That's certainly a well-written article. He maintains his essay at the idea level, and that's where "the rub lies".
He touches on the concept that an elected Federal official must defend and uphold the Constitution. That in itself is a point of controversy. From a purely political interpretation, the President, and all other Federal officials taking an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution, would have to literally obey the U.S. Constitution, ignoring a lot of laws passed in the interim.
For instance, the literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would mean that no laws could be passed that limit gun ownership. We know from experience, though, that the GCA of 1968, and other Federally-passed laws, have put limits on gun ownership, and those have been upheld as constitutional.
Literal interpretation of the 4th Amendment would pretty much rule out things like phone taps, text messaging files, etc., since those technologies weren't around in 1789. And there are those who argue, quite logically, that technology doesn't transcend the Framers original intent.
It would be a daunting task for any government agency to start confiscating guns. While there may not be an active, organized resistance, there would be plenty of hostile action. There is also the question of manpower. Just how does an agency go about trying to gather the resources to enact such a law? Remember, it was only a few years ago, that police in New Orleans started confiscating guns after hurricane Katrina. I'm quite certain they didn't get all the guns. It took a bit, but it was finally ruled that the NOPD had far exceeded their constitutional authority.
What happens when folks resist? And it would happen. Ruby Ridge is one example, and there undoubtedly would be thousands of other incidents.
And just where are all the guns? No one knows where all 300 million are.
And just how quickly would someone file a law suit in Federal court(s) seeking an immediate injunction against such a law? And there will be Federal judges out there who would grant injunctive relief in a heartbeat. There undoubtedly would be a number of state governments which would have something to say on the subject.
We could very well end up with a bunch of "Lexingtons" and "Concords", and that would guarantee that the United States would cease to exist as a united nation.
A number of years ago, there was a PBS series titled "The Constitution - That Delicate Balance". When the 2nd Amendment discussion came up in the series, there was a scenario where there was civil unrest in a town. A Federal judge stated he would confiscate all the guns to quell the unrest; but not one of the other judges or attorneys on the panel questioned him on his authority to even issue such an order.
It makes for a great "what if", but even in the current climate, I doubt that the scenario would ever play out.
