If you received order to disarm legally armed citizens would you execute this order?
- Thread starter Spandauer
- Start date
- Status
ZigZagZeke
Member
A half dozen Oregon county sheriffs have sent the following letter to Vice-President Biden:
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."
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."
Last edited:
Old Dog
Member
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
member
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.
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
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.
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
Old Fart
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.
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
Member
Orders are not just orders. If you violate peoples' civil rights, you cannot then use the defense; "I was just following orders."
DAP90
Member
I would have agreed with you right up until Katrina happened. I can’t see regular military being used, but police, ATF, etc, absolutely.
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
Member
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
Member
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
member
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.
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
internet infantryman
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2012
- Messages
- 983
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
Member
mljdeckard said:
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
Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
Evergreen
Member
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_...eans-mayor-indicted-on-21-corruption-charges/
Swampman
Old Fart
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.
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.
Quiet
Member
California
Rocketmedic
Member
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).
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
member
“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.
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.
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.
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
Member
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
Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2003
- Messages
- 3,841
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.
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked