There’s been a lot of talk about gun control for a long time in this nation. For those that are Second Amendment supporters, there seem to be two points of emphasis. The first is there should be no such thing as gun control…at all. Their view is the Second Amendment is absolute and any infringement on that right to own arms is unconstitutional. The second argument is a bit more moderate, along the lines of “I support some sort of significant background checks, red flag laws, but not an all-out ban on guns. It’s simply unconstitutional.”

Then there are those who believe the Second Amendment should be repealed in its entirety, making various claims such as “The Second Amendment was meant for militias, of which we have no need so there is no need for people to own guns.” Other arguments include, “The amendment was designed during the time of muskets, but now there are automatic weapons, bump stocks, and conversion kits. Further, the notion anyone needs an AR15 for anything other than warfare is simply ludicrous.”  Anti-gun supporters will also cite statistics like the numbers of people killed each year by gun violence,^[1] but a closer look at those numbers tells a different story.

Urban areas experience significantly more gun homicides than rural areas, mostly due to population density, gang activity, and access to firearms. Rural areas’ gun violence is largely due to suicides, the number of which contribute significantly to overall gun death statistics. All of this points to the fact that there is gun violence in these United States but largely because of suicide or large city gang violence,^[2]a fact so many who are in favor of gun control omit. To further complicate the matter, the FBI does not have a clear definition of the term “mass shooting,” although in most instances it involves the deaths of four or more people.^[3]

What gets lost in all of this are the millions of law-abiding gun owners who not only have significant collections but are responsible and pose no risk whatsoever…none. This number far outweighs those who are on the other side of the ledger, but again, conveniently left out of the conversation. 

So, the question becomes, for those in favor of banning guns, how is that supposed to be done? 

Vice-President Kamala Harris, among others, has floated the notion of “mandatory gun buybacks” in the past, attempting to mirror what’s been done with success in Australia, the result being the destruction of some 600,000 guns in that nation. For many, her use of the word mandatory has negative connotations, intimating a Harris administration will forcibly take guns from citizens. In 2007, Harris said as San Francisco’s district attorney, “This is about just basically saying we’re going to require responsible behavior among everybody in the community and just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn’t mean we’re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you’re being responsible and safe in the way you’re conducting your affairs.”

Other than that statement being a 4^th Amendment violation, the notion of walking into someone’s home to “check if they’re being responsible,” goes much beyond the scope of not only government but the Constitution. The sentiment expressed will resonate with a certain segment of the population, and maybe even be supported by some, but constitutionally, it is not allowed, at least not without probable cause and a warrant. 

Further, this suggests taking guns away from responsible gun owners, those who ensure their guns are put away properly, stored properly, and used for recreational activities such as hunting and target shooting, not to mention self-protection. The forcible removal of such guns is in direct violation of the Second Amendment, no matter how you slice it, and simply will not be supported.

But…

There is a larger question at play here, one that has not been answered by any of the anti-gun advocates, at least to my knowledge. How does VP Harris or anyone else in the federal or state governments plan on getting guns from street gangs and organized crime without violating 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th, and even 8^th amendment protections. Further, how will they justify the protections guaranteed by the 9^th and 10^th Amendments, two of the most forgotten but significant amendments of the Bill of Rights? It seems any such attempt at confiscation of any sort simply tears up the Bill of Rights and, if we are a nation that still believes in the sanctity of said rights, will not hold up in court.

Not that long ago, the city of Chicago passed a law that said known gang members in numbers of three or more would not be allowed to congregate on city corners, a well-known way gangs mark and control their territory for drug distribution, among other things. It was known as the Chicago Gang Congregation Ordinance. By reasonable standards, terrorized neighborhoods might be spared the outbreak of gunfire or at least the terror that gangs initiate if such an ordinance remained in effect. In 1999 the ordinance was struck down in the court case Chicago vs. Morales (1999). In that judgement, the Supreme Court of Illinois said, “the ordinance violates due process in that it is impermissibly vague on its face and an arbitrary restriction on personal liberties.” Essentially, it is a violation of the First Amendment Right to Assemble, despite the fact neighborhoods could be rendered safer from gang violence and coercion.

So, if we are to use the Illinois Supreme Court as precedent, it is safe to say any number of civil and constitutional rights would be violated if gun confiscation happened by force, or as VP Harris said, they walk into our homes to ensure “you’re being responsible and safe in the way you’re conducting your affairs.”

That brings us to another proposed solution: Gun buybacks. Does anyone truly think that gun buybacks will work with street gangs and the Russian, Italian, Mexican or Chinese organized crime networks? Do people truly believe they’ll just hand over their weapons, the ones street gang members so proudly flash while their rivals may still have them? 

The savviest street gangs will turn in their guns, then use the money to buy more guns…a self-funding scheme that might reduce their costs for firearms, the buyback program funding it. Organized crime? It will be a banner day for them as they’ll flourish as never before with some haves taking out all the have-nots.

Let’s not forget about the government. A disarmed populace will be at the complete mercy of a government run amok, should it choose to do so. Listen to the words of a Chinese immigrant when she confronted David Hogg and other gun control advocates during a town hall on gun control.^[4] She outlined the history of Communist China, from where she came, and asked a simple question. “Can you guarantee me, a gun owner tonight, our government in the US, in DC, will never, never become a tyrannical government? Can you guarantee that to me?”

Mr. Hogg’s response was, “There’s no way I can ever guarantee that any government will not be tyrannical.”

She responded, “Well, then the debate on gun control is over because I will never give up my guns. Never. Never. And you should go to China to see how gun control works for dictatorship of CCP.”

The fact is there would be only one way to get guns from organized crime and street gangs…you’ll have to send in the army^[5] or the national guard or both to physically take them, creating all sorts of problems from illegal search and seizure to even larger individual rights problems. Right to privacy groups would have a field day taking on these cases, and our already overburdened court system would be swamped. In short, there is no way to do it without creating what might become a civil war with organized crime and street gangs, some more well-armed than the national guard itself.

Further, those that advocate for Australia type gun buybacks simply do not understand a few principles. First, we are not Australia, or Europe for that matter. Robert Owen discovered this for himself when he attempted in the 19^th century to recreate New Lanark, a socialist-based community he founded in Scotland. The short version is it failed miserably here, notably for a few reasons: Diversity of population, lack of work ethic, and lack of a common framework from which to work. Essentially, too much diversity.

Second, the United States is a unique nation, quite unlike any other place on the planet. Our population is huge, diverse, with a document that guarantees civil rights and liberties for all our citizens. Further, the notion of confiscating guns is anathema to not only our history, but the very fabric of our nation, like it or not. While there strong arguments to be made for reasonable considerations: red flag laws, robust background checks and the like, those common-sense safeguards, someone is going to have to explain to me and many others how guns will be taken from the most nefarious among us…organized crime and street gangs. 

Come up with a way to do that and people might listen.

---

^[1] Interesting to note that suicide is the most frequent cause of death by firearms in the United States. Between 54-60% of gun deaths are suicide, followed by homicide (35-40%), which include gang violence, domestic violence, and interpersonal disputes. Also interesting to note is that “legal interventions and undetermined causes” account for a very small percentage of deaths by firearms. (Data from the CDC)

^[2] The Marshall Project, the CDC and others mirror the same statistics.

^[3] For more information, click here and here.

^[4] To see the clip, click here.

^[5] The US Army is prohibited from entering cities and towns for enforcement of law. It is known as the Posse Comitatus Act, unless authorized by Congress.