Here's What A Liberal 'Gun-Grab' Would Look Like And Why It Would Ultimately Fail

| DEC 15, 2015 | 2:42 PM
 IJR Opinion is an opinion platform and any opinions or information put forth by contributors are exclusive to them and do not represent the views of IJR.
Gun Appreciation Day Draws Out Gun Enthusiasts

Scott Olson/Getty Images

So, how do liberals get their wish for a disarmed, subservient population? Because all this talk of gun banning – and now they are finally admitting that they want to take our guns – raises some practical questions. Not least among them is how you get a hundred million-plus armed citizens to cheerfully turn over their firearms at the behest of a bunch of liberals who have nothing but contempt for normal Americans.

Let’s not focus on the political blowback – the massive mobilization of voters who suddenly take an interest in politics because their guns are threatened and vote in pro-freedom candidates. That’s already happening – the ranks of the NRA are swelling and there were 20 people waiting for the doors to open last weekend at a local Los Angeles gun shop.

Instead, let’s look at the practical obstacles to gun banning. The first is legal. Some jurisdiction passes a law infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms and those subjected to that injustice go to court to challenge it. But this is problematic.  While the majority of Americans understand the Constitution’s Second Amendment to mean exactly what it says, liberals see the Constitution as less a foundational document than a list of suggestions to be disregarded as they become inconvenient.

Hillary is already making the repeal of the First Amendment a key part of her campaign – she doesn’t like that citizens are allowed to unite and make movies critical of her – and we’ve seen Obama heap contempt upon freedom of religion, due process, and the right to be free of unreasonable searches. Only a slim majority of the Supreme Court is even willing to enforce what the Second Amendment says, and it just recently refused to consider challenges to laws banning normal capacity magazines and that unicorn of the gun debate, “assault weapons.”

This means an American citizen stands a remote chance of being able to use the judicial process to protect his rights, and it is a grave injustice when a constitutionally-guaranteed freedom can simply be written out of the Bill of Rights by the courts’ refusal to enforce it. This reinforces the ultimate rationale for citizens keeping weapons – to maintain the ability to resist tyranny.

So, when the courts ignore our rights, it fuels, and provides moral justification for, the next problem gun grabbers would face – “Irish democracy.” Irish democracy is simply systemic noncompliance – people refuse to play along and cooperate with the unjust system. The government needs our cooperation. We generally believe our laws are just and that they were instituted fairly, and therefore usually feel morally obligated to obey. That’s why people stop at stop signs in the middle of nowhere; that’s why the self-reporting income tax system can function. America works on the honor system. But when the system is perceived as unjust, that ends.

Look at Connecticut’s obnoxious new gun laws banning whole categories of standard weapons. Law abiding citizens did not line up at the local police station to turn in their black rifles. They kept them. They just refused to comply. Now, Connecticut has not yet tried to send police house to house to collect these wicked tools. Mass sweeps for guns without warrants might even arouse the sensitivities of liberal judges who are willing to ignore the Second Amendment but balk at ignoring the Fourth.

But even if the government got over that hurdle, who do they send? Law enforcement is decentralized – the state can’t simply order local police departments and sheriffs to do the dirty work. Even assuming he’s not as outraged as his constituents, the local sheriff out in the country wants to be reelected, and sending his deputies farm to farm to please a bunch of big city liberals is a poor electoral strategy. A good number of chiefs and sheriffs would respond with impolite, anatomically challenging suggestions.

But assuming you find a willing agency head, you still have to get the beat cops to go get those guns. Good luck. Besides the many who would simply announce, “Hell no, I’m not doing it” (only to be fired and then initiate union agitation and budget-busting litigation), you would have a bunch who would simply not play along. They would call in sick. They would find an emergency to distract them. Or they would open a closet door, look over the three illegal AR-platform rifles, and announce “Nothing here.”

And if they did haul in some citizen for the crime of emulating America’s founders, it’s perfectly reasonable to expect that one of the twelve citizens in the box would comply with what would be an aggressive campaign by pro-freedom advocates to encourage jurors not to convict those accused of unconstitutional gun “crimes.” This kind of jury nullification already happens in urban drug cases.

Of course, whole municipal and state governments would refuse to cooperate. Today, 30 of the 50 states have Republican governors. The vast majority of the country is red – they are never going to pass such laws and, if the feds did, they may very well refuse to enforce them or assist the federal government in doing so. The governor of Texas announcing that the Lone Star state simply will not allow the enforcement of a gun ban within its borders is going to drive the liberals in Washington to distraction and guarantee him another term in office.

Then it could get ugly. The unique combination of ego, hatred for normal Americans, and bar-exam-failing stupidity of Hillary might cause her to try to use military force to crush resistance. Any effort to use massive force to impose the liberals’ vision of a gun-free Utopia faces the practical problem of a lot of armed Americans.

There are millions of Americas with guns, many of them veterans who know how to employ them. We would certainly see more Ruby Ridges and Wacos as people took up arms to resist, if not much, much worse. A dedicated effort to forcefully disarm our citizenry would cost lives on both the pro-freedom and pro-fascism sides.

But, before Hillary could employ the military, she’d have to contend with resistance from within its ranks. Our warriors signed on to kill America’s enemies, not other Americans whose beliefs are generally pretty close to those of our troops.  Don’t count on our guys in uniform killing or dying to please a bunch of coastal liberals determined to turn American citizens into defenseless subjects. And the special snowflake spawn of the coastal elites certainly aren’t going to emerge from their safe spaces and gender studies seminars to suit up in Kevlar and kick in doors in Middle America.

So how do liberals get their wish for a disarmed, subservient population? They don’t.