Poll for LEO's

Would you confiscate citizens firearms if ordered?

  • Yes I would

    Votes: 5 9.6%
  • No I would not

    Votes: 25 48.1%
  • I'd hand them my badge and tell them were to stick it

    Votes: 22 42.3%

  • Total voters
    52
Status
Not open for further replies.

jerkface11

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
Messages
5,502
Location
Arkansas
I'd like the voting in this poll to be for LEO's only. I know there are a lot of police officers on THR. So I'd like to get your responses to this question.

If you were ordered to confiscate firearms from citizens would you?
 
I'd like to see this poll on an internet sight that is not a gun website. Maybe a LEO only discussion group? Everybody here is a fan of the 2nd A.
 
Due to responses in a previous thread about who should be "ALLOWED" to own firearms i'd say not everyone on this forum is a supporter of the second amendment.
 
I voted yes, but only if the order was legal. I will sieze weapons of people I am arresting, if they are armed.:evil: I may sieze weapons of citizens I am holding for interrogation, until they are released, if I think it's in the best interest of my safety.
I wouldn't do as they did in NOLA.:cuss:
Your listed responses don't allow some valid answers or they skew the results.

lawson4
 
Under what circumstances?

The New Orleans/post-Katrina fiasco aside, in what sort of situation would you foresee local or state law enforcement officers ordered to confiscate guns?

Are you asking if law enforcement officers would confiscate legally-owned firearms from citizens who are not convicted felons who've not petitioned for restoration of rights and are over the age of 21?

i'd say not everyone on this forum is a supporter of the second amendment.
And I'd say that, aside from the occasional trolls popping up, you are incorrect here.
 
If you were ordered to confiscate firearms from citizens would you?

I sure hope so. Many cops seize firearms all the time, as in:

1. "Put down your weapon, hands on top of your head. Step away from the girl".
2. "Sir, I'm executing a search warrant signed by Judge so-and-so. I'm here looking for evidence of drug sales and manufacture, as well as weapons and other drug-related objects. Do you want to show me where the drugs and guns are to get this out of the way?"
3. "Sir, do you understand that as a convicted felon, you are not allowed to posess a firearm? Please step over here and place your hands behind your back."
 
I wonder if I'm one of them. I made a comment about not rushing head-first into making a decision to utterly disobey an LEO who is there to confiscate your firearm if you're out in the streets in the wake of a disaster, regardless of what's constitutional or what you think your rights are or what the law is. I didn't rule out doing it, either, since if it were the only option left to me, I'd do it, too. I wanted to let people know that when given an order like that, sure some cops will comply, and then some cops will turn in their badge and walk away. But for those that do show up and are there to execute an order like that, people need to be aware of the stand-offish situation you'd create. And rather than dub these officers of the law as servants of tyranny or jack booted thugs, there should be some level headed understanding that maybe they just don't want to be caught in the middle and pick the most convenient side, that of which is their job and career. Doesn't make them sheep or any less of a man, it's just that their priorities are different and not necessarily your priorities as well.

It's not to argue what constitutes values either, since they differ here in America, which is another inalienable right we all have. If I was in a situation where I was all alone, and out numbered, and was kindly and procedurally informed that my weapon must be confiscated, you bet your ass I'd comply. I may not like it, and I may object to them by asking, "Well what can I use to defend myself now?" But I'd ultimately submit, and probably look for a good stick/pipe or something to use instead. Some of you might respond differently, and for different reasons, but that's your right. Some of you might stand off completely with them, and create a tense situation. On the flipside, some of the cops may realize that it's too much trouble to deal with than to fight with you, and that's a perfectly acceptable scenario. Tons of variables here. Does this make me not a supporter of the 2nd Amendment?

But folks wanted to pin me as a liberal, naysaying, gun-grabbing supporter for making this point, so it's all gravy.

I can't respond to the poll, so I'll respond with this:

If I was an LEO, I'd turn in my badge and gun. If I was given the choice of comprimising what the constitution says we, as Americans, have a right to, versus losing my job, I would choose to walk away and lose my job, or even in some cases turn a blind eye. That is something I can help. It wouldn't even be a choice to me.

As a citizen, it's a different issue. Each of us has a different level of integrity. Each of us can only risk so much of our pride and our beliefs. I refuse to risk my safety or my legal standing for the sake of making a point to the police. To others, however, it's a raging fire in their hearts that they'd be first to jump in line for. If I was in that situation where I was in a neighborhood and had to watch out for my neighbor, damn right I'd be there with my M4 on watch. If police came and wanted to confiscate my weapon, I'd surrender it. And I'd lie about it being my only weapon, and go get the AK and be right back out there when they leave. I wouldn't fight with the police, even if what they were doing is illegal. I wouldn't stand off with them and definitely wouldn't instigate a shoot out with them based on the 2nd Amendment.

If that ostricises me here yet again, good. I'm ready to defend myself. :neener:
 
Perhaps a better question would be stated as thus:

A law was passed by your state congress and signed by the state governor. The law states that civilians (defined as anyone who is not an LEO and not in the armed forces) cannot buy, sell, shoot, own, transfer, or possess any type of firearm. Civilians are given 90 days to turn in all firearms. If a civilian is in possession of a firearm after 90 days, they are guilty of a 1st-degree felony.

The NRA immediately sued the state and the case was eventually brought before the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS declined to take the case, thus the law stands.

It has been over 1 year since the law was put in place. You are an LEO. There is overwhelming evidence I have firearms. (Your police chief has a recent video of me shooting in the backyard.) Your police chief fills out a search warrant for my property. A judge signs the search warrant.

The police chief gives you the search warrant and asks you (and a handful of other LEOs) to search my property for firearms. He tells you to arrest me if any firearms are found.

Question: Will you abide by this order?
 
I'd quit the force as soon as that law was enacted and move to another state. But if I were in that situation, regardless, I'd request another assignment or quit the force right then and there. If I were an LEO, that is. I'd never stand to be a part of that kind of madness, no matter what level of enforcement I was in. Even if it meant my career, I'd be out of there with career change lined up.
 
I am a policeman and I've answered this question to myself long ago. I would quit and hope that some patriots would be kind enough to give me a little cover fire so I can leave the station.

Because if orders like this are being issued from higher, things have deteriorated badly and there are likely armed encounters already occurring between citizens and .gov agencies.

Cookekdjr,

Your answer is really an apple to oranges comparison. Siezeing guns from someone who may have commited another crime isn't the same as siezing guns from and arresting everyone because a tyranical gov decided that mere possession of guns is a crime.

We take an oath to uphold the laws and the Constitutions of the nation and the states. However, there is an out on the uphold laws part. We do have discretion of whether or not to charge unless there is a mandatory arrest clause or some other BS. For the most part we are pretty free to pick and choose what we enforce and how we enforce it.

My personal standard is if there is a victim, or property damage I will give no quarter. I'm not into enforcing victimless "crimes" and I don't consider govt as being an entity that can be victimized other than for property loss.
 
I had to vote YES, but only because the poll question was so vaguely worded.

During the "Rodney King riot", I was an LAPD officer and put in a total of 36 days of 12-hour shifts on riot duty. I ran into COUNTLESS armed citizens during that "civil unrest", but NONE of them went to jail or had their firearms seized by me! Add to that, there was NO order given to disarm the citizens....and it was fairly easy to figure out who the HONEST folks were! Had there been an order to disarm those folks, I wouldn't have followed it! Most of my fellow officers felt the same way, for it would have been wrong and an UNLAWFUL order to disarm the prospective VICTIMS!

I have always remembered what took place in Austin, Texas, when a demented former Marine started sniping at people from a tall tower on the campus of the university. As I recall, there were 11 people shot to death and numerous others that were wounded....before a police officer AND an armed citizen "stormed" that tower, putting an end to the tragic incident.

Even though there are many police "bashers", I truly believe that most of them would go to the aid of a police officer if it became necessary.
 
So far, it appears a few non-leo's have stated they would quit before they would confiscate someone's firearm(s) if ORDERED. Well, here's the deal. Whether you believe it or not, police officers, like military personnel are trained to obey ORDERS from a higher rank. If the on-scene Sgt., Lt. or Capt. orders you to conficate a firearm, you follow his ORDERS. That simple. As a civilian, you have the luxury to type here on the internet your convictions. In the real world of law enforcement, orders are given daily and obeyed. Right or wrong...a direct order is obeyed.
 
Quote:
i'd say not everyone on this forum is a supporter of the second amendment.

And I'd say that, aside from the occasional trolls popping up, you are incorrect here.

Right or wrong...a direct order is obeyed.

I thought a little compare and contrast was in order. Not saying that the original poster of either comment is opposed to the Second Amendment, but I think it's important to recognize that regardless of their personal feelings, LEOs aren't hired or trained to disobey orders. They are hired to follow the orders of their superiors. There is no discretion when it comes to a direct order. In discussions about issues like the bird flu and whether or not we should allow ourselves to be herded into camps for our own good where the flu is likely to flourish and our families to die, at least one cop on this board has clearly stated that you WILL obey the orders of lawful authority and will not resist the relocation. Anyone think he'll say no to confiscation?

If confiscation comes down the road, I fully expect some to resign, but the majority to follow orders. It's not an indictment of them, just a fact of life. I mean, how many LEOs today obey orders they can't stand? How many pro-RKBA cops obey orders to confiscate weapons in areas they are prohibited? How many pro-1st Amendment cops obey orders to break up "illegal" assemblies or protests? How many pro-life cops obey orders to remove protesters from abortion clinics? And, if you'll pardon the image, how many cops who hate a particular gender/race/orientation obey orders to protect that particular group in a particular circumstance?

We don't want cops disobeying orders when it comes to protecting our cause de juer. Why do we expect them to do so when it's our sacred cow getting gored?
 
I wonder if anyone has ever done a study of the number of officers who resigned/disobeyed in the face of other unpopular orders, such as assisting in Prohibition, desegregation, etc.
 
I wouldn't quit, I just would not be very good at finding any thing to confiscate...

I hope your partner feels the same way. If not, you can expect to get ratted out and go down yourself.
 
Simply saying "I was following orders" excuses NOTHING. The nuremburg defense didn't work in nuremburg why should it work here?
 
Thoughts

Another point to consider...

The veteran cops who've been with a department for several years are the ones more likely to "See no Evil, Speak no Evil" and look the other way based on gut feelings and judgement calls as to who the good guys are, while the younger ones...the ones with new mortgages and heavy car payments...maybe a little one or two to look out for will be the ones to follow orders, no matter how unconstitutional or unjust.
 
Most cops will confiscate firearms when ordered to do so. After all, they're "just doing their jobs". :barf:
 
Maybe a poll should be made asking are you a LEO or a Peace Officer?

There is a big difference in how they perform there duties.

To me a LEO equates to a JBT. In Germany they were called the SS, in Japan they were called the Kempai (SP)?

So those of you who wear the uniform which are you? Is it us against them mentality?
 
I thought that I would never confiscate weapons from citizens in general. That is what Comrade Klinton had UN Troops training for. He knew that the American Police and Military would not do it.

Yes it did happen. We had a disaster that was beyond anything that this Country had ever seen. Thousands of people needed rescue. Rescue was hampered by armed groups of citizens. It would be a lot easier to do the unthinkable when you are trying to save people under gun fire.

I do not like the idea of violating innocent civilians 2nd amendment, but under the circumstances they did what they had to do at the time. I can not fault them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top