Boston Globe article calls for confiscation

[soloman02]

[video=youtube_share;bnoFKskvSq4]http://youtu.be/bnoFKskvSq4[/video]

#LifeHack Want to create a gun-free America in 5 easy steps?

Here's all there is to it:

Step 1: Elect. For a gun-free America, the first thing you'll need is two-thirds of Congress. So elect a minimum of 67 Senators and 290 Representatives who are on your side.

Step 2: Propose. Then, have them vote to propose an amendment to the Constitution which repeals Second Amendment gun rights for all Americans.

Step 3: Ratify. Then convince the legislators of 38 states to ratify that change.

At this point, the Second Amendment is history, but you've done nothing to decrease gun violence. All you've done is remove the barrier for Congress to act.

Step 4: Legislate. You need to enact "common sense" reform.

You can try to do what Australia did and...ban all guns? That's not at all what they did, but whatever, **** it. Go big or go home, right?

It will have to be passed by Congress and signed by the president.

Great! The law is passed and guns are now illegal. The only thing left to do is...

Step 5: Enforce. Guns won't just disappear because you passed a law. You need to confiscate some 350 million guns scattered among 330 Million Americans.

Sure, you can try a buy-back program like Australia, but like Australia that will still leave behind anywhere from 60 percent to 80 percent of privately owned firearms.

The rest you have to take.

You'll need the police, the FBI, the ATF or the National Guard—all known for their nuanced approach to potentially dangerous situations—to go door-to-door, through 3.8 million square miles of this country and take guns, by force, from thousands, if not, millions of well-armed individuals. Many of whom would rather start a civil war than acquiesce.

So inevitably gun violence, which is currently at a historic low, will skyrocket.

But that is how you get a gun-free America in five easy steps.

 

[Picton]

Nobody is advocating "the end of all government" here, we just want government to abide by its intended restraints and stop overstepping its bounds at every turn.

I will do what ever it takes to force that outcome if necessary.

That’s some tasty rhetoric, but you’re full of it. If your last sentence is true, you’d have started shooting many years ago. Or you’d have run for office. Or you’d be Steve Bannon.

Youre none one of those, just like the rest of the resident NES big talkers.

 

[Uzi2]

That’s some tasty rhetoric, but you’re full of it. If your last sentence is true, you’d have started shooting many years ago. Or you’d have run for office. Or you’d be Steve Bannon.

Youre none one of those, just like the rest of the resident NES big talkers.

Bring it to my door and you'll be a test fit for a body bag.

 

[Greschner 4]

 

[Dadstoys]

What happens when that constitution is gone?

Then so is the rule of law.
The strongest will survive and God help us all.

 

[Picton]

Bring it to my door and you'll be a test fit for a body bag.

Cute.

But I’m not wrong. And deep down inside, you know it.

I’ve had my time in a dysfunctional urban wasteland of nightly arson and daily looting. Fortunately for me, I had around thirty guys with rifles, six trucks, a few SAWs and a Mk 19. And a .50 cal. So I felt safe enough. You want to create that here? Then put your money where your mouth is. Go ahead and lead the charge. I’ll be sitting back watching you on the news.

After my boating accident.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

That’s some tasty rhetoric, but you’re full of it. If your last sentence is true, you’d have started shooting many years ago. Or you’d have run for office. Or you’d be Steve Bannon.

Youre none one of those, just like the rest of the resident NES big talkers.

Which ones?

 

[Varmint]

That’s some tasty rhetoric, but you’re full of it. If your last sentence is true, you’d have started shooting many years ago. Or you’d have run for office. Or you’d be Steve Bannon.

Youre none one of those, just like the rest of the resident NES big talkers.

People have a breaking point. Having to pin the muzzle brake on your AR is one thing. Only the unhinged would go to war over that. Anyone who feels that strongly about it has probably moved to NH by now.

But having cops busting down your door cause you're a law-abiding gun owner, that's entirely different.

 

[Uzi2]

Cute.

But I’m not wrong. And deep down inside, you know it.

I’ve had my time in a dysfunctional urban wasteland of nightly arson and daily looting. Fortunately for me, I had around thirty guys with rifles, six trucks, a few SAWs and a Mk 19. And a .50 cal. So I felt safe enough. You want to create that here? Then put your money where your mouth is. Go ahead and lead the charge. I’ll be sitting back watching you on the news.

After my boating accident.

Your military experiences under the close watch of a command structure are a false comparison to what will ensue if any order for firearms confiscation were to be given in the United States. At that point, everyone in government and especially ANYONE wearing an identifiable uniform and any corrupt politician becomes a target along with every member of their family. All the rules go right out the window from that point forward.

I'm not looking or wanting to create anything here other than a government that abides by the rule of law and obeys their oaths of office. I'm stating the natural course of things once such a tyrannical confiscation order is given on any level.

There will not be any boating accidents here.

 

[browncoat]

“The end of all government” is nobody’s “best outcome.” Some of us here have been to parts of the world where law and order have become nonexistent. Rhetorically it sounds like a preference, but the reality on the ground is broken glass, arson, rape, three-legged rabid dogs everywhere, and the constant smell of shit. Oh, and the necessity for a 24-hour security plan. Indefinitely.

Feel free to desire that life; I can even suggest a list of countries you might wish to move to. But I’ve learned in my life that government is only horrible until you experience the total lack of it. I don’t care much for the American status quo either. But I’ll take it 100% of the time over the Syrian status quo.

Syria doesn't have no government, they have at least 3 governments duking it out.

 

[Picton]

Your military experiences under the close watch of a command structure are a false comparison to what will ensue if any order for firearms confiscation were to be given in the United States. At that point, everyone in government and especially ANYONE wearing an identifiable uniform and any corrupt politician becomes a target along with every member of their family. All the rules go right out the window from that point forward.

I'm not looking or wanting to create anything here other than a government that abides by the rule of law and obeys their oaths of office. I'm stating the natural course of things once such a tyrannical confiscation order is given on any level.

There will not be any boating accidents here.

That’s not what you said originally. You said

Nobody is advocating "the end of all government" here, we just want government to abide by its intended restraints and stop overstepping its bounds at every turn.

I will do what ever it takes to force that outcome if necessary.

“Force that outcome if necessary.”

What outcome? A government that abides by its restraints, avoids overstepping, abides by the rule of law, and obeys their oaths? Is that the outcome you intend to “force?” Because if so, bud, that ship sailed over 200 years ago.

Our government has never been any of those things. Ever. If you honestly and sincerely believe it ever was, and that suddenly it isn’t anymore, then you need to have the courage of your convictions, pick up a rifle, and ”force that outcome” like you say you want to.

If not? Then you simply sound like another keyboard commando, spouting off on the interwebs. There’s a lot of that on NES these days, and it gets old.

My experiences have nothing to do with their military context and everything to do with the destroyed civilian context in which we operated, a context you seem to be salivating to bring about. I’m not sure you comprehend just how awful that context is. As an alternative, I’ll take boating accidents any day.

 

[The5thDentist]

Dear Boston Globe,

How about NO.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

Can you post an excerpt so we don't give them the ad revenue?

Archive link: http://archive.is/QkjMS

 

[Uzi2]

That’s not what you said originally. You said



“Force that outcome if necessary.”

What outcome? A government that abides by its restraints, avoids overstepping, abides by the rule of law, and obeys their oaths? Is that the outcome you intend to “force?” Because if so, bud, that ship sailed over 200 years ago.

Our government has never been any of those things. Ever. If you honestly and sincerely believe it ever was, and that suddenly it isn’t anymore, then you need to have the courage of your convictions, pick up a rifle, and ”force that outcome” like you say you want to.

If not? Then you simply sound like another keyboard commando, spouting off on the interwebs. There’s a lot of that on NES these days, and it gets old.

My experiences have nothing to do with their military context and everything to do with the destroyed civilian context in which we operated, a context you seem to be salivating to bring about. I’m not sure you comprehend just how awful that context is. As an alternative, I’ll take boating accidents any day.

Please.......do us all a favor and go out in your boat and have an accident already. It's obvious you won't be around for the fight and if you are, you'll most likely be on the wrong side of things.

 

[mac1911]

I agree...look at what happened at the Bundy standoff...how many LEO's said "no way"?

Look what happened in New Orleans during hurricane Katrina.

I'm thinking we will, for the most part, be on our own.

Waco texas, LA riots all it takes is the "orders" to be put out. Only time will tell

 

[DispositionMatrix]

I'm not buying into this. I think the room might be a lot fuller than we would like to think.

Ditto. I don't know why anyone would think an organization full of authoritarians who think only LEOs should be allowed to possess firearms would not want to prosecute a confiscation.

 

[xtry51]

Let's do a simple hypothetical.

2020 elections dems win congress and the White House back. There is a mass shooting like LV. Congress passes a new AWB, this time with confiscation, ignoring 2A just like they did in 1994. For a short time after, a bunch of people who don't really like freedom start handing in their stuff. These are the people whose parents owned guns and they inherited them but never shoot, liberals who bought guns because Trump was Hitler, etc.

That tapers off and eventually there's another mass shooting. Next law enforcement agencies (both federal and local in states where gun laws run rampant i.e. MA, CA, CT, NY etc) use that incident to start picking off the low hanging fruit by using registration lists and licensing to confiscate from the people they view as rabble rousers and have records of purchases of now banned items. CT is a perfect breeding ground for this one with registered magazines. One of these people decides, rightfully so, that shooting back is the way to go. That person loses, since being ambushed, outnumbered and trapped in your home is a death sentence, but some cops got injured or killed during the scuffle.

The hugely anti states now dig in all-or-nothing and issue search warrants for the big fish with registered weapons they know weren't turned in. The ROE for theses also just became every person with a now illegal gun or mag who has a police encounter gets basically shot on sight due to "police fearing for their lives". The de facto execution of every law enforcement search warrant is shoot first because the illegal gun owner may shoot back and who cares because they are criminals and police lives matter.

Now there's a second wave of voluntary forfeiture, bigger than the first wave because deep down most people would rather get on the train and hope they don't die than risk fighting outright. These are the people that think voting and writing letters work, violence is never an option, and openly carrying firearms in public or to a protest was "hurting our cause".

That wave peters out and now the CTs and CAs know nobody has stopped them yet, so they forge ahead with a new wave of search warrants for EVERY citizen left who ever had a government document indicating they might own a firearm. "If you have nothing to hide, just let us in and search". This is when and how an actual civil war starts, and here is why. It starts by a the people who choose to live in places with arcane gun laws and hugely anti police chiefs having to decide what they do next. Most will do nothing and hope something changes. They will hang their hat on some sort of SCOTUS decision that is 5 years away. A very small group of of these people will decide enough is enough. Choosing to fight leaves your only option is offensive killing of police. That means instead of waiting at your house for the warrant to be executed some people decide ambushing the police as they enter and leave the station and trapping THEM in a building is the only path that actually gives them a chance of living. A couple of these people do it, and some are successful and get away. Every person left with firearms is now at war with law enforcement and once "honest" people start the shooting of cops offensively, the big cities collapse under the weight of the EBT crowd of real criminals knowing it's open warfare. There is nothing left to check gang warfare, since remaining gun owners are now forced to side with real criminals against cops. The actual criminals and "honest people" are now the same group.

From there anything can happen and that is the actual scary part. Civil war is not scary from a historical perspective. The bad is the risk of what side wins and what government appears at the end.

 

[Ultrarunner]

Let's do a simple hypothetical.

2020 elections dems win congress and the White House back. There is a mass shooting like LV. Congress passes a new AWB, this time with confiscation, ignoring 2A just like they did in 1994. For a short time after, a bunch of people who don't really like freedom start handing in their stuff. These are the people whose parents owned guns and they inherited them but never shoot, liberals who bought guns because Trump was Hitler, etc.

That tapers off and eventually there's another mass shooting. Next law enforcement agencies (both federal and local in states where gun laws run rampant i.e. MA, CA, CT, NY etc) use that incident to start picking off the low hanging fruit by using registration lists and licensing to confiscate from the people they view as rabble rousers and have records of purchases of now banned items. CT is a perfect breeding ground for this one with registered magazines. One of these people decides, rightfully so, that shooting back is the way to go. That person loses, since being ambushed, outnumbered and trapped in your home is a death sentence, but some cops got injured or killed during the scuffle.

The hugely anti states now dig in all-or-nothing and issue search warrants for the big fish with registered weapons they know weren't turned in. The ROE for theses also just became every person with a now illegal gun or mag who has a police encounter gets basically shot on sight due to "police fearing for their lives". The de facto execution of every law enforcement search warrant is shoot first because the illegal gun owner may shoot back and who cares because they are criminals and police lives matter.

Now there's a second wave of voluntary forfeiture, bigger than the first wave because deep down most people would rather get on the train and hope they don't die than risk fighting outright. These are the people that think voting and writing letters work, violence is never an option, and openly carrying firearms in public or to a protest was "hurting our cause".

That wave peters out and now the CTs and CAs know nobody has stopped them yet, so they forge ahead with a new wave of search warrants for EVERY citizen left who ever had a government document indicating they might own a firearm. "If you have nothing to hide, just let us in and search". This is when and how an actual civil war starts, and here is why. It starts by a the people who choose to live in places with arcane gun laws and hugely anti police chiefs having to decide what they do next. Most will do nothing and hope something changes. They will hang their hat on some sort of SCOTUS decision that is 5 years away. A very small group of of these people will decide enough is enough. Choosing to fight leaves your only option is offensive killing of police. That means instead of waiting at your house for the warrant to be executed some people decide ambushing the police as they enter and leave the station and trapping THEM in a building is the only path that actually gives them a chance of living. A couple of these people do it, and some are successful and get away. Every person left with firearms is now at war with law enforcement and once "honest" people start the shooting of cops offensively, the big cities collapse under the weight of the EBT crowd of real criminals knowing it's open warfare. There is nothing left to check gang warfare, since remaining gun owners are now forced to side with real criminals against cops. The actual criminals and "honest people" are now the same group.

From there anything can happen and that is the actual scary part. Civil war is not scary from a historical perspective. The bad is the risk of what side wins and what government appears at the end.

I'm with you until your 5th paragraph. See my earlier post concerning Civil War in first world nations.

 

[xtry51]

I'm with you until your 5th paragraph. See my earlier post concerning Civil War in first world nations.

I did read yours. My retort to your point is two fold:

1) There is currently an outlet for people to move out of the state. Perfect example, my family moved from CT after the last ban, literally we found a place in NH a few days after it passed and moved in 3 weeks. That is not an option with a national ban, so it increases the stress factor.

2) Fighting between two large groups does not happen in a single instance. It happens by people within a group "going rogue" and dragging everyone else into the mix by cascading events. We almost had this event at the Bundy situation and the government recognized exactly what was happening. They new a Waco/Ruby event like that would literally start a war. So they backed off and went after everyone in their homes later to corner them. This will happen again, only it won't happen over and over with no change in behavior. Eventually someone decides to return the favor.


Everything in my first 4 paragraphs can happen today. There is no form/branch of government preventing another AWB from happening and it being enforced vigorously by anti areas. We all also know ATF and DHS have zero qualms killing people for no reason even now. There is no actual barrier to passing basn, confiscation and arrests as we sit today.

 

[Ultrarunner]

I did read yours. My retort to your point is two fold:

1) There is currently an outlet for people to move out of the state. Perfect example, my family moved from CT after the last ban, literally we found a place in NH a few days after it passed and moved in 3 weeks. That is not an option with a national ban, so it increases the stress factor.

2) Fighting between two large groups does not happen in a single instance. It happens by people within a group "going rogue" and dragging everyone else into the mix by cascading events. We almost had this event at the Bundy situation and the government recognized exactly what was happening. They new a Waco/Ruby event like that would literally start a war. So they backed off and went after everyone in their homes later to corner them. This will happen again, only it won't happen over and over with no change in behavior. Eventually someone decides to return the favor.


Everything in my first 4 paragraphs can happen today. There is no form/branch of government preventing another AWB from happening and it being enforced vigorously by anti areas. We all also know ATF and DHS have zero qualms killing people for no reason even now. There is no actual barrier to passing basn, confiscation and arrests as we sit today.

I'm in total agreement here. I don't even think we necessarily have to wait for 2020 to see some anti gun potential. If we see another major shooting within a months time, RINOS and the left will have "to do something" due to the faux public outcry.

The one thing I am interested to see, is that if a significant anti-gun piece of Federal legislation was passed, whether the media would become totally silent on mass shooting events to try and prove that the law "worked" or whether they would keep up coverage of these sorts of things until a confiscation took place.

I almost guarantee you'd never hear of another mass shooting if confiscation was passed because the agenda has been met and there is no point furthering the cause any longer.

 

[Squire]

Wait, is this a Killy Feature AWB or a semi-auto/detachable mag Healy AWB?

Let's do a simple hypothetical.

2020 elections dems win congress and the White House back. There is a mass shooting like LV. Congress passes a new AWB, this time with confiscation, ignoring 2A just like they did in 1994. For a short time after, a bunch of people who don't really like freedom start handing in their stuff. These are the people whose parents owned guns and they inherited them but never shoot, liberals who bought guns because Trump was Hitler, etc.

That tapers off and eventually there's another mass shooting. Next law enforcement agencies (both federal and local in states where gun laws run rampant i.e. MA, CA, CT, NY etc) use that incident to start picking off the low hanging fruit by using registration lists and licensing to confiscate from the people they view as rabble rousers and have records of purchases of now banned items. CT is a perfect breeding ground for this one with registered magazines. One of these people decides, rightfully so, that shooting back is the way to go. That person loses, since being ambushed, outnumbered and trapped in your home is a death sentence, but some cops got injured or killed during the scuffle.

The hugely anti states now dig in all-or-nothing and issue search warrants for the big fish with registered weapons they know weren't turned in. The ROE for theses also just became every person with a now illegal gun or mag who has a police encounter gets basically shot on sight due to "police fearing for their lives". The de facto execution of every law enforcement search warrant is shoot first because the illegal gun owner may shoot back and who cares because they are criminals and police lives matter.

Now there's a second wave of voluntary forfeiture, bigger than the first wave because deep down most people would rather get on the train and hope they don't die than risk fighting outright. These are the people that think voting and writing letters work, violence is never an option, and openly carrying firearms in public or to a protest was "hurting our cause".

That wave peters out and now the CTs and CAs know nobody has stopped them yet, so they forge ahead with a new wave of search warrants for EVERY citizen left who ever had a government document indicating they might own a firearm. "If you have nothing to hide, just let us in and search". This is when and how an actual civil war starts, and here is why. It starts by a the people who choose to live in places with arcane gun laws and hugely anti police chiefs having to decide what they do next. Most will do nothing and hope something changes. They will hang their hat on some sort of SCOTUS decision that is 5 years away. A very small group of of these people will decide enough is enough. Choosing to fight leaves your only option is offensive killing of police. That means instead of waiting at your house for the warrant to be executed some people decide ambushing the police as they enter and leave the station and trapping THEM in a building is the only path that actually gives them a chance of living. A couple of these people do it, and some are successful and get away. Every person left with firearms is now at war with law enforcement and once "honest" people start the shooting of cops offensively, the big cities collapse under the weight of the EBT crowd of real criminals knowing it's open warfare. There is nothing left to check gang warfare, since remaining gun owners are now forced to side with real criminals against cops. The actual criminals and "honest people" are now the same group.

From there anything can happen and that is the actual scary part. Civil war is not scary from a historical perspective. The bad is the risk of what side wins and what government appears at the end.

 

[xtry51]

Wait, is this a Killy Feature AWB or a semi-auto/detachable mag Healy AWB?

There's no real difference because if Biden or Bernie are in charge someone like Healy will be enforcing it.

That said, my feeling is when they do it again they will try to ban all detachable mag rifles for sure and skip the features. The question then becomes what happens with pistols and SBRs? My guess is they go full retard and try to eliminate the difference between pistols and rifles altogether, grouping everything simply a "gun" regardless. This lets them ban semi pistols too under the argument you can still buy a revolver for self protection and bolt action for hunting. They'll cede ground and mention self protection in order to gun grab all semi's and attempt to skirt recent SCOTUS rulings.

This is the big joke of course as to why the court system has already collapsed. The McDonald/Heller decisions are clearly at odds with every single federal gun law and certainly every state AWB. Those two rulings should have immediately nullified at minimum all AWB and licensing.

 

[Heathen]

If and it's a a big if we descend into civil war, it's going to look a lot more like Bosnia or the troubles in Northern Ireland than most people on either side want to believe.

 

[EC1]

how about confiscation of a vehicle when the driver has been caught under the influence?

 

[Ultrarunner]

how about confiscation of a vehicle when the driver has been caught under the influence?

Some states already do this. Also theft.

 

[not new guy]

Funny coincidence how "confiscation" has been the media buzzword this week.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Some states already do this. Also theft.

Which ones?

 

[drgrant]

Let's do a simple hypothetical.

2020 elections dems win congress and the White House back. There is a mass shooting like LV. Congress passes a new AWB, this time with confiscation, ignoring 2A just like they did in 1994. For a short time after, a bunch of people who don't really like freedom start handing in their stuff. These are the people whose parents owned guns and they inherited them but never shoot, liberals who bought guns because Trump was Hitler, etc.

That tapers off and eventually there's another mass shooting. Next law enforcement agencies (both federal and local in states where gun laws run rampant i.e. MA, CA, CT, NY etc) use that incident to start picking off the low hanging fruit by using registration lists and licensing to confiscate from the people they view as rabble rousers and have records of purchases of now banned items. CT is a perfect breeding ground for this one with registered magazines. One of these people decides, rightfully so, that shooting back is the way to go. That person loses, since being ambushed, outnumbered and trapped in your home is a death sentence, but some cops got injured or killed during the scuffle.

The hugely anti states now dig in all-or-nothing and issue search warrants for the big fish with registered weapons they know weren't turned in. The ROE for theses also just became every person with a now illegal gun or mag who has a police encounter gets basically shot on sight due to "police fearing for their lives". The de facto execution of every law enforcement search warrant is shoot first because the illegal gun owner may shoot back and who cares because they are criminals and police lives matter.

Now there's a second wave of voluntary forfeiture, bigger than the first wave because deep down most people would rather get on the train and hope they don't die than risk fighting outright. These are the people that think voting and writing letters work, violence is never an option, and openly carrying firearms in public or to a protest was "hurting our cause".

That wave peters out and now the CTs and CAs know nobody has stopped them yet, so they forge ahead with a new wave of search warrants for EVERY citizen left who ever had a government document indicating they might own a firearm. "If you have nothing to hide, just let us in and search". This is when and how an actual civil war starts, and here is why. It starts by a the people who choose to live in places with arcane gun laws and hugely anti police chiefs having to decide what they do next. Most will do nothing and hope something changes. They will hang their hat on some sort of SCOTUS decision that is 5 years away. A very small group of of these people will decide enough is enough. Choosing to fight leaves your only option is offensive killing of police. That means instead of waiting at your house for the warrant to be executed some people decide ambushing the police as they enter and leave the station and trapping THEM in a building is the only path that actually gives them a chance of living. A couple of these people do it, and some are successful and get away. Every person left with firearms is now at war with law enforcement and once "honest" people start the shooting of cops offensively, the big cities collapse under the weight of the EBT crowd of real criminals knowing it's open warfare. There is nothing left to check gang warfare, since remaining gun owners are now forced to side with real criminals against cops. The actual criminals and "honest people" are now the same group.

Or the more likely reality is that most of this doesn't happen and the antis hedge on cultural paradigm shifts, incremenatlist strategy, and basically just wait for the boomers and Gen X to die off and try to culturally kill gun ownership, and in 40 or so years they "win" anyways. IMHO that's the most likely danger. "Bobbys mom says guns are bad so she won't let bobby come over our house anymore". etc, etc, ad nauseam. They are trying to "guilt" people into not owning guns.

It would be funny to see an anti state go full retard though, and I don't think it'd amount to necessarily people pushed to the extreme of directly hunting random cops, but rather politicians- they can't protect all of them all the time... and even if they can, most pols don't want to live like that. You'd be more likely to see pols who openly support confiscation of previously lawfully owned property getting picked off.

Eventually that also would send another signal- if I was a law enforcement officer, would I be more likely to say "wait, so im imperiling myself, because this elected dbag can't keep his/her mouth shut" or am I going to suck for the brainwashing that "the people whacking the politicians are terrerists!!!" etc.

Also, those pissed about the confiscation would be stupid to hunt the cops unless it was
tangential or they had no choice. if anything you'd want to short circuit that relationship, etc. (why fight the guys with the guns when you can potentially co-opt them?)

Remember, police or other enforcers derive power from, individuals above them. If someone starts
making things "really uncomfortable" for those people, then suddenly the police lose interest in obeying them.

I don't think this country has ever really faced anything in that bracket.

-Mike

 

[Ultrarunner]

Which ones?

Minnesota and New Mexico are the two that come to mind. There may be others. It's not in all cases of DUI but they retain the option to do so. Kind of seems like the MA bonded warehouse thing for guns.

 

[EC1]

Some states already do this. Also theft.

Not automatic, see below:

Vehicle Confiscation

Vehicle confiscation penalties allow a motor vehicle department or law enforcement agency to seize a DUI offender's vehicle, either permanently or for a set period of time. Such penalties typically apply only to repeat DUI offenders, and often the return of the vehicle requires payment of fines and significant administrative costs.

Ignition Interlock

A vehicle ignition interlock breath-testing device measures a vehicle operator's BAC, and will prevent operation of the vehicle if more than a minimal amount of alcohol is detected (i.e. BAC level of .02). DUI offenders will usually be required to pay the costs of installation, rental, and maintenance of an ignition interlock device.