Come and Take Them? Why Gun Confiscation Won’t Work for America

As the gun-grabbers find new ways to go well beyond “full-Justin Trudeau,” let’s all
pause for a moment and examine one of the fundamental tenets of their belief
system, namely, that they can legislate guns out of existence. Previously, I
discussed why calls to overturn the Second Amendment wouldn’t work in
practice; recent events have pushed this past the theoretical and into the
practical.

The village of Deerfield, Illinois, just passed an “assault weapons” ban
that forbids not only the importation, purchase, or sale of a wide variety
of semiauto rifles (including many models never included on any AW ban
previously), but also forbids possession; levying a fine of up to $1000/day
for violation once the regulation goes into effect.

Leaving the obvious Constitutional questions aside, let’s look at how this
will actually be enforced. The law requires that any weapon in violation of
the law either be transferred out of the village or surrendered to police;
the police are authorized to seize non-compliant firearms from these now-
dangerous felons. How does the local constabulary feel about having to
confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens? From the Deerfield Police
Department’s FB page: “Members of the Department will not go “door to door”
to ensure compliance.”

Whew! Well, that’s a relief. That makes the blatant violation of the Second
Amendment and Article 1, Section 10 much easier to swallow, knowing that the
local PD won’t be violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments as well. It may
come as a shock to liberals, however, that other law-enforcement
professionals seem to think that enforcing this law might be a problem. From
the comments:

“If you guys cannot say unequivocally that you will not enforce
unconstitutional gun laws, then you have no business wearing a badge,
indeed, you would be placing yourselves on the other side of a line you
don’t want to be on my friends. It’s time for all of us in LE to stand up and say that we will not be used for blatantly unconstitutional law enforcement.”

“Curious if this is still your oath.

‘On my honor, I will never betray my badge, my integrity, my character, or
the public trust.
‘I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for
our actions.
‘I will always uphold the Constitution, my community and the agency I
serve.’

“I will always uphold the Constitution…
“I will always uphold the Constitution……

‘..the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’

“You’re going to have a to make a choice here.”

“Before I commissioned as a military officer, we were emphatically taught in
ROTC (in Illinois of all places!) that our oath to the Constitution was
absolute and the Bill of Rights were inalienable. ‘Just following orders’ is
not a valid excuse for any unconstitutional action and we were to challenge
and disobey any unconstitutional order and go so far as to ensure the
Constitution was protected by any means necessary- including detention of
anyone trying to trample on it.”

Wait, what? The donut-munchers won’t blindly follow the orders issued by
their civilian overlords? They can actually think for themselves? How is
this possible?

Note to our liberal friends: It may come as a shock to you, given your
unshakeable beliefs in moral, cultural, and legal relativism and the
overarching authority of the government to solve all society’s ills, but
there might be a couple cops, here and there, who actually took their oath
“to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States” seriously. (Shocking, huh?) And
that includes the next part of that oath: “…against all enemies, foreign
and domestic.” And guess what, buckaroo? When you tell someone who has taken
that oath that you intend to violate it, three guesses what that makes you.
I’ll wait… over here, behind cover.