTex]

38. Yes, Somalia! That's a great point of comparison!

[shadowrider]

41. The questions was "Name one country outside of the UK that bans guns"

I gave you 3 more. Somalia does ban guns. Why laugh at the truth?

[oldhippie]

72. Oh sure. Just like all the assault rifles that got turned in ....

... in Calif.

If the police go door to door trying to take guns, they will run out of police (or soldiers) long before we run out of guns. I know many people who believe certain things are worth fighting and dying for.

[jeepnstein]

18. Marijuana, Cocaine, Heroin, et al...

They're illegal. They're also all very easy to buy. What makes you think a handgun would be any different? Sure, law-abiding folks like you and me would get rid of our handguns but I seriously doubt criminals would slow down one little bit. All it would do would make it even easier for them to declare open season on the elderly and weak. Maybe allowing criminals to declare open season on the elderly and weak is considered a progressive value in some parts of the country but here in flyover land it's considered just plain dumb.

[PavePusher]

19. ACW II.

Good luck with that.

[orpupilofnature57]

27. no , imposing a police state , mass riots

[bowens43]

32. the country would be a much better, safer place. A definite step toward civilization. nt

[shadowrider]

35. It would be, hypothetically, provided you could get the bad guys to

give up their guns too and make a pinky swear promise they won't get more.

[dtom67]

39. What a waste...

This entire discussion serves no purpose other than to give the gop base a reason to show up at the polls.


All we are doing in this group is to get out the Vote for Republicans.

Please.

Please.

Stop.

Our Democracy needs you.

I Know it is tough, but we can't even get a jobs bill through congress.

Why worry about this stuff????

[spin]

44. Good point. If we wish as Democrats to save this nation we need to stop pushing gun control ...

The gun control issue has proved to be a ball and chain attached to the ankle of the Democratic Party for many years. Gun control had popular support prior to the passage of the "assault weapons" ban but that ill conceived law enabled the Republican Party to gain votes from many gun owners, their families and their friends.

A high percentage of gun owners felt that the "assault weapons" ban was an just an incremental first step that could eventually lead to a ban on all semi-auto firearms and handguns. The Democratic Party was seen as the prime driver behind this effort to ban firearms and the Republican Party effectively used the ban as a wedge issue to increase its voting base and win many close elections. The results have led to the disastrous state our nation is in today after the eight years of Bush the Younger.

Eighty million people own an estimated three hundred million firearms in the United States. Many states now allow honest citizens to legally carry handguns and perhaps eight million do at least on an occasional basis.This is a significant block of voters to alienate especially since the issue of gun control has lost it's momentum in recent years.

October 26, 2011
Record-Low 26% in U.S. Favor Handgun Ban
Support for stricter gun laws in general is lowest Gallup has measured

PRINCETON, NJ -- A record-low 26% of Americans favor a legal ban on the possession of handguns in the United States other than by police and other authorized people. When Gallup first asked Americans this question in 1959, 60% favored banning handguns. But since 1975, the majority of Americans have opposed such a measure, with opposition around 70% in recent years.








http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun-ban.aspx

We face serious problems in this nation and attempting to restrict or ban firearms in order to reduce gun crime is a foolish waste of time and resources and is counterproductive to our more important goals. We should do our best to see that existing laws are enforced and also to increase the penalty for the straw purchase of firearms or smuggling of such weapons. Of course it will be very difficult to convince those voters who fled the Democratic Party over the gun control issue to return.

[cherokeeprogressive]

50. Goodness gracious me... Imagine the audacity of discussing gun control in the RKBA forum!

This specific discussion has absolutely no bearing on the gop base or any other base; political, military, or soup.

You seem to ascribe waaaay more influence to this tiny little corner of a liberal discussion board than it actually has. I'm afraid I shan't refrain from discussing what is one of the most misunderstood and argued over of all the ten amendments commonly known as The Bill of Rights.

Thank you very much.

[Arctic Dave]

42. Shotgun and rifle sales would go up?

DU would have one less forum?

[Marinedem]

49. Sorry officer.

Sorry officer. Some former burglar reached into my pants and threw my disassembled pistol in the bushes.

[shadowrider]

53. That's funny, I don't care who you are..:)

[beevul]

63. ROFL.

Officer: Now, Be honest sir, did he beat you with a bicycle wheel too?

We've recently had a rash of incidents...

[CokeMachine]

64. Very good!!

Was he also pointing a can of beans at you?

[AtheistCrusader]

69. Tragic kayaking accident.

[bluerum]

52. Never happen. They would have to overturn two centuries

of constitutional precedent.

This is just fear mongering. Stirring up the hate.

[hack89]

58. If the states refuse to pass legislation outlawing the possession of handguns

then nothing will happen. Federal LEO has very limited jurisdiction.

A good example is the war on drugs. The vast majority of drug arrests are done at state level using state laws.

[cherokeeprogressive]

59. I thought the 2nd Amendment effectively took that ability away from the states.

Wouldn't federal law trump state law in a case like that?

[hack89]

60. There are jurisdictional limits to Federal gun laws

look no further than the so called gun show loophole. The 2A does not give the Federal govt supremacy over all gun laws. States can grant more gun rights than the federal government - what they cannot do is restrict gun rights beyond what the SC defines as constitutional. States have sovereign powers that the Federal government cannot intrude into - drugs being a good example. The Federal government says drugs are illegal yet many states have legalized pot. And the feds have no legal ground to challenge them.

[hack89]

65. Federal goverment lacks the juristiction to seize guns - many states would refuse to. nt

[slackmaster]

70. Any program to confiscate them would run into an evidenciary issue, i.e. 4th Amendment

Because the federal government doesn't have a way of identifying people who have them.