L.E.O.s : Would you confiscate?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I generally agree with the probability of the continuation of the gradual approach by the antis.

(dons tin-foil-hat)

But, what if there is a barrage of terrorists attacks on US soil within a short period (days) on nuclear power plants, large buildings in big cities, oil refineries, etc. and martial law is declared. Could there be an executive order in place or put in place to confiscate firearms at that point in the name of "national security"? Anyone who does not comply would be labled accomplices with the terrorists (i.e. either your with us, or against us).

In such a situation where the economy and supply systems and all-around choas would cause most people to be concerned with getting food to eat or getting away from a nuclear reactor, etc., many who normally would not comply to a confiscation order may do so in order to be around their family and not in jail during the "national crisis."

This could be one possible example of a sudden gun-grab, no?

(removes tin-foil-hat)

Another point.

We all talk about a sudden gun-grab or a gradually deterioration of our rights.

But, the phrase "...shall not be INFRINGED" is what is written. We have already succumbed to INFRINGEMENT. Amendment II is already dead and has been for a long time now. A shame, but true nonetheless. If we really believed in Amendment II, we would have already done something about it.
 
Michigander..........

I wholeheartedly agree with your every word in your last post.......

However these are the SAME people that seem to not understand the FIRST ammendment as well.......

What part of "Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech" do these people not understand??? The McCain / Feingold bill effectivly GUTTED and TRAMPLED the First ammendment and people don't hear a WORD about it all day....

It's just a matter of time before we are silenced here and on other boards for even talking about this atrocity.

As for the second ammendment we are doomed I am afraid.



Learn to shoot very well.................very very well, get all of the training your hard earned and highly taxed leftover money can afford you while you can......

:uhoh:
 
the NRA and the ACLU combined to sue in federal court against the First Amendment violations of McCain/Feingold, and SCOTUS denied?
Click to expand...

And that is what is REALLY, REALLY scary!
 
The Agument that we are a force to recon with because we are armed is only valid if we are willing to fight and not only die for what we believe in but kill as well. You might get people to fight if there is a quick, dramatic gun grab, but how many of you are willing to kill a man with a family, just doing his job, because the legislature passed another small-step law that finaly crossed your line in teh sand (maybe a high puchase tax, or outlawing full metal jacket ammo as "armor-piercing, or other such stupidity) These little steps will work, and all we could do is ignore them, while the political climate slowly changes until 90% of the people actually BELIEVES we are crazy, gun owing, law defying terrorists and we have no base to fight from. It would only take one generation, especially in today's volitile world. I am not parranoid, but I am pessimistic
 
unfortunately.......

Art,

Unfortunately I am. What a sad day and age this is. I love how McCain touts his war record whenever possible and even Fox news touts him as well as having him on quite often. All the while the masses just don't get "it" about what he's (as well as SCOTUS) done. :barf: :barf:

This is truly not an America I know........

I surely pray for a Constitutional convention.
 
A couple of things...

I think that there would be a division in the attitude of urban v. rural cops as well as younger cops v. older ones. That being said I think the mjority of cops would go along with damned near any orders they received.

Cops have already went door to door in some area to confiscate guns. NYC comes to mind as does Cali. Garnted in Cali they restrained themselves to certain types of weapons, but the point is gun confiscation has laready happened & I don't recall any stories about cops quiting or refusing to comply.

Gun confiscation happens on a much braoder scale with more narrowly defined terms. Have a bayonet lug where it shouldn't be? Have your hogleg out of sight w/o the proper paperwork? Have a long gun whose barrel or stock is too short? I'm sure there are some cops who look the other way when/if they find someone who violates a gun law, but they're in the minority.

If a cop enforces a gun law based upon the principle of prior restraint (i.e. mere possession) now, what makes you think that a line will be drawn if it's upped a notch or two?

So to answer the question I doubt most LEO's would refuse to comply. A few would try to be sneaky about not complying & fewer still would outright quit.

As to what cops should do...

well there could be some value of a sympathetic insider letting us know what;s happening, but I think the value would be minimal. It'd be much better for the cops to hand in their badge or simply not show up for their shift or even leave in the middle of a shift. This would be much better for sympathetic cops since if door to door confiscations occur odds are that anyone with a badge would be fair game.

Ditto for soldiers if a confiscation were to be assigned to them - better to leave your job than to be confused with the gun grabbers of your unit.

But to the logistical arguments...

Ross is right: an incrementalist strategy is much more effective than an outright ban coupled with confiscation. However...

Most states have laws that allow for the suspension of sales & confiscation of arms during a declared emergency. In every state there are areas where carying arms at any time is illegal (National Parks come to mind). Damn near every state has laws that prescribe how a firearm may be carried.

Now given the three things above there is a relatively effective way to attempt confiscation.

1: Declare a state of emergency in a particular place, say the coast of NC because of some real or imagined disaster or potential disaster. Have non-local cops &/or military sent in to secure the area. Along with securing the area have them go house to house to make sure the citizens are safe. While there pick up anything that can accept a cartridge. Set up road blocks for those still driving & search their cars, confiscating anything you find. If they have a firearm or a CCW then detain them while their house is searched for other guns.

Repeat this in waves through a state (for example, NC could be done in 5 or 6 stages) & you'll round up a majority of privately held arms. The state of emergency thing will lul most people off their guard as far as confiscation goes. those that resist will be few & isolated. The roadblocks are good because it takes a gunowner out of the fight while you steal his guns from his house.

2: Increase patrols &/or enforcements in areas where firearms are prohibited (like National Parks) & areas close to them that are outside the emergency area. While a person is arguing that he's on National Forest land, not National Park land, his gun will be safely confiscated.

3: Set up road blocks - again detain those with guns or CCW's until their house is searched & releived of all weapons. this will work well all by itself cause we're all used to roadblocks & to handing over our guns to cops when they ask. & we're used ot stories of people being wrongfully arrested cause some cop doesn't know that the gun in question isn't illegal so most will go along quietly thinking of the settlement they'll get for wrongful arrest.

That's how a gun confiscation program could be put into place. There'd be no warning, little resistance & since no one would realize it's a gun confiscation until it was too late there wouldn't be much of a chance to be warned & gather support. 5 to 10 cops or soldiers would make anyone think twice about slamming the door & racing for the gun cabinet.

Any one of these 3 things can be used in conjuction with the others or by itself, although you get maximum effect by combining them all.

There is of course the chance that those who would want to pull off such a plan wouldn't think of this strategy but I have faith in the capacity of people to come up with effective ways of harming others.

Now that being said I doubt seriously it will happen. If outright confiscation were to occur I know that's the way I'd think it could be done best, but the incrementalist approach has worked well so far. I doubt that the game plan would be altered.

Oh, Art...

The takings clause of the 5th amendment may offer some protection. then again it may not.

It says that no property shall be confiscated for public use without compensation. Now if the state was taking up guns to arm their own troops you'd have a case, but taking up guns to destroy them as contraband could be considered by many to not qualify as public use.

If I recall there were several challenges to the NFA using a takings clause strategy. Obviously the courts sided against the idea that public use meant any confiscation. More or less they regarded the unregistered machine guns as contraband, not lawfully owned property which negated a takings clause defense. If contraband were to be considered under the taking clause do you know how many drug dealers would be ask for the street value of what the cops seized & destroyed?

So to sum up, most cops would go along with confiscation since most go along with partial confiscation now. I don't think the principled view will take precedent over a paycheck, otherwise it would have already.

Confiscation is possible & it could be very effective.

Outright confiscation is unlikely though because the incrementalist strategy is working just fine.

& the takings clause of the 5th amendment probably wouldn't help any more than the 2nd amendment would in either case.
 
communication is the key to staying in love

This thread and subsequent posts reinforces the need for ways we can communicate efectively and broadly!

This forum, phones, email lists, etc.

The first few martyrs would go down in a mass grab, even the 'roadblock emergency' situation described. But with the word gettign out about it, eventually (unfortunately) the rest would know the time has come to dig up the cache and use it.

If you recall, the KEY to the success of the resistance in Unintended Consequences was the wide dissemination of the list of names, and the wide publishing of the declaration of resistance. Colorful and exciting as the protagonists were, the resistance was happening all over the country and the 'bad guys' were resigning in droves.

If the bad guys didn't know there was a wide scale resistance movement killing them off, they wouldn't have known to resign either.

Sneaking around will work for the grabbers since , as pointed out, an all-out grab will backfire; but its the opposite for us: stand in the light and get the message out!

So whatever we do, we need to keep the lines of communication open between us.

C-
 
cpileri,

So, what you're saying is that us gunnies should get to know each other and make lists. First all of us in a county, then regionally, then statewide? And possibly organize a nationwide comittee?
I like it. Maybe the old Tyranny Response Team members could help us with this. At least as a starting point?
It's a good idea even if you don't believe confiscation is a possibility. It would provide another way of organizing get togethers, and keeping up to date on legislation. Maybe this deserves a thread all its own. It'd be easy to do. a few of us PMing, exchanging emails, phone numbers, etc. Contacting others we already know.....
a_bannana.gif
 
MOLON LABE....

I belive you misunderstood my post. (easy to do in a text enviroment)

I do not, and would never advocate leaving family alone and defenceless.

I do not always review threads that I have posted on, as I have (I belive) made my point, and feel no need to argue it.

I will point out however, that the point you posted about, was a very simplified statement of my possible actions. Leaving the house, with the "banned" equipment, would free my wife and children from "legal" repercussions. I SHOULD have said: By removing myself, and the affected items, my family, and those I chose to watch over them, would be protected from MY actions.

The words "If he isn't looking at you now..." (from the wife's point of view) were ment to cast fear into the one spoken to, NOT to imply that I wasn't in fact "looking". The part about "will see you soon" was ment to show resolve.

Simple misunderstanding, I will try to be more clear in the future.

Occasionally I make assumptions in my thought train, that while I belive are linear, may not be really so.
 
Confiscation of 100,000,000 million guns is not an easy or practical tactic. It runs the risk of creating unwanted footage on the 6 o'clock news, and the possibility of the general public becoming too sympathetic towards gun owners/enthusiasts.

I still say the gun-grabbers will try to onerously tax or ban ammunition and hand-loading supplies. This has already been proposed by the late Sen. Daniel Moynahan. Liberals consider him an icon of modern politics.

The second amendment is silent about ammunition. At least that's the legal contortions you can expect from the gun-grabbers, liberal judges and legislators.


If I was trying to get rid of/nullify firearms it would be the tactic I would employ.



nero
 
Ted Kennedy isn't afraid of gun owners because we tend to be law abiding and upstanding (theories he can hardly comprehend.) He will rue the day he turns us into criminals. If we're already criminals, we've already crossed the line. When you've already got 7 felony counts on you, what's a murder charge on top of it, right?
 
Publicola, I may be splitting hairs or something, but the drug laws are enforced agains material which is acquired AFTER the passage of a ban.

Machine gun seizures have come after a grace period within which to comply with a law, and the guns weren't put into compliance.

It might be possible for Congress to ban manufacture of new firearms for civilian purchase as it has banned the manufacture of new machine guns. I'm in doubt of this happening, in that many who favor gun control laws yet favor private ownership. A proposed ban thus brings in those who don't like AWs but do like their semi-auto shotguns or their Perazzis. And the bedside-table pistol owners...

Art
 
I am not a LEO.

When I was much younger, I believed in the "from my cold dead hands" sentiment. Or, anyway, I thought I did. Then had a beautiful little girl and it all changed. How could I leave her without a Dad?

Now that I am older still, I have imagined a day when she will look me in the eye and ask "Why didn't your generation do something?" as we contemplate National I.D. cards, cameras in our homes, bar codes on our skin, warrantless searches, having to have a "permit" or other "official permission" to do anything at all, etc. etc. etc..

I would not be able to look her in the eye, knowing that I had traded freedom, my posterity's and my own, for some "safety".

Scary stuff, and well within the realm of possibility.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government."
– Thomas Jefferson
 
Preacherman, if you called me with 2 hours' advance notice, I'd have to tell you that I won't be home in 2 hours, please show up next Monday.

I'm SURE you wouldn't notice a large mound of fresh dirt in the back yard, would you?

There are people on this board who would have to dig for TWO WEEKS to bury all their goodies and it would STILL be sticking out of the earthworks...
 
The traitors don't have to ban/confiscate *all* firearms to destroy the little freedom left in America and to reduce us all to utter servitude. They just have to ban/confiscate the weapons that *matter* -- the ones that might actually be of some use in a fight against the government's hired triggermen -- that might allow an American to actually hold the forces of evil and tyranny at bay for a while, or perhaps even turn the tables on them. As Mr. Mcgee has pointed out so well in his book, high-powered centerfire *semiautomatic* rifles with *normal magazine capacities* are the only halfway-commonly-available (for the moment) weapons that can offer that sort of self-defense capability to ordinary Americans.

And, who can tell me why it is not treason, pure and simple, to advocate, pass, or enforce "laws" that are clearly and plainly not only unconstitutional but actually *anti*-constitutional and un-American as hell? Why would anyone with even an ounce of Americanness left in him even *want* a job doing that?

MCB
 
I'm in the Army National Guard. While I believe that the incrementalist approach is surely the one the antis will choose, I can see confiscation happening under certain circumstances. Iraq is under fairly strict gun control (one rifle per household, nothing else), and our guys are enforcing it. I get training in "civil disturbances" every year in the Guard. I swore an oath to defend the Constitution against "domestic enemies," which could easily mean gun owners with the stroke of the legislative pen.

I would quit the Guard immediately if ordered to confiscate firearms from American citizens. No question about it. If they put me in jail, so be it. It is clearly an unlawful order, and I am morally obligated to refuse unlawful orders.

However, most of my fellow Guardsman, I am sad to report, would obey such an order without hesitation. For the most part the three Guard units I've been in have consisted of:

1. Young kids who need college money. They generally have no deep convictions about patriotism, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, or much else for that matter. They're only at drill for the tuition waiver, and will do whatever they're told. They just want to get out of drill (or off active duty) as quickly as possible and go back to dating, playing video games, and drinking beer. It would never occur to them to weigh ANY order against the Bill of Rights.

2. Gung-ho guys who should be on active duty. These guys are always looking for "a mission" to justify their training and the years they've spent in the Guard. They volunteer for every special duty that comes along -- tour in Bosnia, guarding the Olympics, etc. They pray for activation to go to Iraq, and feel slighted if the unit doesn't get the call. These guys would trip over themselves to obey such an order, since it is "a mission," and thus justifies the existence of the Guard in their eyes.

3. Guys waiting out their twenty years to get a piddly retirement income. These guys show up to every drill, pass their PT test and marksmanship quals, and stay between E4 and E6 forever. They make no waves, ever. They'd quietly shrug and go along with the order.

4. Guys who have lousy jobs or bad personal relationships in the civilian world, but feel they can exert some authority when they put on their BDUs. These guys usually make Sergeant very quickly, and then relish ordering around Privates and Specialists. These guys also apply for every single AGR (full-time Guard) job the state posts. Authoritarians at heart, they'd have no qualms about obeying a confiscation order.

5. Guys like me, who joined because they thought there was nobility in the citizen/soldier concept, and thought the Guard was the closest they could get to the old militia idea. I have met exactly ONE other guy who felt this way, in the two infantry companies and one artillery battery in which I've served. And this other guy was actually an MP. We prefer to emphasize the Guard's state mission, believe in the Bill of Rights, and would refuse such an order.

So out of, say, 300 Guardsmen, two of us would refuse the order. That's less than one percent. No, I can't say that this is true for all Guard units, obviously. But I think it bodes poorly for the country if confiscation is ordered.

There are, scattered through the Guard, folks who are hobby shooters and hunters. Some will refuse such an order; most will obey. This mirrors the general shooting public, I think.

You may wonder why I stay in the Guard, knowing all this. The answer is: I won't. Because of some provisions of the Patriot Act, and especially because of McCain-Feingold, I am not even considering reenlisting when my enlistment is up. If this is the way the country's going to be, it can do it without my support or moral sanction.

Mike
 
Anyone mentioning ''incrementalism'' .. I agree .. and quote again ... the Ayn Rand piece .....
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted ? and you create a nation of law-breakers ? and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
Click to expand...
Make more and more laws that make felons out of even the currently law-abiding ... and you chug along towards the goal. No single act - in and of itself - is enough to bring a call to arms. It is criticized, bitched about, but for most part grudgingly accepted.

In the end .. so many people have become criminals (technically) that they have nowhere to go ... they are up a blind alley. By this time, there are few left in relative terms who might resist - and if they did then they are immediately labelled ''terrorist'', ''gun-nuts'' or some other disparaging label, that the general populace will accept as fact.

Once again .. boiling the frog is the way these things happen. If it were attempted as a rapid grab then yeah .. things would get nasty, in short order.


tcsd ..... as ever, I not really quite sure where you fit in with the majority of us here.
 
This type of thread keeps popping up on THR over and over and over. As much as anyone I'm guilty of posting to and keeping them going (like now I guess). :banghead:

Over and over the problem is well and truly defined. We all know the problem; we all know that the end result is a when, not an if?

BUT, and this is a big but, that's where it always stops. What's the solution? Where does it all end. In every single thread of this nature very well thought out analysis is coupled with BS chest thumping. And chest thumping is all it is. :mad:

Incrementalism works. It worked in the UK and now it is working in the United States of America. We're all gonna lose our guns eventually - if not us then our children (will they even care - did they care in the UK? ). When I read these threads I'm reminded of the story of Lot and Sodom and Gemhorra where he starts out with 50 Righteous men and ends up down at 10 (I think) to keep S & G from being destroyed. That's THR. Sodom and Gemorha went down as we all know. Are there even 10 righteous men on THR? :confused:

What's the solultion to preventing gun confiscation? Where are the folks willing to implement the solution?

I doubt if THR is even the place to discuss such a thing - we are - as so many are so proud of pointing out law abiding citizens.

We revel in that fact - hell we wallow in that fact. :cuss: AND That fact is what will doom our cause. The FEDS are going to take away our guns - if not now then eventually and most all of us good, law abiding citizens will stand aside and watch - the rest will help load 'em into the vans. We know it's coming and since the confiscation will be done under color of law all the good law abiding citizens will get down on their knees, kiss the rings of their masters and hand 'em over. :barf:

The spirits of men like Thomas Jefferson, Nathan Hale, George Washington and all the other founding fathers must be looking down on us from their honored places in heaven shaking their heads in amazement, wondering just what happened to the once great nation they started. :(
 
Be proactive! Kill the legislative branch quick enough (and some judicial); won't have to deal with the executive then.

Not so jokingly said.
 
I would horde all the ammunition I could. If you come to take my guns, you better bring yours...you will need them.

I'll spray paint the 2nd Ammendment on my garage and pre-sight the entire property. Maybe a few "destructive devices" would be in order. If I'm going to be a felon, I may as well go all the way with it.
 
tcsd ..... as ever, I not really quite sure where you fit in with the majority of us here.
Click to expand...
LOL. I like to think of Jim affectionately as our resident borderline-JBT. THR welcomes all types, and it would make for a lot of one-sided discussions without him around. :D
 
LOL. I like to think of Jim affectionately as our resident borderline-JBT. THR welcomes all types, and it would make for a lot of one-sided discussions without him around.
Click to expand...

JBT? Hardly. Guess you guys need to hang around some Third World Police Forces to get an understanding of how realy repressive countries use their officers. I think you would probably appreciate US officers more. As for my views...I am more middle of the road than you give me credit for.After all, as an FFL, it would hardly make sense for me to be ANTI gun now, would it? I also , however, do not see firearms as something that should be available with NO restrictions, as some here and elsewhere would have it be. The topic is too broad for an easy, pat answer. I would have to answer each individual topic. As for broad, sweeping confiscation, I don't see it ever happening.
 
We revel in that fact - hell we wallow in that fact. AND That fact is what will doom our cause. The FEDS are going to take away our guns - if not now then eventually and most all of us good, law abiding citizens will stand aside and watch - the rest will help load 'em into the vans. We know it's coming and since the confiscation will be done under color of law all the good law abiding citizens will get down on their knees, kiss the rings of their masters and hand 'em over.
Click to expand...

THE LAW is a contract, of sorts, between people and their government. The government has been breaking that contract for years. I've obeyed all the silly, nonsensical laws I am going to. Not one more step, say I. I will own what I want, I will keep what I want, and I will carry what and where and when I want. I will not go out of my way to break the laws, and I will not flaunt it. But I will not dance around the "law" and quake in fear of soccer moms and Dianne Feinstein no longer.
I would have trouble shooting good old Herman, who's been a Sheriff's deputy ijn these parts for the better part of 50 years. But Herman won't come for my guns. Herman might be standing beside me when they come.
It'll be Feds of some sort as come for 'em. Military, ATF, or UN Blue helmets, I don't know any of them, and if they come for me, the've started it.

It may be niavete on my part, and it might be I've misplaced my faith with men unworthy of it. But a lot of folks I know won't just roll over if it happens. And it won't take a whole lot of us.
Myself, I don't go in for much of the armed rebellion talk. I'd rather try to change things "legally", as it were. But if it fails, and the whole thing comes crashing down, I'll do what I've got to do.

And I'm sure the government is reading this right now. Any moment, there'll be a knock at my door, and y'all will never hear from me again. Until I'm on the news as a "Domestic Terrorist", and I'll be denounced by all you good, law abiding gun owners.
:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top