Anti-Gunner Gamebook - Post-Heller Pro-Confiscation Law Review Article


New member
Below is a link to a very over the top Law Review article from a Fordham Law Professor who pretends to believe in gun confiscation and in chipping away at the so-called "Remainder" while they work to overturn Heller - utterly horrible but provides valuable insight into those who would attempt to disarm the public ~ knowing one's adversary...

I am definitely part of the Remainder. You can also call me "Uncle Charlie"

Warning: take your blood pressure meds, meditate or whatever before hand:

Link Removed

Link Removed


Nicholas J. Johnson*

"We have pressed supply-side rules at the margin—e.g., with prospective limits on
supply and restrictions on obscure categories of guns—all while denying that disarmament is the ultimate goal.

"This Article will illuminate those structural barriers by removing, theoretically, the constitutional impediment of Heller and the political impediments to the supply-side ideal.
Assume, therefore, that Heller is reversed or explained away. Assume further that the political barriers to sweeping supply controls are overcome. Now imagine gun control in America.

"....prominent criminologist Hans Toch recanted his support of handgun prohibition: “t is hard to explain that where firearms are most dense, violent crime rates are lowest and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest.” Kates & Mauser, supra at 675 (internal quotation marks omitted). Professor Toch was a consultant to the 1960s Eisenhower Commission and, until the 1990s, he endorsed its conclusions that widespread handgun ownership causes violence and that reducing ownership would reduce violence. 13. John R. Lott, Jr. & David B. Mustard, Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to- Carry Concealed Handguns, 26 J. LE 19 (2000). Several critics have now replicated Lott’s work using additional or different data, additional control variables, or new or different statistical techniques they deem superior to those Lott used. Interestingly, the replications all confirm Lott’s general conclusions; some even find that Lott underestimated the crime-reductive effects of allowing good citizens to carry concealed guns.

"A. The Defiance Impulse
Three hundred million guns is more than a logistical problem. If it were just a matter of saying “please turn them in,” the only issue would be having enough trucks and personnel to haul them to the crusher. But this problem is deeper. Many Americans believe guns are important tools for protecting their lives and liberty and have a deep cultural attachment to them. Many people—perhaps many millions—would view gun confiscation the same way others would view de jure racial or gender discrimination, or an abortion ban...."

"Will compares membership in the NRA, what he calls a “coast-to-coast nation within the nation,” to other organizations: AARP (formerly the American Association of Retired Persons), with nearly 36 million members, is the nation’s third-largest organization (behind the Catholic Church and the American Automobile Association). The NRA has “only” 4 million adult members. Thirty states and the District of Columbia have smaller voting-age populations. And whereas slightly more than 50 percent of age-eligible Americans have voted in recent elections (51 percent voted in 2000), about 95 percent of NRA members vote. Liberals who lament voter apathy should be careful what they wish for. Each of the 4 million pays $35 in annual dues. Polls indicate that another 14 million Americans think that they are NRA members and an additional 28 million think they are affiliated in some way with the NRA because of their membership in one or more of the 35,000 shooting and hunting clubs. Id.

"There are strong arguments that our political system is rooted in distrust of government, and some people will view resistance to gun confiscation as a natural extension of this healthy distrust.

"why tens of millions of rational people have acquired the same types of weapons that police use to confront criminals. Some of these people will be tempted to keep their guns in defiance of commands to turn them in.

"People might make the same decision on fears, perhaps exaggerated, of episodic design incompetence. A familiar example is the public emergency, the risk of which has prompted the National Governors Association to complain that heavy use of the National Guard in war-fighting leaves states vulnerable in events of natural disaster or civil unrest.

"These episodes are relatively rare, and we might bet that many people would not defy gun laws on fears of such low probability events.

"But other prompts are more common, like the basic inadequacy of resources that caused New Orleans police one year after Hurricane Katrina to respond twelve hours late to 911 calls, or the town council of Brownsville, Pennsylvania to layoff its entire police
force. These limitations are no surprise to many rural people, who live far enough away from police that public security is always more abstract than real―people for whom defiance might be the norm.

Another category of distrust is harbored by people who think they have not gotten a fair shake from local, state, or national governments. Robert Cottrol and Raymond Diamond’s examination of the Second Amendment from a minority perspective reflects some
of this distrust. More recently, the complaints of some Katrina survivors, and members of urban communities in the wake of police shootings of unarmed men, suggest that some governments have earned not just distrust, but also contempt.

"The efforts of other restrictive U.S. jurisdictions tell more about the defiance impulse and the character of the remainder problem. New York City imposes stringent requirements on purchase and ownership of handguns. Still, handgun crime persists.

The number of illegal guns in New York City is in the range of two million. This is in a region where the overall rate of gun ownership is lower than average and gun culture is less robust.

“Gray market” describes guns that are legal before confiscation day and retained in defiance by the eccentric “Uncle Charlies” of the world, people who will keep a gun hidden away as a small act of rebellion. On one view, these guns are not as worrisome as those kept by younger, more aggressive men. As long as they remain with Uncle Charlie they are unlikely to be used in crime. Uncle Charlie, of course, would still be guilty of a status crime just for owning the gun.

"In the years of debate preceding any confiscation law, there will Gun owners who are five or ten private transactions or many years removed from the original retail buyer, or own pre-1968 guns that may have never been recorded on any government form, would be told that registration is required to maintain legal ownership of guns the government does not know they have.

"The analysis is complicated by the constitutional protection of the individual right to bear arms in Heller. For this exercise, we have assumed that Heller is nullified or explained away. But for this discrete point, the timing of that nullification makes a difference. If the individual right were extinguished before the registration attempt, the analysis remains the same. People should defy registration on fear of confiscation. However, if registration is attempted during a temporary period of individual right protection, and then Heller is nullified, things change dramatically. Under that scenario, potentially large numbers of people will comply with registration, trusting that the Constitution bars confiscation. A
large segment of no-paper guns might be brought within the system. Confiscation that follows, aided by the registration records gathered under the protection of Heller, should more effectively confront the remainder problem.

"However, for people who believe they will resist confiscation, registration is the ball game. They should view registration as the precursor to confiscation for several reasons. The progression from registration to confiscation actually has occurred both domestically and internationally. The evolution of supply controls in Washington, D.C., New York City, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, England, Canada, and Australia illustrates that registration is an important precursor to any viable confiscation plan."

"...registration would provide an important piece of information about the viability of subsequent confiscation. Large-scale resistance to registration will signal that large numbers of people intend to resist confiscation. And that knowledge would allow better measurement of the resources and strategies necessary to attempt confiscation."

"Without a commitment to or capacity for eliminating the existing inventory of private guns, the supply-side ideal and regulations based on it cannot be taken seriously. It is best to acknowledge the blocking power of the remainder and adjust our gun control regulations and goals to that reality. Policymakers who continue to press legislation grounded on the supply-side ideal while disclaiming the goal of prohibition are deluded or pandering."

Last edited:


New member
At first, I didn't realize it but now I know. Kudos for the Article - written in true concealment mode -

I must admit I had to dig deeper and receive feedback that makes me understand that this Article is written by a very intelligent gun owner and gun rights activist.

He makes a compelling and well-reasoned argument that gun control will not achieve the states goals (elimination of guns from civilian hands) in the US without generations of unlikely cultural indoctrination as well as the potential for violent defiance.

I apologize for calling it dangerous in my OP -

New Threads

Members online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Latest member