If you received order to disarm legally armed citizens would you execute this order?


PDA






Spandauer
January 16, 2013, 01:01 AM
Eligible to vote on above poll: ONLY military, reserves, National Guard, police, sheriff, fire-fighters, other LE agency members!

Note: The options "Yes, I would!" and "Undecided." were placed into the same category on purpose!

If you enjoyed reading about "If you received order to disarm legally armed citizens would you execute this order?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Thermactor
January 16, 2013, 01:09 AM
Fire fighters? Really? I don't think they fall into the category..

txcookie
January 16, 2013, 01:12 AM
if that order ever came they would also issue me full battle rattle. I would take it and meet my family back home in TX. I would never EVER go against Americans.

Wolfman131
January 16, 2013, 01:25 AM
I'd speculate that at least intially, about 40% would at least oppose the order in principle. But eventually, most would comply with it. Anyone that supports mandatory government oversight of all gun transactions, is immediately suspect.

JERRY
January 16, 2013, 01:40 AM
whats this oath keeper thing? is it for folks who forgot the first oath they took?

gallo
January 16, 2013, 02:17 AM
Not much hope on leos, fleas, or military. After all they get paid by those issuing the orders.

David White
January 16, 2013, 02:33 AM
I live between two different LE's. I can't wait to see the look on their faces when they try to knock on my door!

Blakenzy
January 16, 2013, 07:18 AM
They will never tell you that you will be going against honest American Citizens. You will be told that you going against homegrown terrorists, or people suspected of being associated with extremists. And it will never be to uphold an unConstitutional law, or illegal order. It will be dressed to make you believe it will prevent the deaths of millions of Americans, or save the Republic. Extreme measure for an extreme, dire circumstance. Military personnel will be kept in the dark prior to any action, receive only skewed if not outright fabricated information, and deployed hastily in a "do or die" atmosphere.

"We must temporarily secure all civilian weapons in X area of operations to facilitate the work of CDC personnel in locating the stolen vials of weaponized airborne ebola that we believe to be in the hands of a widespread local network of homegrown terrorists with connections to Al Qaeda and Mexican drug cartels"

If you are military and have not made the premeditated, conscious decision that under no circumstances will you enter a citizen's home, and take anything from him regardless of legislation, or orders (something like Oathkeepers) then I am pretty sure our rulers will be able to get you to play a part in what ever devious plan they may have. Don't be a useful idiot.

Police forces (especially the larger ones) I am afraid will happily follow orders for home invasion and confiscation because that is what they are geared to do, and do so every single day. Thank you War on Drugs!

REDMASTA
January 16, 2013, 07:34 AM
I think most definitely they would, might be some military and leo who refuse initially but thats it.

Its their lively hood and necks on the line if they oppose, survival instincts will over take moral reasons...

Now if its something very horrible then moral reasons can overcome survival instincts, but I dont think confiscation as awful as it would be is enough. It would have to escalate to a whole other level which I doubt would happen.

Either way dont think they will come after what Americans already own....

MedWheeler
January 16, 2013, 07:46 AM
I believe there are a significant number of LEOs and soldiers that know (or will know) that, once the populace is disarmed, they themselves will be next. More need to be educated in this.

After all, no one serves as a soldier or LEO forever.

OilyPablo
January 16, 2013, 08:20 AM
I almost joined OathKeepers, but really there is no need. Don't need to join such a group to protect our Constitution. Besides, I figure we are already on Obama's list, so they will know who to come after first.

"No one takin' your shotguns, no one takin' your rifles........."

Lord will we ever learn how to vote? I'll bet there are still some Obama supporters on THR. And for those of you who said he wouldn't......yeah go shrink back and keep your mouth closed.

May he burn.

Blakenzy
January 16, 2013, 08:53 AM
Oh and the way this poll is questioned is tricky.

"If you received order to disarm legally armed citizens would you execute this order?"

You can go from "legally" armed to illegally armed over night, with just a signature. Armed is armed, but legal status is too fickle to make up your mind based solely on that.

RustyHammer
January 16, 2013, 09:09 AM
NY is a perfect example of how to go about it. Now, anyone owning a gun is potentially a criminal ... depending upon mag size, model, registration (now required .. so they know where to start knocking), etc. You see where this is going ... :(

BSA1
January 16, 2013, 09:28 AM
I agree that this is a poorly worded poll question.

If you mean my choice is between having a job, keeping a roof over our head, feeding my wife and children OR being fired for refusing to follow orders, having my career as a LEO ended with uncertain job choices?

Well, I sure like having enough to eat and having a roof over my head. Sorry but reality sucks.

LNK
January 16, 2013, 09:30 AM
If you mean my choice is between having a job, keeping a roof over our head, feeding my wife and children OR being fired for refusing to follow orders and having my career as a LEO ended?

Well, I sure like having enough to eat and having a roof over my head. Sorry but reality sucks.

Sucks to be you if you would follow those orders. Just saying!

That's reality. Find another line of work....

LNK

mljdeckard
January 16, 2013, 09:37 AM
I have discussed this with my commander. We concur that such orders are illegal, immoral, and unethical. We are under special scrutiny as holders of security clearances to ensure that we do not violate civil rights.

Bhi curamach
January 16, 2013, 09:42 AM
Can I choose who comes to the door? If so I'm going with firemen. I think I might be able to fend off the axes and ladders..

lobo9er
January 16, 2013, 10:02 AM
Happened in Louisiana. Those guys sure felt bad but orders are orders.

Bobson
January 16, 2013, 10:09 AM
Happened in Louisiana. Those guys sure felt bad but orders are orders.
What? Elaborate on this, please.

aHFo3
January 16, 2013, 10:38 AM
Louisiana reference is regarding the confiscation that happened after Hurricane Katrina:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192347,00.html

JohnM
January 16, 2013, 10:44 AM
And after that outrageous Katrina fiasco a great number of states passed laws to prevent such unlawful gun confiscation during natural disasters.

lobo9er
January 16, 2013, 11:00 AM
unlawful gun confiscation during natural disasters.

What about because the Gov doesn't want you to have them? It could happen again. In North Carolina I think it was a local sheriff said NO GUNS and AMMO maybe transported because of a snow storm. It hardly made the news. I will try to find it.

JohnM
January 16, 2013, 11:04 AM
lobo9er
Quote:
unlawful gun confiscation during natural disasters.
What about because the Gov doesn't want you to have them? It could happen again. In North Carolina I think it was a local sheriff said NO GUNS and AMMO maybe transported because of a snow storm. It hardly made the news. I will try to find it.

More "orders are orders"? Who's orders? I remember reading about that episode.

lobo9er
January 16, 2013, 11:21 AM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=504033

Heres a thread on the NC deal. I just skimmed through it again it was a minute ago and I still stand by my posts if you read it.

Bovice
January 16, 2013, 12:03 PM
To those who said "I like having my job and feeding my family..."

Have you considered the possibility that the people behind the doors you're knocking on might not just roll over for you in that scenario? It's not like you're issuing a traffic ticket. This is a major breach of constitutional rights, I can't imagine it would be "just another day at the office".

Just something to think about.

Arkansas Paul
January 16, 2013, 12:08 PM
You can go from "legally" armed to illegally armed over night, with just a signature.

Who has the power to do this with just a signature? I'm not saying it's impossible for us to get there. Not much would surprise me at this point, but it would take much more than a mere signature.

rdhood
January 16, 2013, 12:17 PM
What? Elaborate on this, please.

I am always astounded that this was brushed under the rug by the MSM. Yes, it happened. And LE/Military who participated should be ashamed of themselves.

Have you considered the possibility that the people behind the doors you're knocking on might not just roll over for you in that scenario?

I think all it would take would be a few deaths up front (either citizens or LE/Military) and everybody involved on the government side would be forced to take a big step back. Stuff could blow up very quickly. Knocking on a million doors/ a million Ruby Ridge incidents would not be a pretty site. And when I say "knocking on the door", I mean that people would know every LE move due to the internet.
Some would say: but the government would shut down the internet.
To that: Seriously? What better way to get the average American citizen/business mobilized on the side of the citizen than to show the constitutional overreach of the government.

CoRoMo
January 16, 2013, 12:34 PM
Here's how it would happen:

Officers are handed an arrest warrant, told to go knock on a door and bring in a specific individual.

Here's how it would not happen:

Officer are told to go through a neighborhood, door by door, and collect any and all firearms found.

Elessar
January 16, 2013, 12:56 PM
Never say Never. We are now in new territory and the way things are trending, anything is possible. The only question is "how long will it take to get to that point?"

lobo9er
January 16, 2013, 01:00 PM
Louisiana they went door to door.

Guns&Religion
January 16, 2013, 01:22 PM
I could understand a LEO's dilemma about enforcing something like this. I would hope however, that the would do thier best to make it a low priority.

On a related note, it may be a good idea at this point, as lawfull gun owners, to not advertize too broadly, the fact that we own these items. (Try not to post photos or videos on sites that have your name or show your face). This might help LEO's avoid the dilemma to begin with.

CoRoMo
January 16, 2013, 01:22 PM
Louisiana they went door to door.
And they learned that lesson. Next time they won't.

lobo9er
January 16, 2013, 01:51 PM
what lesson did they learn?

wojownik
January 16, 2013, 03:35 PM
Note: The options "Yes, I would!" and "Undecided." were placed into the same category on purpose!

Why? "Yes" is very different from "undecided"

Zombiphobia
January 16, 2013, 03:39 PM
I swore to defend the constitution against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

Why would I break that oath by disarming citizens?

Now, if those citizens are heavily armed and attempting to destroy government buildings or commit acts of legitimate terrorism for no good reason, then yes, I'd be forced to act.

But to disarm citizens just because I was given the order? No way. The person issuing that order is asking for trouble.

blarby
January 16, 2013, 03:53 PM
I have discussed this with my commander. We concur that such orders are illegal, immoral, and unethical. We are under special scrutiny as holders of security clearances to ensure that we do not violate civil rights.

Thanks ! Much appreciated.

I know what a lot of 'merica thinks about our "security forces"... I thank you for pointing out that critical thinking does actually occur- and not just singularly, but in groups.

TimeRegained
January 16, 2013, 03:57 PM
"If you received order to disarm legally armed citizens would you execute this order?"

There is a fallacy here.

You stated legally armed.

At that point they wouldn't be legally armed.

David White
January 16, 2013, 04:19 PM
Sucks to be you if you would follow those orders. Just saying!

That's reality. Find another line of work....

LNK

I think you mean this...
177795

Evergreen
January 16, 2013, 04:20 PM
Probably should change the clause "legally armed" to "who were previously legally armed".

LNK
January 16, 2013, 04:21 PM
I think you mean this...
177795
Sums it up without being too melodramatic...

Thanks,
LNK

chipcom
January 16, 2013, 04:44 PM
Question is too vague. Define "legally armed" and provide some context for this hypothetical order.

I would not comply with any order to disarm citizens legally exercising their rights...unless I perceived those people to be an imminent threat to the health, safety or freedom of innocents, in which case they are abusing those rights.

Kiln
January 16, 2013, 05:13 PM
The police here that I know would refuse to collect them.

Here in Arkansas, the police aren't afraid of guns like the police in Liberal strongholds like New York.

They don't look at some guy at the target range as a potential enemy but as a law abiding citizens.

col.lemat
January 16, 2013, 05:22 PM
Just following orders. Worked for the nazis at Nuremberg. Sorry I don't like rope around my neck

JERRY
January 16, 2013, 05:23 PM
new orleans katrina was their own corrupt city cops and cops from commie states mostly who took guns from law abiding folks....

i imagine the commie areas of this once great country will have cops willing to do this....but id be surprised if the red state cops did this outside of the urban pig styes.

im not surprised at the "tin" foil hat crowd though, they apply a broad brush to all law enforcement regardless of creed.

P.O.2010
January 16, 2013, 06:40 PM
I swore an Oath as both a Soldier and a Police Officer to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. As a Police Officer I swore an Oath to support and defend the Constitution of my particular State. Enforcing a ban on so-called assault weapons and standard capacity magazines is contrary to my sworn Oaths. I will never obey that type of order.

If a new Federal so-called assault weapons ban is passed it will result in widespread resistance both violent and non-violent. I for one will not be breaking down a peaceable citizen's door at sunrise with a bunker in one hand and a pistol in the other screaming "Police! Search warrant!" because said citizen chose to retain property he has every right to own and enjoy. I did not join the Police Department to lord over my neighbors or to oppress them under the color of law. I also didn't join so that I could be (justifiably) shot to death while committing armed robbery and kidnapping.

The law only has teeth because armed men and women stand ready to enforce it. If we as Police Officers and Soldiers simply sit down and say "No" then the operation of the law grinds to a halt. I've read a lot of discussion on here were various commentators state that 'the law is the law' and no one's opinion of the Constitution counts unless they happen to be a high ranking elected official or bureaucrat. On that point we will have to agree to disagree. Every single sane man and woman in this world is accountable for their own conduct. I know full well the consequences of refusing to carry this type of law into effect. I also know that in the long term the consequences of choosing the easier wrong are much heavier and severe than choosing the harder right.

Jim K
January 16, 2013, 06:49 PM
A certain person in the past was a national leader. He ordered all military officers to swear an oath of personal loyalty to him, supplanting their previous oath to the constitution of their country. Then the officers ordered their men to take the same oath.

No worry, then about obedience, was there?

Of course I won't name the national leader because I would be accused of trying to compare him with our national leader. That is silly because our national leader does not have a mustache.

Jim

sean326
January 16, 2013, 06:49 PM
the nazis would always make sure the soldiers were not local. i think a soldier from the northeast would have a higher compliance rate against civilians from the southwest.... the feds would follow orders, local cops would baulk.

you hand a 19 year old an M4 and a uniform and tell him to kick in a door in a neighborhood 500 miles from his home he'll be giggling the whole time texting his buddies how fun it is.

lobo9er
January 16, 2013, 07:16 PM
"tin foil hat crowd"
You mean people that believe if it happened before (in our lifetime) believe it could happen again?

winterhorse290
January 16, 2013, 07:18 PM
not if they want to enjoy their retirement.

winterhorse290
January 16, 2013, 07:20 PM
the nazis would always make sure the soldiers were not local. i think a soldier from the northeast would have a higher compliance rate against civilians from the southwest.... the feds would follow orders, local cops would baulk.

you hand a 19 year old an M4 and a uniform and tell him to kick in a door in a neighborhood 500 miles from his home he'll be giggling the whole time texting his buddies how fun it is.
__________________
can you imagine someone from maine ordering an 80 year old alabama grandmother to turn over her guns.

sean326
January 16, 2013, 07:29 PM
yup they already proved that will happen in new orleans... its not theory its history.

ZigZagZeke
January 16, 2013, 07:57 PM
A half dozen Oregon county sheriffs have sent the following letter to Vice-President Biden:

From the desk of

Sheriff Tim Mueller

Linn County, Oregon

1115 SE Jackson St.

Albany, Oregon 97322

January 14, 2013

Vice President Joe Biden

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20501

Dear Mr. Vice President,

I am Sheriff Tim Mueller, elected twice by the citizens of Linn County Oregon who have entrusted me with a noble cause: to keep them and their families safe. My deputies and I take that responsibility very seriously and, like you, have sworn to support the Constitution of the United States. I take that oath equally as serious as protecting our citizens. I have worked for the people of Linn County for over 28 years as a member of the Linn County Sheriff's Office as well as serving three years active duty as a Military Police Officer in the US Army, where I also swore a similar oath.

In the wake of the recent criminal events, politicians are attempting to exploit the deaths of innocent victims by advocating for laws that would prevent honest, law abiding Americans from possessing certain firearms and ammunition magazines. We are Americans. We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws.

Any federal regulation enacted by Congress or by executive order of the President offending the constitutional rights of my citizens shall not be enforced by me or by my deputies, nor will I permit the enforcement of any unconstitutional regulations or orders by federal officers within the borders of Linn County Oregon.

In summary, it is the position of this Sheriff that I refuse to participate, or stand idly by, while my citizens are turned into criminals due to the unconstitutional actions of misguided politicians.

Respectfully,

Sheriff Tim Mueller

Linn County Oregon

Many people don't understand that under the 10th Amendment county sheriffs in every state are the supreme law enforcement authority in their counties. Municipal law enforcement and federal law enforcement derive their powers from the duly elected county sheriff, and operate within his county only with his permission through intergovernmental agreements. Oregon sheriffs have refused to allow US Forest Service personnel to act as law enforcement officers and have in some cases forbidden them to issue citations. The sheriff of Jackson County Oregon has flatly stated, "There will be NO confiscation of firearms in my county."

Old Dog
January 16, 2013, 08:02 PM
Police forces (especially the larger ones) I am afraid will happily follow orders for home invasion and confiscation because that is what they are geared to do, and do so every single day. Thank you War on Drugs!
This is just bull crap. Not in my area. I'm so sick of hearing this kind of crap repeated. Those who believe this seriously need to get out from behind their computer monitors and get to know their local cops.

Dr_B
January 16, 2013, 08:05 PM
The sheriff in my county posted a lengthy announcement on Facebook today explaining his position against the new gun control legislation Obama is pushing. He explicitly stated he and his deputies would never confiscate weapons from private, law-abiding citizens.

It was refreshing to read his post, even more so because I live in one of the most liberal democrat controlled counties in Idaho. But in the end it doesn't matter one bit.

The government is not going to send officers to our homes to take our guns. They will push for ways to make us go to the police and tell them what we have. You will have to provide the information, and if you don't and you get caught with the gun, you will be charged with a crime.

What is going on in our government is pernicious beyond belief and things are getting out of control very quickly.

txcookie
January 16, 2013, 11:28 PM
Im stunned how some people view our military? We are not mindless order following freaks. Most of us are very conservative and most of us "beleive it or not" love and own many firearms.

WE ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR FOLLOWING UNLAWFULL ORDERS. In other words we cant get away with saying "I was just following orders". I cant name a single troop who would agree to kicking in doors right now to arrest or take a citizens weapons unless that citizen was using them against us. This poll pretty much sums it up.

We are your children, Brothers, and Sisters. Our uniform doesnt seperate us from our civilian up bringing.

Put us in the not to worry about bracket as we would never turn on our own. Even the 19 yr old who loves their Country enough to risk their life and sacrafice so much.

Evergreen
January 17, 2013, 01:41 AM
People think it's far fetched, but I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Hussein Obama would try to hire mercenaries, rogue militias or NATO troops to enforce a gun confiscation. NATO has been dying to bring the USA into its fold and would have no greater desire than to be given the ability to patrol our streets.

Yeah, not likely going to happen, but I am sure Obama would love to do something of this nature if he had the ability. I personally think Obama is at odds with the military and if he really wanted to enforce a gun confiscation, he would outsource the help to do so.

Colonel
January 17, 2013, 07:45 AM
Note: The options "Yes, I would!" and "Undecided." were placed into the same category on purpose!

And what "purpose" is that?

pyro69
January 17, 2013, 08:06 AM
That's tough... the longer this goes on incrementally, the more likely even people who say they wouldn't now, would later. In 1936, how many members of the Wehrmacht or the general population would have answered "yes" to the question, "will you participate in the wholesale extermination of fellow countrymen."

I walked away from my military career on November 7, and many men I respect, patriots all, tried to talk me out of it. All of them would say "no" to that question right now, I think. Get them a little closer to retirement, or to that second star over their eagle and who knows? Others agreed more wholeheartedly with my explanation, but said they only had 10 or 18 months to retirement and just couldn't leave now. Many others did leave; walking away or with enough years, putting in for retirement despite a long history of telling everyone they were going for 25 or 28.

I think I'm saying that it's easy for military and LEOs to say "no" now, when it's a distant hypothetical. I fear that when push came to shove, far more of our uniformed friends would turn against us than we think. It's as simple as basic social psychology.

Swampman
January 17, 2013, 09:46 AM
Hmmm...
This IS a poser...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2013/01/15/steve-toth-gun-ban-texas_n_2482211.html

http://www.sfgate.com/news/texas/article/Perry-2nd-Amendment-trumps-Obama-any-president-4199176.php

It depends on whether you consider Federal agents as "citizens" and their actions as "legal".

I am a LEO/employee of the state of Texas and will follow the orders issued by my chain of command; unless and until they tell me to violate our National or State Constitutions.

Fortunately, I don't see any moral quandary's in my immediate future.

mljdeckard
January 17, 2013, 10:13 AM
Orders are not just orders. If you violate peoples' civil rights, you cannot then use the defense; "I was just following orders."

DAP90
January 17, 2013, 10:25 AM
I cant name a single troop who would agree to kicking in doors right now to arrest or take a citizens weapons unless that citizen was using them against us.

I would have agreed with you right up until Katrina happened. I can’t see regular military being used, but police, ATF, etc, absolutely.

Orders are not just orders. If you violate peoples' civil rights, you cannot then use the defense; "I was just following orders."

That begs the question; was anyone ever prosecuted specifically for the gun confiscations and related crimes after Katrina? If not, then they have no need for any defense whatsoever.

mljdeckard
January 17, 2013, 12:51 PM
Ray Nagin was held in contempt of court for continuing the operation in defiance of a court order. He was again found in contempt for failing to return guns to their owners in 2007. When I search it, I mostly find that story, I don't find any follow-ups that say what actually happened to him as a result.

krupparms
January 17, 2013, 01:14 PM
The sheriff's here are known for flip -floping on issues! They have not supported the constitution in the past! Why now? There are quit a few civil rights cases in court involving some departments in this area! It comes down to who is paying them the most money! I don't trust them & would not believe them! Look at their history! JMO!

BSA1
January 17, 2013, 11:01 PM
If you received order to disarm legally armed citizens would you execute this order?

Personal low road insult by LNK aside my answer remains yes I would under the following situations;

1. I am serving a lawful arrest warrant issued by the proper court.

2. I am serving and conducting a search warrant. For my protection and the safety of others I would search both the individuals in the area along with the area under their immediate control.

3. I would search a suspect or person of interest while investigating a crime.

4. Depending on the crime and the parties involved, say a bar fight with hostile potential witnesses or suspects, I would conduct a search of the individuals and surrounding area.

What some of you fail to understand is an arrest is not a conviction. This can only be decided in a court of law. So until that person is convicted he still has the right to firearm ownership. Later the court may decide the defendant was not guilty thus technically making my arrest illegal.

Oh, wait! The question really means would I disarm a citizen that is not violating the law? Again my answer remains depending on the situation yes.

30 something years ago it was legal to arrest someone for public intoxication. In my department we would check the area around the bars after they closed especially in the winter. We would arrest any passed out drunks to keep them for freezing to death and book them in jail. In the morning after they sobered up they got a good breakfast before going released. Later he appeared in court and paid a fine. This was a very workable arrangement as arresting a drunk was a whole lot easier than doing a investigation on a dead body after he froze to death.

Then a higher court decided that it was illegal to arrest someone for simple drunkenness.
So when checking a passed out drunk I would still search them and take any weapons even though they were not violating any laws for public intoxication. I would check the weapon into evidence where he could claim it after sobering up.

Or how about a otherwise law biding citizen who works hard at a regular job, takes care of his family and is a good neighbor. Let’s say he gets into a dispute with neighbor and police are called. For safety reason I search both parties and find a weapon on one or both of them. After talking about their dispute they both agree it was pretty silly and agree to forget the whole thing. But being the careful type I decide to hold the weapons for a while until I am sure everyone has cooled down.

In both of the above situations my refusal to return their weapons until a later time could very well be illegal. But isn’t it better to avoid the possibility of a more serious event?

Nor is there anything is the O.P.'s question to suggest this was only a kick down doors and take any firearms absent a legal search or arrest warrant.

Although the question was addressed to LEO’s it is clear that many of the posters are not in law enforcement and don’t have a clue about what procedures are legal. As I have shown there are many situations where it is legal to disarm a legally armed citizen or just good common sense to avoid a more serious event from occurring.

Ehtereon11B
January 18, 2013, 12:20 AM
Aside from all legal means for disarming a populace (warrants etc pointed out ad nausea by others) no. The order to disarm another individual with no basis in law is unconstitutional. I was part of the relief effort sent to the Gulf Coast in the wake of Katrina. We did not institute martial law in our areas and did not confiscate any firearms.

DAP90
January 18, 2013, 10:15 AM
Ray Nagin was held in contempt of court for continuing the operation in defiance of a court order. He was again found in contempt for failing to return guns to their owners in 2007. When I search it, I mostly find that story, I don't find any follow-ups that say what actually happened to him as a result.

I don’t know of any repercussions either; which makes it difficult for me to believe those involved learned a lesson from that mistake or that it will never be repeated.

beatledog7
January 18, 2013, 11:43 AM
Every person in the military swears or affirms to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic....as does its Commander in Chief. The promise to follow orders is secondary to that oath.

Ask this question of military and law enforcement personnel, and see what sort of responses you get:

"If you received orders to arrest anyone who says or has ever said <previously> legal words would you execute this order?"

or this one:

"If you received orders to arrest everyone attending or who has ever attended <previously> legal religious services would you execute this order?"

If I posted something in my blog or anywhere else that is suddenly illegal to say, can I be charged with saying the now illegal words? If I attend a church that's suddenly been outlawed, can I go to jail for worshipping in this manner?

Arresting someone for exercising his rights under the First Amendment is no different from arresting someone doing so per the Second Amendment. The day we allow government to pass laws or issue tyrannical edicts that transform huge swaths of the population into criminals with the stroke of a pen is the beginning of the end of American culture as the Founders intended.

What folks need to realize is that once you acknowledge government's power to suddenly and unconstitutionally disrupt a practice you don't like, you have given it free rein to suddenly and unconstitutionally disrupt a practice you do like. The next president might decide to outlaw the medicine that keeps you alive or the vehicle that's in your driveway, and it'll be too late to say,"Hey, wait a minute..."

I guess then the supporters of the current president will finally know what "fundamentally transform" really meant.

Evergreen
January 18, 2013, 06:43 PM
Ray Nagin was held in contempt of court for continuing the operation in defiance of a court order. He was again found in contempt for failing to return guns to their owners in 2007. When I search it, I mostly find that story, I don't find any follow-ups that say what actually happened to him as a result.
Ray Nagin may be going to serve some serious time.. How come the same people in the government who want to take away our gun rights are big criminals themselves?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57564746-504083/ray-nagin-former-new-orleans-mayor-indicted-on-21-corruption-charges/

Swampman
January 19, 2013, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by Evergreen
NATO has been dying to bring the USA into its fold

Are you aware that the US was not only one of the original members, but was also the prime mover in forming the alliance. In addition, a US Military officer ALWAYS holds the post of Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (SACEUR), the military commander of NATO.

Originally posted by BSA1
In both of the above situations my refusal to return their weapons until a later time could very well be illegal. But isn’t it better to avoid the possibility of a more serious event?

I'm a cop with over 20 years service and I don't even remember how many people I've disarmed for various reasons. The only times that I ever retained a weapon were when I made a physical arrest or wrote a citation and retained the weapon as evidence.

BSA1, Please re-read the above quote from your post and tell me if the logic used doesn't remind you of a certain chief executive and some of his fellow travelers.

When you make the decision to perform illegal (your word, not mine) acts in order to protect people from themselves and "avoid the possibility of a more serious event"; you step onto a very slippery slope.

Putting aside the morality of the situation, what do you do when you get a complaint, or worse yet a lawsuit? If my Captain ever asked me why I had confiscated a weapon and deprived a citizen of their property under color of law when no crime had been committed, I better have a really good, legally defensible answer.
Because if I didn't, he'd put his boot so far up my butt that I'd need some industrial strength toothpicks to get his boot laces out of my teeth. :D

Quiet
January 19, 2013, 08:19 AM
http://i.imgur.com/Yrs3opN.png?1?1096

Rocketmedic
January 19, 2013, 10:33 AM
A similar question, posed to the board: Would you agree with taking the firearms of those who used them against LEO/military/government agents in perceived defense of their liberty?

This was sparked by another 12-hour shift with a "militia leader" whose plan for reacting to gun control and registration evidently involves withdrawal from society and a homegrown insurgency for starters.

Has anyone ever given thought that the existence of right-wing militas and the whole "from my cold dead hands" thing might just be what fuels support for the ultra-liberals?

As for the original question, I would not enforce such an order, based on the 2nd Amendment. I have sworn no oath to a person, only to the Constitution and appointed authorities acting with the power of the Constitution. Barring an overriding amendment, I cannot legally obey an order to confiscate weapons without a valid (legal) reason as delegated by a court. A wide-sweeping gun ban would violate Heller's prohibition on gun bans and thus be unconstitutional, as opposed to confiscation from a felon (which would be legal).

BSA1
January 19, 2013, 12:26 PM
“I'm a cop with over 20 years service and I don't even remember how many people I've disarmed for various reasons…”

So how many times have you been called out to the same disturbance in your shift even after all the parties have agreed the matter was settled between them? It was not uncommon in my community. I would say something about most of their ethnic background but it would get me in hot water.

“BSA1, Please re-read the above quote from your post and tell me if the logic used doesn't remind you of a certain chief executive and some of his fellow travelers.”

None. I had no intention to permanently to deprive their of their weapon(s).

In todays lawsuit happy environment I think it would be easier to defend myself in court by seizing weapons with the intent to defuse or keeping the situation from escalating then to explain why I let everyone keep their weapons resulting in serious injury or death knowing from prior experience that the argument may resume before the night is over.


“When you make the decision to perform illegal (your word, not mine) acts in order to protect people from themselves and "avoid the possibility of a more serious event"; you step onto a very slippery slope.”

True but how many times have you used your common sense to avoid making a arrest or to add fuel to the fire. It helps having a Chief with street experience not a political appointment. This may be just a difference in style of law enforcement as in Texas disputes are settled with knife fights and gunsmoke.

powder
January 19, 2013, 03:32 PM
Negative. I refuse to serve civil process for foreclosure/eviction, per mortgage companies and banksters. A letter went into my file. Big deal, they don't ask me to do it anymore, and I continue to use the examples of SOs in the nearby Chicago land region who have made their refusals to do so, official declarations.

Now, going door-to-door on convicted felons, to search for illegal firearms? Sure.

Door-to-door for search/confiscation based on "Executive Order" or declaration of Marshall Law? Nein Danke. I took my first Oath under POTUS Ronald Reagan over 25 years ago, in joining the US Army. Not my first rodeo, I know world history of the last 80 years per giving up liberties for false "security", and I'll be no part of it.

Yelovitz_503
January 19, 2013, 03:32 PM
I didn't vote because I'm not in the military or LE community, but I can tell you as a citizen I wouldn't follow any such decree. That is WHY we have the 2A, it's not about hunting it's about citizens protecting themselves from any danger that comes to threaten you whether it's in the uniform of another country, our own country, or in no uniform at all.

JERRY
January 19, 2013, 03:56 PM
BSA1, you open your department to a civil suit for keeping somebody's property from them without charging them for something involving said property.

if youve been reprimanded in anyway for this by your department in the past you now open yourself up civily and no longer have qualified immunity.

if you stop a car because you think a guy is drunk driving, find out he is not, write him a ticket for failure to maintain lane, then tow his car because he might get drunk and drive later is the same thing as you mediating a dispute, giving advise or a warning as the only "enforcement action" and keeping the firearms against the wishes of the parties involved until you want them to have them.

powder
January 19, 2013, 04:06 PM
if you stop a car because you think a guy is drunk driving, find out he is not, write him a ticket for failure to maintain lane, then tow his car because he might get drunk and drive later is the same thing as you mediating a dispute, giving advise or a warning as the only "enforcement action" and keeping the firearms against the wishes of the parties involved until you want them to have them.

What point are you trying to make, with a hypothetical scenario that has no bearing on previous discussion?

I believe BSA stated he has confiscated firearms from unconscious drunks-how does that relate to your hypothetical scenario of towing from a traffic stop, as result of PC that is in the fictional future? You lost me...

JERRY
January 19, 2013, 08:10 PM
Read all of his posts. He referred to a domestic or some type of argument.

Its an apples to apples taking somebody's property just because you think they might do something later. Thats a 4th amndt violation.

Look at swampman's reply as well and you might be able to put all this together, its a few posts back and forth on this.

JERRY
January 19, 2013, 08:12 PM
or how about a otherwise law biding citizen who works hard at a regular job, takes care of his family and is a good neighbor. Let’s say he gets into a dispute with neighbor and police are called. For safety reason i search both parties and find a weapon on one or both of them. After talking about their dispute they both agree it was pretty silly and agree to forget the whole thing. But being the careful type i decide to hold the weapons for a while until i am sure everyone has cooled down.

In both of the above situations my refusal to return their weapons until a later time could very well be illegal. But isn’t it better to avoid the possibility of a more serious event?


does this help you?

BSA1
January 20, 2013, 12:58 AM
The comments continue to lead me to believe that most of the posters do not have any law enforcement experience.

“BSA1, you open your department to a civil suit for keeping somebody's property from them without charging them for something involving said property. “

So what’s your point? Anybody can be sued by anybody for most anything. And if you want to play legal games what is to say the weapon(s) were not confiscated pending results of a criminal investigation. And the investigation may well take time…say several days at least. There is nothing that states an arrest can’t be made later after a warrant has been issued.

“if youve been reprimanded in anyway for this by your department in the past you now open yourself up civily and no longer have qualified immunity.”

Huh???

“if you stop a car because you think a guy is drunk driving, find out he is not, write him a ticket for failure to maintain lane, then tow his car because he might get drunk and drive later is the same thing as you mediating a dispute, giving advise or a warning as the only "enforcement action" and keeping the firearms against the wishes of the parties involved until you want them to have them.”

Well first of all it is called “Driving While Impaired” or “Driving Under The Influence.” This includes drugs other than alcohol. The fact that someone blows under the legal limit for alcohol still doesn’t mean the person isn’t too impaired to safely operate a motor vehicle. A arrest can still be made based on the officer’s observations of the persons driving and inability to pass a field sobriety test.

People do things they often later regret when emotions are running high. Perhaps you have never experienced this personally or seen it happen. Experienced officers learn there are often more ways than one to resolve disputes and keep things from blowing up later.

“Read all of his posts. He referred to a domestic or some type of argument.

Its an apples to apples taking somebody's property just because you think they might do something later. Thats a 4th amndt violation.”

Some things are just common sense. Domestic arguments, disputes where alcohol is involved can and all too often lead to physical violence. Let me be sure I understand your point:

If I disarm and withhold immediately returning the parties weapons to them I am violating their 4th Amendment rights. Actually this is closer to being a violation of the 5th Amendment which states;

“ No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

So to avoid your concern that their 4th Amendment rights maybe be violated I should return their weapons before leaving even though in my experience I know that strong emotions still exist. Under your concept moving a can of gasoline that is too close to a fire is illegal because it isn’t my property. After all although it has proven that gasoline will catch fire if it is too close to a open flame or spark it doesn’t happen every time so why take preventative action?

And as I previously pointed out the weapon(s) were confiscated pending results of a criminal investigation. And the investigation may well take time…say several days at least. There is nothing that states an arrest can’t be made later after a warrant has been issued.


“does this help you?”

Absolutely and not just me but the parties involved by avoiding death or injury or more serious criminal charges. It avoids staying out of service writing reports. It benefits the community by allowing resources to be free to handle other calls rather than having officers tied up on conducting a investigation. The law does not replace common sense and judgment.

JERRY
January 20, 2013, 01:35 AM
BSA1, youre gonna do what youre gonna do....

KenW.
January 20, 2013, 01:57 AM
My employer, a Utah Sheriff, signed an open letter to the President stating that he would enforce no such unconstitutional action, and would not permit federal agents to do it within his area either.

i took an oath to suport ans DEFEND the constitution as a Deputy Sheriff, and all through my twenty-year military career.

Water-Man
January 20, 2013, 02:07 AM
I may appear to be a cynic but I would take the results of this poll with a grain of salt.

How you think you would react to an order such as this, and what you would really do in the face of possible serious consequences, may not be one in the same.

JERRY
January 20, 2013, 02:20 AM
sure chief, its next on my to do list right after get the illegal drugs off the streets....LOL

Evergreen
January 20, 2013, 05:03 AM
Being sent to federal prison where law enforcement officials will be targeted for violence, among others things has the power to change their decisions in dire times. Well, I wouldn't doubt for a minute that Mr. Hussein Obama would not strongarm officials with threats of incarceration and even imprisoning or isolating their families to detention centers (for their safety, of course), when push comes to shove of challenging the Federal government. Everything here is hypothetical, even what I just said. As well, everything is far-fetched, but nothing is impossible.

In Israel, e.g., controversial as this topic may sound, the government ordered troops to throw Israeli settlers in the West Bank out of their homes and demolish them to fulfill diplomatic agreements with the UN and Arab nations. No matter how you feel on that topic, that is not the point. These soldiers and police were put in a position to do something they felt was ethically wrong. Many soldiers felt disheartened and those who refused orders were sent to military prisons, some were also transferred to serve additional time in jail.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/idf-vows-zero-tolerance-for-soldiers-who-refuse-orders-1.3663

Two of the soldiers were sentenced to 30 days in military prison, dismissed from their unit and demoted as a result of the protest. A military court ruled that another soldier was to spend 20 days in jail, and a fourth was sentenced to 14 days. The other two soldiers are to remain confined to their base for 28 days.

This is a bit different situation then what we are facing now, but the scenario the police and military found themselves in, being forced by the government to do something they were passionately against is much the same. And, I think considering, the government is attempting to disarm the entire country, they would be much more ruthless to the military and law enforcement officials who refuse to comply with their demands.

JERRY
January 20, 2013, 03:45 PM
evergreen, the police are civilians too....and can not be jailed for insubordination. the military is a different case as they use the ucmj to punish, not constitutional law.

to belay some fears, can anybody show me mass round ups of the standard capasity magazine owners in states that enacted reduced capasity laws?

If you enjoyed reading about "If you received order to disarm legally armed citizens would you execute this order?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!