Reader John writes…
TTAG’s post, Connecticut: The Coming Storm was the last straw for me. Many have been discussing the general theme of confiscation for a while, and while I believe that is a good thing (the discussion, that is), I believe too many are far behind the curve. The hypothetical/fictional scenario illustrated in that piece is certainly possible, and even likely; but it is behind the curve in terms of the tactics that are likely to be used . . .
I liken this to the argument that antis make (made?) that no one is coming for our guns. Before Newtown, I never really heard anyone arguing that someone was actually coming for our firearms. Then again, I never really heard anyone clearly communicate that there are definitely some trying to limit and prohibit our ability to acquire new ones and limit what we may choose from (and that there’s nothing wrong with obtaining and having our choice of guns). That would be an argument ahead of the rhetorical curve. Retorting, “yes, they are coming for them!” (although valid) is an argument behind the curve.
As for door-to-door (D2D) confiscation, how single-minded we become once we’re on the defensive. I’ve heard a quote that goes something like, “history does not repeat itself, but it sure rhymes”. While D2D confiscation is a very real threat and a historical reality, does anyone really believe that law enforcement won’t make plans to their best advantage?
D2D confiscation won’t be law enforcement’s primary modus operandi. For one thing, it does nothing for the operational security of that mission to publicize such a predictable maneuver. Once started, D2D confiscation will be by definition a very predictable, public event. In my humble opinion, far more likely and tactically sound methods of persecuting/prosecuting people in violation of Connecticut’s anti-gun law will go down more like this:
Law enforcement obtains a bogus non-firearms related warrant, or “mistakenly” executes such a warrant on the wrong person/dwelling, a la Jose Guerena. Simple enough. This will be reported publicly as a drug warrant. Any weapons recovered would be a bonus. And since the weapons in question are now illegal to own, they cannot be returned. No outrage. After decades of the “war on drugs” this is commonplace. A few DEA agents could throw off the suspect’s suspicions about the weapons violation rendering him relatively docile.
Here’s another hybrid approach. Police will obtain a warrant – bogus or legitimate – on a suspect. They will stake out his dwelling until they are ready to execute. On the day of the execution they will wait until the suspect leaves in an automobile, trail him until he crosses over a yellow line or fails to use a turn signal and then pull him over. They will take him into custody and let the warrant squad know that they’re clear to conduct the raid. They’ll trash the dwelling, harass and possibly batter any occupants present. At this point they will either get what they came for, or they won’t. The point being, that the primary individual that might provide resistance won’t be at the scene when it all goes down.
This kind of scenario avoids the possibility of thousands of Ruby Ridge-like events. Then again, the police may not even bother with real estate. They’ll go after all suspects when they’re alone in their automobiles in traffic, unsuspecting and totally unprepared to do anything about it. Law enforcement literally makes their living on the streets. It’s their turf and they have home field advantage.
I could go on about possible variations and scenarios. Heck, LEOs might just set up shop at gun stores and shooting ranges and let the violators come to them in some sort of twisted checkpoint, as outlandish as that may sound. The point, though, is that the scenarios I offered are ahead of the curve in terms of the usual door-to-door tactics most people envision. I don’t want there to be any bloodshed, but those in this very real situation (and every other freedom-oriented individual following these events) ought to be aware that D2D is outdated.