Will The Government Confiscate Food or Guns first?

We received this question from William...."I'd like you're opinion on whether the government will confiscate food supplies from commercial places and from the population. A friend of mine got me into prepping for TEOTWAKI and he told me there is presidential orders that would allow the government to confiscate food during emergencies. I understand the gun confiscation issue. The government would have a hard time trying to get guns from people who will just hide them. But it would be hard to hide food or hide your gardens. "

UrbanMan's comment: William, the government is more likely to try to control or nationalize food supplies commercially before they suspend the 4th amendment and confiscate food from individuals. This is simply based on resources available to effect control. Based mostly on an Executive Order signed by Obama in March of last year, titled National Defense Resources Preparedness, there is a belief that the Government now has the power to seize civil transportation assets, farm equipment, farm facilities (producing and processing), food resources, fertilizers, and even utilize the population in forced labor schemes. This, in my mind, could only come about in a large, chaotic collapse.

You are also right that efforts to control or confiscate food would probably come before gun confiscation, which would simply cause large scale violence even civil war. Plus the adege of "controlling the food, controlling the population comes to mind". One could envision a program of turning in guns, ammunition and other related items in order to get access to government controlled food.

You can read the NDRP executive order here, however the crux is in how the government intreprets any law.   Before the government conducts large scale food confiscation scheme, there would probably be a media campaign, psychological operations if you will, calling for people to "share" food stocks and capabilities, painting people who fail to comply as "food horders" and essentially pitting neighbors against neighbors.

However there is a movement in the government, to use someone else's term, called "Regulation Nation", that is restricting individuals rights to sell, trade or even produce food products. This follows a general orientation of government, especialy in the last four years, to restrict common and long standing freedoms.

Good luck trying to research you way into determining what powers the FDA and various levels of governments possess under the banners of "Food Safety", "Wholseale and Retail Food production and distribution",....again much if it is in how the government intreprets their powers.

Some agricultural communities see government regulation as a threat to their existing freedoms. The below article, taken from Food Renegade.com depicts the town of Sedgwick, Maine and their efforts to maintain their rights.

A small portion of the article:

Sedgwick, Maine has done what no other town in the United States has done. The town unanimously passed an ordinance giving its citizens the right “to produce, process, sell, purchase, and consume local foods of their choosing.” This includes raw milk, locally slaughtered meats, and just about anything else you can imagine. It’s also a decided bucking of state and federal laws.

This isn’t just a declaration of preference. The proposed warrant added, “It shall be unlawful for any law or regulation adopted by the state or federal government to interfere with the rights recognized by this Ordinance.” In other words, no state licensing requirements prohibiting certain farms from selling dairy products or producing their own chickens for sale to other citizens in the town.

What about potential legal liability and state or federal inspections? It’s all up to the seller and buyer to negotiate. “Patrons purchasing food for home consumption may enter into private agreements with those producers or processors of local foods to waive any liability for the consumption of that food. Producers or processors of local foods shall be exempt from licensure and inspection requirements for that food as long as those agreements are in effect.” Imagine that–buyer and seller can agree to cut out the lawyers. That’s almost un-American, isn’t it?

A selection of comments on the article:

I’m not one of the “lawyers here” but my observation is that when the local law chooses to prohibit more than the rest of the state, nation or organization they will usually get by with it. It is when local law moves to allow more latitude that the trouble starts.

For example, I can imagine that if a county in PA would take a Humbolt, CA position on raw milk, the state would take an it’s-up-to-them position. But if local law in an area moved to allow raw butter, cream, kefir & yogurt… I’m sure it would not get to first base.

Still, I say Kudos to the fine folks of Sedgwick Maine. Their common sense bravery warms the heart of every awake American. If nothing else, their move will bring the ridiculousness of the situation to the consciousness of another percent or so of Americans. One American at a time the tipping point will be reached.