The Brady Boob is right about one thing: no court has ever overturned a gun law based on the 2nd Amendment, and its unlikely that one ever will. The last ten years has demonstrated that in spades. Even relatively good rulings have still upheld the laws in question. That certainly is true for Emerson, and it sure as hell was true for Silviera. In the latter, the damn 9th Circuit actually said, in dicta, that there is NO individual right to keep and bear.
The legal building blocks are already in place; all it will take is for the Congress or one state legislature to declare all gun ownership illegal and order a mass turn-in. The level of compliance will be interesting; states like California have a complete database of pistol sales since 1989; in addition, there are around 30,000 registered "assault weapons" in another database. It would be expensive to pay enough people (even local law enforcement) to go around and collect all these arms. Its a good bet that the 4th and 5th Amendments would have to be suspended for such an event to take place. That would put the likes of the anti-gun ACLU in a difficult postion - one full of irony.
The level of compliance will be extremely low, even in states with databases (not to mention places like Texas, with no databases, upwards of 30 million guns and utter hostility to the very concept of gun control). Just look north of the border - you have at least 50% non-compliance with the Canadian gun law, with even a couple of provincial governments publicly telling their feds to shove it where the sun don't shine (well, they phrased it somewhat differently, but you get the idea). This from Canadians! It gives one hope for this country.
BTW, 30,000 "assault rifles" is an absurdly low number for a state with 30 million people. I'd say that it represents less than 10% compliance. Way to go, California!
It would be expensive to pay enough people (even local law enforcement) to go around and collect all these arms.
I don't know about you, but I think that I'd quit my job if someone told me that I had to go to someone's house to take away their guns. That's not just for ideological/moral reasons, but the most practical one of all - I wouldn't want to make my wife a widow or my kids orphans. Besides, how many of the police own firearms themselves? How many of their non-police relatives do? I just don't see the average cop going to seize guns from his brother, father, father-in-law, etc.
Its a good bet that the 4th and 5th Amendments would have to be suspended for such an event to take place.
Oh, you mean officially suspended, unlike now when they are merely used as toilet paper.
That would put the likes of the anti-gun ACLU in a difficult postion - one full of irony.
I would venture to say that lots of ACLU folks would end up more full of lead than irony, due to the utter failure of those lying sacks of shiite to defend the ENTIRE BOR, rather than merely those parts that are politically correct at a particular moment in time. That's no threat, merely an opinion.