If licensed to carry, will the Feds come get my gun?

[danpaw]

All of you that are so re-assured by recent supreme court decisions, just let our current administration stay in power another 6 yrs and see what the supreme court make up looks like. Those 5 to 4 decisions are a far cry from what they should be. The second amendment should be 9 to 0 every day. 4 of the 9 of the justices seem to think the "people" in the 2nd are different people than those in the 1st and all the other parts of the Bill of Rights. If being concerned about that puts a tin foil hat on me, I'll wear it.

[G.A. Heath]

To get this thread back onto topic. if someone is concerned about a CHL being a flag for the government to put you higher up on the list should they decide to confiscate guns let me say this. There are tons of paper (virtual and dead tree format) trails to show that you are a gun owner. Examples include Website access logs, bank/credit card records, 4473s, ect. You can go old school and pay cash for ammo at small stores w/o video recording, buy your guns via private transactions with cash, randomly trespass to shoot so that you don't get recorded in any range records, ect. But if you want to get that extreme then you need to quit talking about guns, quit using the internet, and go hide under the smallest possible rock you can find.

[seamusTX]

All of you that are so re-assured by recent supreme court decisions, just let our current administration stay in power another 6 yrs and see what the supreme court make up looks like.

The currently serving justices that, shall we say, the years are weighing most heavily on are (with their birth years)

• Ginsburg 1933
• Scalia 1936
• Kennedy 1936

All the others are on the young side for Supreme Court justices.

If Justice Scalia were to be replaced by an Obama appointee, the composition of the court would become significantly different.

Justice Ginsburg has been the weakest on the RKBA, so replacing her with another liberal justice will make no difference.

Justice Kennedy has been the so-called swing vote on many issues, so his replacement, whenever that might come about, will be a wild card.

That said, even if the court were to be tilted to a lukewarm or anti-RKBA position, overturning precedent is extremely difficult when members who established that precedent (including the Chief Justice) are still sitting on the court.

Then, there is no political will in Congress for new "gun control" legislation and has not been for years.

To get to a scenario where "the feds" are going door-to-door confiscating guns is beyond any process that could occur in the foreseeable future.

As for the feds knowing whether any particular person owns firearms, as has been said, there are so many ways to do it that having a CHL is hardly worth worrying about.

- Jim

[danpaw]

I don't lose sleep at night worrying about it happening any time soon, but If everyone gets so confident that it will never happen, it might. 3 or 4 years ago nobody would have believed that we have what we have in the white house right now. As far as political climate, the political climate wasn't there for obamacare or sueing the state of Arizona or a lot of other things that have happened in the last year or two. Those things were just a higher priority to them than gun control. If not for that, gun control would have happened too. The political climate can change quick . The climate wasn't there in the 60's either until 3 of them got popped and look what happened in 68. As far as the justices retiring, nobody knows when one of them might retire or die or get sick or killed. All we would have to lose is one.

[glbedd53]

I agree. It wouldnt even have to be something as drastic as a death. One photo of Clarence Thomas coming out of a massage parlor with a smile and we've had it.

[seamusTX]

So what are you going to do to preserve freedom?

- Jim

[WildBill]

To get to a scenario where "the feds" are going door-to-door confiscating guns is beyond any process that could occur in the foreseeable future.

As for the feds knowing whether any particular person owns firearms, as has been said, there are so many ways to do it that having a CHL is hardly worth worrying about.

- Jim

Gun owners have been talking about this for at least the last 50 years. I know people who said that they would not become an NRA member for the same reason. I have known people who would only buy guns at a gun show or private parties because they were worried about a paper trail. Some buy ammo with cash only. Others wouldn't even get a subscription to a gun magazine, because they were afraid of the government knowing or suspecting that they had a gun.

If "the Feds" ever start to go door-to-door confiscating guns then we all will have a lot more to worry about than having a CHL.

[glbedd53]

I think most of us are doing just about all we can do. The problem is with the "independents" who don't know the definition of the word "socialism" and now they're shocked that they have elected a socialist.

[TXlaw1]

As the original poster of this thread, (who was not able to view it since inception) I am surprised and gratified by the 35 or more replies to date. I thank all who have contributed their thoughts in response to my request for suggestions for what to tell others who have real concerns that they will be more visible targets for the Feds for confiscation of their guns. I've collected a number of your best ideas, without attribution, to share with friends who are delaying exercising their right enumerated in the Second Amendment out of this fear.

I won't try to respond individually to all those who provided serious, helpful replies. Please just accept my thanks.

I do feel the need to respond to one of the posts in the subsequent discussion about whether or not the Feds would ever be able to come to homes and seize guns. This statement was made by one - "To get to a scenario where "the feds" are going door-to-door confiscating guns is beyond any process that could occur in the foreseeable future."

Perhaps you are not aware that teams of LEOs were dispatched through areas of New Orleans after Katrina to seize guns from citizens in their homes. Many of these guns were never returned. This was done under some form of so-called "emergency powers" - what others might call martial law. It is not at all stretching the realms of possibility to foresee the imposition of similar or more draconian "emergency powers" in parts or all of our great country, particularly as the effects of the Gulf Oil catastrophe spread and impact our citizens and their ways of life. In such case, LEOs could be instantly federalized and dispatched under orders from the top to seize all weapons "for the safety and security of the citizens who are subject to such emergency orders." After all, it would only be "for their own good" - or so they and we will be told.

I pray to God that day never comes - but I rationally and reasonably believe it is far more likely than most of us would be willing to admit. So prepare now just in case.

[seamusTX]

Perhaps you are not aware that teams of LEOs were dispatched through areas of New Orleans after Katrina to seize guns from citizens in their homes.

As an NRA member, I am well aware that that occurred.

Any such action is now illegal under Louisiana, U.S., and Texas law, along with many other states that passed similar laws after Katrina.

Many evil, immoral, and unconstitutional acts have occurred during American history. Many, such as the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent, were popular with the majority at the time. Most are illegal now, apologies have been issued, and they are unlikely to occur again as long as the public watchdogs stay awake.

This country is all we have. There is nowhere else to go. No one said that maintaining freedom was easy or cheap.

- Jim

[TXlaw1]

Perhaps you are not aware that teams of LEOs were dispatched through areas of New Orleans after Katrina to seize guns from citizens in their homes.

As an NRA member, I am well aware that that occurred.

Any such action is now illegal under Louisiana, U.S., and Texas law, along with many other states that passed similar laws after Katrina.

Many evil, immoral, and unconstitutional acts have occurred during American history. Many, such as the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent, were popular with the majority at the time. Most are illegal now, apologies have been issued, and they are unlikely to occur again as long as the public watchdogs stay awake.

This country is all we have. There is nowhere else to go. No one said that maintaining freedom was easy or cheap.

- Jim

In reading back through a number of posts, I seems you have a lot more faith in the protections of our Constitution than I and some others do. If some is legislated to be "illegal" - like confiscation of guns as was done in New Orleans - apparently you think it won't happen again. And under normal circumstances with most LEOs, I would agree. And it seems to me the NRA takes that same position and lauds its "victories" for gun rights. I've been a life member of the NRA for about 30 years. But I can't agree with their optimism when viewed the eyes of reality and growing dissent with the current administration.

I can't read your mind but it seems you think "emergency powers" will not be declared and enforced by federalized forces in the future because the Supreme Court has declared we have our right! (And I agree that some or most LEOs, even if federalized, will not act unConstitutionally). However, there are other forces available that have no allegiance to our country and to our great Constitution that can be imported and will do what ever the "powers that be" direct them to do. And armed men in the street will be no match for the armaments they could employ.

Furthermore, as Chicago has recently demonstrated in response to the Supreme Court decision, there are plenty of politicians who have not respect for the rulings of the Supreme Court as it has no enforcement power. No justice in a black robe will be in the streets of Chicago making the feds or LEOs uphold their ruling(s). Rather, they must depend on the Executive Branch. And in the current situation it seems to have folks who don't intend to enforce the laws and even the decisions of the Supreme Court. They seem to be determining what that laws are for themselves. So why should we believe that there is little threat of gun confiscation in the future, particularly in "emergencies" that can be unilaterally declared under Executive Orders with no judicial review?

How I'd like for your version of the state of our right to keep and bear arms to be true - not only today but in the future when the stuff hits the fan. I guess we'll just have to disagree and do it agreeably. Time will tell.

[seamusTX]

So why should we believe that there is little threat of gun confiscation in the future, ...

The entire force of the U.S. military armed with machine guns, RPGs, APCs, and close air support cannot disarm or control the people of Fallujah or Kandahar.

How are a bunch of civilian cops outnumbered 100-to-1 going to do it in an American city? How long do you think they would keep trying with a 50% per day mortality rate?

There is no precedent for foreign military forces operating on U.S. territory. Any president who tried such a thing would face mass resignation if not mutiny from the U.S. military and immediate impeachment regardless of party loyalty.

- Jim

[The Annoyed Man]

I've been a life member of the NRA for about 30 years. But I can't agree with their optimism when viewed the eyes of reality and growing dissent with the current administration.

I can't read your mind but it seems you think "emergency powers" will not be declared and enforced by federalized forces in the future because the Supreme Court has declared we have our right! (And I agree that some or most LEOs, even if federalized, will not act unConstitutionally). However, there are other forces available that have no allegiance to our country and to our great Constitution that can be imported and will do what ever the "powers that be" direct them to do. And armed men in the street will be no match for the armaments they could employ.

Furthermore, as Chicago has recently demonstrated in response to the Supreme Court decision, there are plenty of politicians who have not respect for the rulings of the Supreme Court as it has no enforcement power. No justice in a black robe will be in the streets of Chicago making the feds or LEOs uphold their ruling(s). Rather, they must depend on the Executive Branch. And in the current situation it seems to have folks who don't intend to enforce the laws and even the decisions of the Supreme Court. They seem to be determining what that laws are for themselves. So why should we believe that there is little threat of gun confiscation in the future, particularly in "emergencies" that can be unilaterally declared under Executive Orders with no judicial review?

How I'd like for your version of the state of our right to keep and bear arms to be true - not only today but in the future when the stuff hits the fan. I guess we'll just have to disagree and do it agreeably. Time will tell.

In 2012, it won't matter what this administration thought it could do or not do to gun owners, because it will no longer be in office. Any such move to confiscate all guns, if they were dumb enough to try, would have to be done during a second term, when they no longer have to worry about reelection. However, their ham-fisted mismanagement of the Executive branch, not to mention their attempts to nationalize industry, banking, and healthcare, will all see to it that they will not get reelected. And they couldn't try such a draconian response to the 2nd Amendment between now and 2012 because they would get slapped down by the SCOTUS and they would lose a reelection.

So I'm with seamusTX. Whatever possibility exists of such a thing is so minuscule as to be WELL outside the realm of likelyhood.

[Liberty]

One thing that is worth noting about the illegal disarmament in New Orleans. This occurred in the most leftist most corrupt city in tn the United States. Many of the police agencies refused to have anything to do with it. While they collected what seems like a lot of guns Most people didn't give up them up. Lots of people still had their guns after the occupying forces had left. They just told the storm troopers they didn't have any guns. The storm troopers didn't have a list. This isn't New Orleans, and even the people of Austin wouldn't give up their guns if they were asked.

The one lady who did stand up to the police and exposed to the world the corruption in NOLA should be recognized as a national hero and given a holiday in her name. We worship the likes of Lindsy Lohan and Paris Hilton, yet we forget the true heros of this nation.

[glbedd53]

I'm not as confident that we won't have the same administration for 6 more years. I thought there was no way Bill Clinton could win a second term. If the economy really turns around (doubtful) that's all it would take. Remember when James Carville said "it's the economy stupid" ? I think he's 95% right. I hate to pray for a bad economy but that's just about where I'm at.