There has been some kerfuffle in the Right Blogosphere about Sec. Clinton’s remarks to the effect that she’d consider an Australian-style gun confiscation program here in the United States. If I were they, I wouldn’t be overly concerned. Sec. Clinton will say anything she thinks might help her get elected. Otherwise you can’t believe anything she says. If elected she’ll be devoting her full attention to re-election and firearms confiscation will probably be very far down on her list. If you want to read a different explication of her views try James Taranto’s column.
The subject of this post is somewhat different. Assume arguendo that the next president is serious about a gun confiscation program. How would he or she go about it in a way that might actually meet constitutional muster? I think that the first step would be making the acceptance of searches of their homes, storage facilities, etc. for personal firearms and confiscation thereof (with suitable compensation, of course) a condition of employment for federal, state, and local government workers. The courts have upheld the abridgement of certain First Amendment rights for government workers. Why not Second Amendment rights?
I don’t think that I know a police officer or firefighter who doesn’t own a personal handgun.
Then retain police officers’ service sidearms at the stations, to be issued at the start of shift and restocked at the end of shift.
If the program succeed, reducing the number of gun homicides, it will move the Overton Window, producing more public acceptance for wider gun confiscation.
How that’s for a modest proposal?
Concerning police, they are on duty 24/7, or at least, it was like that 30 years ago in Louisiana. If you were commissioned to carry a weapon and make arrests, you carried a weapon and made arrests, 24/7 (felony crimes). The exception was when alcohol was involved.
That can be changed, TB. Military personnel don’t walk around armed all the time, not even on duty, so I don’t see why cops shouldn’t give up their pieces when not on shift.
One interesting consequence would be that living in the same neighborhood as a cop would no longer have any implicit value.
Shee-it, Sheriff Taylor almost never carried a piece while on duty, and who wouldn’t want to live someplace nice like Mayberry?
Dave,
I can’ tell if you’re joking or not with this one. I don’t see how that proposal could pass constitutional muster, much less be implemented without the consent of Congress.
I assumed it was tongue in cheek as soon as I saw the title. Ever see the movie ‘How to Murder Your Wife’ ??
The reference to “modest proposal” should be explanation enough.
It’s what me auld mither used to call “jesting in earnest”.
In order to do this to scale with what was done in Australia we would need to confiscate 60 million guns. How would you even pay for that? Not happening. It will gain Hillary a few votes from the left in the primary. Wont even come up if she is elected.
Steve
I brought up gun confiscation in the thread last week about deportation of illegals because I think they are two sides of the coin- the things politicians say to rally the hardcore base, which have zero chance of implementation. Most of the time these things are ignored by the average voter (those of the same party who might agree with the intended effect but know its a fantasy to carry it out, as well as those who disagree and understand that the politician has no intention of actual effort toward the proposal.)