Probably China, either directly hidden in amongst consumer goods, or else via Mexico. Where do the illegal handguns in England come from? They’re imported, or sometimes made. We have a perfect parallel to what would really happen sitting right in front of us for easy study.
Money provides the draw. Especially in the OP’s scenario - while Mexico has strict gun laws, they do not have near the total “door-to-door” collection situation posited in the OP. And Canada is much more lenient.
I’m assuming the OP’s hypothetical–jackbooted thugs kicking in doors and grabbing guns on a national scale.
Yeah, and if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle.
Obviously, there is no reason why any such “percentage” would be applicable – if it costs under $50 to produce a gun with this setup in Pakistan, it would cost about the same to produce a gun with this setup in the United States. The only variables are the cost of the parts (which, if anything, are likely to be lower in the US because of easier access to an industrial base), the cost of labor (higher in the US, but not that much higher), and the cost of protection (which could go either way – bribing one police department to look the other way might well be cheaper than protecting your people and equipment in a lawless zone like NW Pakistan.
To shore up the OP a bit:
It’s 2017 and Chief Justice Scalia gets his supermajority in the courts. He pushes through his activist agenda to shape the law and society as close to his ideal as possible. In order to get there, his “textualist” interpretation rolls back the doctrine of incorporation—the analytically weak doctrine that says that some (but not all) of the Bill of Rights applies to the states. Because there is no textual support for this (and because there are now 6 Supreme Court Justices who follow Scalia’s agenda), several rulings come out that allow states to impose greater limits than the Bill of Rights would otherwise have allowed.
A short time later, a catastrophic event takes place in rural New York, one that mirrors both the Columbine and Tucson tragedies, with all the passionate furore, grief, and anger that accompanies them. Temporarily dominated by the left, the state legislature overreacts/acts responsibly (depending on your disposition), and effectively passes the OP’s law. This easily survives Constitutional scrutiny, because the 2nd Amendment applies to the Federal Government only. New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, and several other New England states quickly follow suit.
…
Some people will hold out, some people will attempt to make a martyr out of themselves. Most of those people will go to jail with little more fanfare than an Internet following. Prepared, very few law enforcement agencies will let things get out of hand. Population will slightly shift as people who want to own weapons move and people who want to live in a lower-weapon-per-capita state move in. But IMHO the ‘if you don’t like your state, you can always move’ idea is antiquated and unrealistic.
Overall, life goes on. Tyranny doesn’t rule. Gun incidents drop gradually. There is still importation and now-illegal ownership, but the much smaller numbers are reflected in statistics. Lots of (mostly rural) folks keep hunting firearms (illegally, per the OP), but since they never interacted with the general public’s perceptions, they don’t (continue to not) affect society at large. When one of their guns does go missing, it is becomes a major event as they are now tied to whatever use it’s put to in the future. This makes that type of gun ownership more secure (i.e., increased motivation to keep things under lock).
Apples and Oranges.
The hypothetical here is a vast country with a long history of gun ownership and a huge number of guns in personal possession being suddenly pushed to an incredibly harsh regime of gun control and even confiscation by force.
The market for illegal guns in this scenario would be enormous.
The illegal gun trade in many other countries is pretty significant. Japan is a poor comparator.
They would not find any guns though. Unless you had enough jackbooted thugs to search every nook, cranny, gas station, residence, warehouse, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse and doghouse in the entire country.
I don’t think fighting the hypothetical is necessary. We banned booze. People care more about that than guns. Well, most people.
Vermont? Not hardly.
Civil war would be the least of it. Good luck magically turning every single government employee into a jack-booted thug, because that is how many you would need to even begin to enforce such a confiscation. I daresay a large percentage of the Feds would be on the side of the gun owners, and millions of weapons would be “overlooked” during the raids.
It makes no difference to you that the Amendment has (presumably) been repealed by a vote of the state legislatures (or Congress)?
As noted by others this is not something that could happen overnight. Gun owners would have some warning and would take action to ensure their continued gun ownership. I think passive resistance would be much more common than armed insurrection. For example, there is this guy I know, who as a matter of public record owns one gun, but legally owns several more and he owns 80 acres of woods. Good luck to the government on trying to find those other guns that they do not know exist.
Another factor that people have not talked about is how entrenched hunting is in the culture of some areas of the country. I think people would continue to hunt, in a completely unregulated function, living by the fact that it is impossible to locate a single shot over any kind of distance.
Since I wrote that last part someone did indeed say something similar, so now I am just agreeing.
Right, but take the British example. Sure, there are guns smuggled into Britain. But it isn’t a serious problem in Britain, because most people don’t see very much utility in owning an illegal gun. And for those that do, well, they probably already have an illegal gun so why do they need another?
The difference between gun smuggling and drug smuggling is that guns are durable goods while drugs are consumables. Drug addicts don’t just buy one batch of drugs and bury them in the backyard. They use the drugs, and then they need more drugs.
If guns were banned overnight by magic, well, the people who really cared about gun ownership enough to defy the ban would be current gun owners. They wouldn’t be buying many illegally smuggled guns because they’d have taken the guns they already had and hidden them.
The only time when large scale gun smuggling is likely to occur is with widespread civil unrest. So there’s a large flow of smuggled guns from the US to the Mexican drug cartels. Back when the PRI and the cartels conducted business together like gentlemen, there wasn’t any need for the cartels to have lots of weapons. Now that there’s guerilla warfare, they do.
So if the scenario is near civil war, then yeah, gun smuggling. But if the scenario is along the British model, then gun smuggling is a marginal problem along the lines of mislabeled designer jeans.
Even that won’t save the OP’s hypothetical. The alien wearing Scalia’s skin recognizes that the Feds can’t do a nationwide band, and a majority of states simply aren’t gonna. Pretty much the whole South and West (except California, maybe Washington & Oregon) are reasonably gun friendly. You’ll see gun bans in a few blue states, but that’s it.
And even in places that want to ban guns, they’re talking about handguns. Even ultra-extreme-hyper-liberal places like New York :rolleyes: aren’t interesting in banning hunting rifles and shotguns.
And regional or statewide gun bans are pretty much unenforceable, because we don’t have customs stations when you cross state borders.
Once you abandon the notion that judges should not make law, they can do whatever they want.
They rule that the Second Amendment says that private ownership is illegal. What are you going to do about it, apart from what I said?
If you are implying plagiarism, back it up or withdraw it. If you have nothing to add but thread-shitting, how about not posting at all?
Regards,
Shodan
…annnnnnd that was the rest of my post.
And not an alien wearing Scalia’s skin. Scalia’s activist agenda necessarily leads to the end of incorporation. (That is, necessarily from a logical/analytical view. Whether he or someone like him chooses inconsistency for the sake of their agenda is a different matter).
Under the dominant conservative Constitutional analysis, the Second Amendment applies to the Federal Government only. It is not a sacrosanct right as an American. You can have it taken away, abridged, or limited in any fashion by any state legislature.
The black market in guns would be somewhat smaller, although it would be very persistent- guns don’t wear out fast at all. There’s a thriving market in old (100 yr or so) perfectly functioning guns right now.
As for me, I’d just arrange to never be at home when the cops show up. They’d still have to have a warrant to get into my home.
Why would gun incidents drop at all? Anyone who wanted an illegal gun would simply drive to a free state and buy it there.
This ignores the relative difficulty of getting guns into an island nation, which drives up the cost. Lower the opportunity cost of getting the illegal guns, and more criminals will choose them. Note too that you don’t need as relatively large a volume of market as drugs to have as large an effect.
That’s not what I was addressing.
Look, I’m going to nip this in the bud right now before the next person decides that they want to comment on this - what exactly did I say that’s so unreasonable and controversial? That illegal guns could cross the border about as easily as drugs and humans? That there would be an active black market for them? That money would drive the flow? That Mexico and Canada would have relatively lax gun laws compared to the OP’s scenario? Which one of these is the so unreasonable speculation?
Except that doesn’t make sense. The Supreme Court only has power when we decide to obey their rulings. If the declare the extreme leftist Barrack HUSSEIN Obama dictator for life, he only becomes dictator for life when the rest of us shrug our shoulders and agree.
“Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!” ring any bells? If the Supreme Court rules tomorrow that the Second Amendment makes private ownership of firearms illegal, what happens next? Nothing, because it only really becomes illegal when cops come to your door demanding that you hand over your guns.
Supreme Court justices can be impeached by Congress, as can the President.
Of course, in your scenario, these extreme leftist justices appointed by Barrack HUSSEIN Obama were confirmed by the Senate, so I guess we have to imagine that the Senate is now extreme leftist controlled. How did all these extreme leftist Senators get elected?
Ammo is an expendable/consumable resource. I’d expect some degree of trafficking in it…perhaps even moreso than guns.