They could also tell you to just turn them in or go to jail. Laws can be written to say ANYTHING they want.
Of course, if the courts worked, they would uphold such laws as illegal seizure and require some compensation.
They can do that, but it is doubtful that they would take that
approach, at least not without an intermediary step. The gun
banners know that incrementalism works better over time in the US
because less dust is raised when smaller creeping laws are put into
effect. Gun laws are dangerous because often they were put into
place and nobody questioned them. The banners know that the
stealth approach is best for precisely this reason. They know that
if they try to ban them all at once that it will generally fail and cause
a setback.
The cosponsorship of HR1022 is a big sign of this... look at the
list.... where is Pelosi? Nowhere to be found. She knows that the
whole thing is a dumb idea. I don't see anyone else important on the
list either. Wheres Rangel? He's an anti douchebag and he hasn't
signed onto it. The list of cosponsors is "pure moonbat crew" more
or less. HR1022 is not clever enough for the gun banners
repetoire. (The banners like the tack-on route... eg, like what they tried
to do with S397 and barely did with the original AWB... they tacked it
on at the end of something bigger. )
On another note though... MA is a very different story. The banners would probably try to
get away with an all out ban at the state level. If someone like Barrios tries to push a bill that
is basically an exact duplicate of CA's roberti-roos AW ban that would not surprise me at
all.
-Mike