Hmm...giving your post a lot of thought. Interesting....
What you’ve described, though, is a strategy and not a legal basis for action. The latter must come in the form of legislation or executive orders backed by the legislative branch.
So...who sets up the fusion centers and under what authority? States don’t necessarily knuckle under to the withholding of Federal monies, and dragooning local LEOs would turn them into ‘enemies of the people’.
It would require a very pliant Governor & state assembly. Does the Federal government have enough tanks & aircraft to dominate fifty states?
Frightened gun owners turning in their property en masse? More likely bullets will be flying in both directions. It doesn’t take much effort for even a couch potato to lock & load. Murdering one gun owner to make an example could have the opposite effect:
“Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose”.
The fusion centers they would use are likely the ones that already exist with Homeland Security. They would probably equate gun ownership with owning explosives.
An unannounced raid at 2am, where you wake up with lights in your face and a dozen guys in body armor pointing rifles at your, there probably won’t be much of an opportunity for a bullet to fly in the other direction. (Unless you have some kind of compound like Osama bin Laden)
Also, its hard to imagine the scenario where gun owners go pro-actively on the offense against police stations, etc. The Fed gov doesn’t need to dominate 50 states. California, New Jersey, New York and other blue states are already pretty pro-active with their anti-gun policies and seizing weapons.
The Fed gov would allocate resources to those states where there is less compliance and rely on the states that are more compliant to do their dirty work for them.
There wouldn’t be mass confiscation and they wouldn’t raid all gun owners simultaneously. They would try to defeat gun owners “in detail”, which is the military term.