In 2007 (seems to be the last comprehensive effort to make an estimate), there were 270,000,000 guns in the United States of America possessed by civilians. Except for the relatively small number of fully automatic weapons (i.e., machine guns), these guns are unregistered. We might be able to find out who the guns were sold to originally, but as we go further back in time that becomes harder, and in any event as guns are sold or stolen the task of further tracing ownership becomes obviously impossible. Imagine if we suddenly decided to confiscate television sets when almost everyone who owned one didn't want to give them up. That would be the kind of effort that would be required.
I can't help but get lawyerly and add: Even if the Supreme Court decided the Second Amendment didn't protect an individual right to own a gun, confiscating guns would be a taking under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. How much do you think those 270 million guns are worth? That's how much the United States government would have to pay out to gun owners whose weapons were confiscated.
Australia went through a general confiscation after the Port Arthur massacre. Although our constitution does not, in any shape or form, protect the right to own guns it does mandate just compensation for any taking. We also did not have any general register of who owned what. We paid it. We found the guns. It can be done.
Posted by: Alan | December 16, 2012 at 01:35 PM
Really? Wow, I didn't know about that; I'll have to look up how that was done. There must have been overwhelming cultural acceptance of the need for confiscation, which (I can't imagine) we'd ever get to in the U.S.
Posted by: Mithras | December 16, 2012 at 03:05 PM
Is the wikipedia article (sorry, I don't know why I can't post links right now) an accurate reflection of how it was done in Australia? It says that 85% of the public supported the new law, and that 631,000 weapons were confiscated.
I can't imagine American public opinion ever changing that radically. The latest poll (that I am aware of) showed only 26% in support of a handgun ban and that 47% have at least one gun at home. Handguns are the main focus of control efforts; a ban on semi-automatic rifles like the ones used in the last two mass murders would be even more radical.
Posted by: Mithras | December 16, 2012 at 04:01 PM
The Wikipedia article is fairly accurate. Public opinion is not set in stone, and at least in part, it's a function of an almost universal silence by progressives who should know better. Some progressives argue, for instance, that what was done in Australia cannot be done.
Posted by: Alan | December 17, 2012 at 01:56 AM
yeah, but even if public opinion in the u.s. suddenly shifted, providing just compensation for 300 million guns is a lot more expensive than 631,000. like mithras, i can't imagine that confiscation as an idea would ever catch on here (even though i wouldn't be opposed to it). but even if it did, i really doubt that the public would be willing to pay the confiscation bill under the takings clause.
Posted by: upyernoz | December 17, 2012 at 01:04 PM