Realistically what would you have done...
- Thread starter Joe7cri
- Start date
- Status
silicon wolverine
member
In this case its about principle. How far would you go to keep what is rightfully yours. Yes its easy to hand them over and get them back later. but the question remians what if you DIDN't ge them back? Before the court order the NOPD had no intention of giving them back. and theyre making it hell to get tham back now. We should be a little more worried about the KIND of world our kids grow up in rather than thier or our physical safety and prosperity. When they come knockin'to take your guns away (regardless of motive) it is your constitutional duty to resist and you would be in the right (in principal at least) as what they are doing is unconstitutional. Personally, id rather end up dead fighting to keep my guns than waiting patiently for some perp to come waste me.
SW
SW
MTMilitiaman
Member
I guess I am just not as willing to turn the other cheek as you or some other people. Someone, anyone, breaks into my house and I feel they should be shot on general principle. So if you are in my house--whether it be to steal my TV, my guns, or to do bodily harm to my family and I, you're going to have to try real hard not to get shot. I feel that anyone showing up to my doorstep with a rifle and demanding enterence to my house in order to confiscate my property or to forcibly remove me from the premises is very much a threat. Cousins or no cousins, it is exactly the kind of threat that the Framers wrote the Second Amendment to allow me to defend against. So they take my guns and maybe I do get them back after the whole incident. But do they take me with them and put me in a camp, presumably for my own safety? Who protects what is left of my property until my return? Do they leave me there? What am I to do if people with less than honorable intentions follow these "do-gooders" of the state so willing to save me from myself as a sign of their benevelance? Yes, in my contempt I have resorted to mild sarcasm. Call me stupid but I can deal with a certain amount of danger or peril if it means I am free. But as a citizen I feel surrending rightfully owned private property is a loss not only of property but of individual freedom and dignity. This is true not even if it is an element of the state, but especially if it is an element of the state. This is coming from someone with a brother and several friends in Iraq, a strong military background in my family, and someone who is almost certainly joining the military himself sometime in the near future. What I am saying here is that I would much rather be dead on national television than forced to give up everything I hold dear for, as Benjamin Franklin would put it "a little temporary safety."
crazed_ss
Member
Maybe I'd give them my Remington 710 and hope they'd be satisifed with that 
Spiphel Rike
Member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2005
- Messages
- 152
"the weapons that were confiscated were ordered to be returned to the owners."
How many do you think will make it back? I'm betting it won't be all of them. "Just following orders" is not a valid excuse.
How many do you think will make it back? I'm betting it won't be all of them. "Just following orders" is not a valid excuse.
TallPine
Member
I've been wondering all along if the aggression against Iraq isn't just a training exercise ...
redloki
Member
I have thought about it. If I was faced now with that senerio. I have no doubt I would try to hide one or two like some of you and maybe get away with it. I would tell the officer he can leave me and my guns(the ones he finds) alone or take them and I find the first news camera I can find, exercise my first amendment right and tell them the story of how my 2nd and 4th amendment right was violated by him and his department while asking help from a constitutional lawyer. His choice. I would fight them but only as a last resort and if they gave me no other choice.
High Planes Drifter
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,204
From someone who lived through it:
There was a law on the books in La. making it legal to confiscate guns during emergencies like the aftermath of Katrina. But, its worth pointing out, they werent taking guns away from everyone like the media tried to make it out. I walked around with an M1A slung on my back, and a pistol on my hip. Pretty much every male in my home was outfitted the same; a long gun slung on back, and a pistol holstered. I picked up trash out of my yard with these on; heck I had National Gaurd troops stop everyday and ask us " Hey Mr . Drifter, you guys need anything?" , they complimented me on the rifle, spoke to us a while each day and went on about thier business. The gun confiscating went on in certain neighborhoods where less than model citizens were hold up; the areas where the reports came from that rescue workers were being fired upon. These areas have always been the problemed areas of New Orleans. I'll let you use your imagination to draw an image of them. . Yes, there were good people who lost thier firearms in the confiscation, thats very unfortunate; I really dont have an answer to what could have/should have been done. What I do know is that the storm set in motion a mutiny against social structure and order; where gangs of thugs tried to take the city over. IMO, the NG shouldnt have taken the guns from the animals responsible for and participating in the mutiny until after they killed them.
There was a law on the books in La. making it legal to confiscate guns during emergencies like the aftermath of Katrina. But, its worth pointing out, they werent taking guns away from everyone like the media tried to make it out. I walked around with an M1A slung on my back, and a pistol on my hip. Pretty much every male in my home was outfitted the same; a long gun slung on back, and a pistol holstered. I picked up trash out of my yard with these on; heck I had National Gaurd troops stop everyday and ask us " Hey Mr . Drifter, you guys need anything?" , they complimented me on the rifle, spoke to us a while each day and went on about thier business. The gun confiscating went on in certain neighborhoods where less than model citizens were hold up; the areas where the reports came from that rescue workers were being fired upon. These areas have always been the problemed areas of New Orleans. I'll let you use your imagination to draw an image of them.
. Yes, there were good people who lost thier firearms in the confiscation, thats very unfortunate; I really dont have an answer to what could have/should have been done. What I do know is that the storm set in motion a mutiny against social structure and order; where gangs of thugs tried to take the city over. IMO, the NG shouldnt have taken the guns from the animals responsible for and participating in the mutiny until after they killed them.Hey High Planes Drifter,
I hear what you are saying, but If someone is living in an area where that type of situation is present, shouldn't they be allowed to bear arms to protect themselves from that type of element, especially during times of chaos?
I hear what you are saying, but If someone is living in an area where that type of situation is present, shouldn't they be allowed to bear arms to protect themselves from that type of element, especially during times of chaos?
In the case of New Orleans the orders to confiscate seemed to be enforced by LAPD or CHP officers that were there to lend aid, but at the behest of the NOLA PD (which was notably absent for a large part of the fun). The National Guard didn't seem to be involved directly from what I heard.
Seems to me that it'd be a really good idea to have some weapons stored away that couldn't easily be found (along with ammo) so if they did come take your weapons but left you there, you could let them take what was out (only got these three sir) and then when they were gone, wait a while and then get your spares out of storage.
I think a second visit would warrant statements that they should get bent unless they were planning on staying and protecting you.
Seems to me that it'd be a really good idea to have some weapons stored away that couldn't easily be found (along with ammo) so if they did come take your weapons but left you there, you could let them take what was out (only got these three sir) and then when they were gone, wait a while and then get your spares out of storage.
I think a second visit would warrant statements that they should get bent unless they were planning on staying and protecting you.
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
I don't believe that's that case.
I've looked into that exact question, and was unable to find any authority for systematic confiscation of arms from homes unless incident to an arrest for other crimes.
Invocation of "states of emergencies" does not entitle the authorities to start making stuff up on the fly. It temporarily grants "extraordinary powers" that are finite and enumerated.
As far as I could tell, this absolutely was NOT an "extraordinary power" granted.
Got a citation?
The issue isn't just one of rights. It breaks down something like this:LowSci said:
- The S has truly hit the fan
- Outside of your home, there's a bunch of life 'n death stuff going on.
- Goblins are out in force, and if the news reports are to believed they control big pieces of the city to the point that helicopters won't land to aid relief efforts.
- Your only chance to protect against goblins is the arms you've got mixed with your training in their proper employment.
- Those "authorities" that come to your door are trying to require you to disarm, so that you will be left defenseless in the face of the goblins and will therefore be more willing to get crammed into the same public shelters we've all heard about. The fact that their request is unlawful and immoral may or not enter into the decisionmaking process.
Now, me? I don't think I'd play along. Odds are I'd have someone in the house behind a riflescope watching me outside the premises, too.
I honestly don't know what I'd do. I'd start with "there is some serious **** going down here, fellas, and y'all can't help me out. Now that's fine, because we prepared for this, but it won't be fine if you disarm me and some of these goblins y'all can't seem to control get a whiff of my supplies. Now, my wife is in that house and I know I want to get back to her. Just like y'all want to make it home to your wives as well. I understand what y'all have been asked to do, and I understand it's quite a moral delimma you're facing. I don't know how I'd react in your shoes. But then, I don't know how my buddy in th OP/LP is gonna react if he sees me forcibly disarmed out here either -- see, we have a number of prearranged goblin-defense signals that mean "open fire", like me raising my arms over my head, or lowering my weapon to the ground. I think the best course of action is for us to just decide we didn't see each other this afternoon. Now, what do you want me to do?"
Of course, the script might go the same even if I didn't have a buddy backing me up...
'Card
Member
I've been sitting here thinking this one over for about 15 minutes now, and I honestly can't think of a scenario where I'd be willing to give up my only means of self-defense without a fight.
First I'd lie, then I'd cheat, then I'd bluff. I honestly think I'd try everything possible to avoid a violent confrontation. I used to be a soldier. Odds are I'd see a much younger version of myself in that uniform. Odds are I'd try reminding that younger version of myself of the oath we both took to defend the Constitution, and the things written in it.
But if everything else failed, and push came to shove, and the options were either to fight or to give up my means of fighting? Well, I reckon that'd be a pretty bloody day around these parts. They might get my guns in the end, but they wouldn't have to worry about any unfired ammo left around.
First I'd lie, then I'd cheat, then I'd bluff. I honestly think I'd try everything possible to avoid a violent confrontation. I used to be a soldier. Odds are I'd see a much younger version of myself in that uniform. Odds are I'd try reminding that younger version of myself of the oath we both took to defend the Constitution, and the things written in it.
But if everything else failed, and push came to shove, and the options were either to fight or to give up my means of fighting? Well, I reckon that'd be a pretty bloody day around these parts. They might get my guns in the end, but they wouldn't have to worry about any unfired ammo left around.
This post has actually caused me to think about this scenario is a little more depth. First, no matter how strident a 2nd Amendment supporter you are, you are not going to defeat a determined police force. Talk to David Koresh or Mrs. Weaver if you think otherwise. If you resist, all that's going to happen is that now they have a REASON to take your weapons and NEVER give them back, since you are now a felon. So, if the stuff starts hitting the fan in my area, I think I will hide several firearms in my home. If the LEOs come to confiscate, I'll be very mad, but I will turn them over and hope they don't find the others. I'd prefer to argue in court over keeping a firearm after an illegal confiscation and using it self defense than to argue that I was justified in protecting my constitutional rights by firing on law enforcement.
RNB65
Member
I would have denied having any firearms and only displayed them for legit self-defense purposes.
As a result of the NOLA incident, VA recently passed a law prohibiting government from disarming citizens during a disaster or emergency situation. The amazing thing is that our liberal Dem Governor signed it into law.
As a result of the NOLA incident, VA recently passed a law prohibiting government from disarming citizens during a disaster or emergency situation. The amazing thing is that our liberal Dem Governor signed it into law.
jashobeam
Member
One cannot always "get out of Dodge"
Imagine a very large earthquake here in CA which damages many of the roads, making "getting out of Dodge" nearly impossible. There is often talk here about earthquake preparedness. What good is your preparedness if you are unable to defend that which you have accumulated in preparation?
Or how about a Flu outbreak? One day you learn of local cases of Bird Flu, and next your entire town, city, or suburb has been quarantined.
Whatever the cause, you might find yourself more or less stuck in the same "lockdown" sector with those who welcome any opportunity as an excuse to riot, loot, and pillage.
There exists within America an entire socioeconomic category of people whose very culture it is to continually receive from a system to which they never contribute. Some of these folks feel entitled, not to what they have or receive, but to what you have. They will flaunt and brag about owning an expensive item, regardless of whether it was purchased or stolen. How will this type of person respond when placed in a very desperate situation?
I don't live in or near a ghetto, but in the Santa Clara valley one can't always know which houses or apartment complexes are being used for Section 8 (government subsidization in which, IIRC, landlords and homeowners actually receive more by renting to Section 8 qualifiers than by renting on the open market). Every town and city in this valley has its lesser-desirable areas. Not all wealthy people have manners, compassion, or consideration for their fellow man, either.
Before Mt. St. Helens erupted in the early '80s, there was a man who lived near its base. I believe his name was actually Harry Truman. He refused to vacate his property. He died when the volcano erupted. I wonder, if there had been armed looters roaming the Washington woods, would the government then have (essentially) arrested and relocated Mr. Truman for his own safety?
When they can't control the bad, the government will round up the good. In a supposed effort to stop the lawless, the government will restrict the rights and freedoms of the law-abiding.
Imagine a very large earthquake here in CA which damages many of the roads, making "getting out of Dodge" nearly impossible. There is often talk here about earthquake preparedness. What good is your preparedness if you are unable to defend that which you have accumulated in preparation?
Or how about a Flu outbreak? One day you learn of local cases of Bird Flu, and next your entire town, city, or suburb has been quarantined.
Whatever the cause, you might find yourself more or less stuck in the same "lockdown" sector with those who welcome any opportunity as an excuse to riot, loot, and pillage.
There exists within America an entire socioeconomic category of people whose very culture it is to continually receive from a system to which they never contribute. Some of these folks feel entitled, not to what they have or receive, but to what you have. They will flaunt and brag about owning an expensive item, regardless of whether it was purchased or stolen. How will this type of person respond when placed in a very desperate situation?
I don't live in or near a ghetto, but in the Santa Clara valley one can't always know which houses or apartment complexes are being used for Section 8 (government subsidization in which, IIRC, landlords and homeowners actually receive more by renting to Section 8 qualifiers than by renting on the open market). Every town and city in this valley has its lesser-desirable areas. Not all wealthy people have manners, compassion, or consideration for their fellow man, either.
Before Mt. St. Helens erupted in the early '80s, there was a man who lived near its base. I believe his name was actually Harry Truman. He refused to vacate his property. He died when the volcano erupted. I wonder, if there had been armed looters roaming the Washington woods, would the government then have (essentially) arrested and relocated Mr. Truman for his own safety?
When they can't control the bad, the government will round up the good. In a supposed effort to stop the lawless, the government will restrict the rights and freedoms of the law-abiding.
Low-Sci
Member
Interesting..
There are a lot more people willing to commit suicide by NG or Cop here than I would have imagined.
Threatening violence on police or NG in a situation like that wont be regarded as a friendly encouragement to move on. It will be treated like a hostile act, and you can expect a response that coordinates with a hostile act.
I understand that there is a need to be able to protect yourself from miscreants in such a situation, but why would it be a problem to couple that with your need to leave the disaster zone and take your guns along with you for protection, instead of simply camping out waiting for a shootout with cops or goons, whichever comes to you first?
There are a lot more people willing to commit suicide by NG or Cop here than I would have imagined.
Threatening violence on police or NG in a situation like that wont be regarded as a friendly encouragement to move on. It will be treated like a hostile act, and you can expect a response that coordinates with a hostile act.
I understand that there is a need to be able to protect yourself from miscreants in such a situation, but why would it be a problem to couple that with your need to leave the disaster zone and take your guns along with you for protection, instead of simply camping out waiting for a shootout with cops or goons, whichever comes to you first?
If you reread a lot of what popped up during Katrina, it looks something like this for those who didn't leave before the storm hit:LowSci said:
- If you go into the shelter, you'll be disarmed and your possessions will either be taken at the door or by someone bigger/stronger inside. Once there you'll be faced with rumors of the rapes happening on the top floors, violence, non-working latrines, no water, rising heat, and rising tempers.
- If you try to find another way out, you'll be met by armed deputies saying "you can't go this way. We aren't accepting any more of your kind."
- If you wander around you'll get into trouble.
- If you stay put you're fine as long as you don't make yourself a target, or get found by the "wrong kind" of rescuers.
Some don't find those two options acceptable.
Low-Sci
Member
Because those options suck...
Ok, so lets put it in the simplest terms that people seem to be suggesting. First, there is no way out. Absolutely no way you can possibly extricate yourself from the area.
Second, a patrol is coming to take your weapons, with or without your consent.
Third, without your weapons, you will inevitably, absolutely be killed by marauding thugs because without a gun, a man is incapable of self-defense or conflict evasion.
Fourth, if you resist violently, you will be killed.
So it seems the best course of action still isnt a very attractive option: hide a few guns and hope, feign cooperation. It might work, it may very well not work.
The next most popular course of action seems to be to go down in a hail of gunfire and gore, which defies both logic and common sense, but is well principled.
Ok, so lets put it in the simplest terms that people seem to be suggesting. First, there is no way out. Absolutely no way you can possibly extricate yourself from the area.
Second, a patrol is coming to take your weapons, with or without your consent.
Third, without your weapons, you will inevitably, absolutely be killed by marauding thugs because without a gun, a man is incapable of self-defense or conflict evasion.
Fourth, if you resist violently, you will be killed.
So it seems the best course of action still isnt a very attractive option: hide a few guns and hope, feign cooperation. It might work, it may very well not work.
The next most popular course of action seems to be to go down in a hail of gunfire and gore, which defies both logic and common sense, but is well principled.
High Planes Drifter
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,204
Hey High Planes Drifter,
I hear what you are saying, but If someone is living in an area where that type of situation is present, shouldn't they be allowed to bear arms to protect themselves from that type of element, especially during times of chaos?
-----------------------------------------------------
I agree one hundred percent with you that every law abiding citizen should have the means to defend themselves. It is unfortunate that the honest folks living in the targeted areas had thier property taken for no good reason.
---------------------------------------------------------
Posted by High Planes Drifter:
Quote:
There was a law on the books in La. making it legal to confiscate guns during emergencies like the aftermath of Katrina.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By geekWitha.45:
I don't believe that's that case.
I've looked into that exact question, and was unable to find any authority for systematic confiscation of arms from homes unless incident to an arrest for other crimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I was a bit incorrect in my original statement, there wasnt a specific law on the books giving the state this right. Rather an emergency powers law covering many items. The state legislation passed a bill- HC-139 ; to prohibit this from happening again.
I hear what you are saying, but If someone is living in an area where that type of situation is present, shouldn't they be allowed to bear arms to protect themselves from that type of element, especially during times of chaos?
-----------------------------------------------------
I agree one hundred percent with you that every law abiding citizen should have the means to defend themselves. It is unfortunate that the honest folks living in the targeted areas had thier property taken for no good reason.
---------------------------------------------------------
Posted by High Planes Drifter:
Quote:
There was a law on the books in La. making it legal to confiscate guns during emergencies like the aftermath of Katrina.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By geekWitha.45:
I don't believe that's that case.
I've looked into that exact question, and was unable to find any authority for systematic confiscation of arms from homes unless incident to an arrest for other crimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I was a bit incorrect in my original statement, there wasnt a specific law on the books giving the state this right. Rather an emergency powers law covering many items. The state legislation passed a bill- HC-139 ; to prohibit this from happening again.
Not to invoke Godwin, but here's another argument that comes up occasionally here:
Look, if you resist you're gonna die. If you go with them you might die, but you'll probably just be put in prison or shipped out of the country or something. So what's a Jew to do when the troops come and bang on the door?
The common answer here seems to be "they may kill an individual family, but if every 10 families only killed one guy who showed up at the door, the government would have rapidly run out of manpower."
There comes a time when evil must be resisted, regardless of the personal consequences. Or at least, those who believe in something bigger than themselves (God, Country, Family, Justice, Rights, whatever) seem to argue this on occasion. Your answer is "meekly give them what they want, but hide something in the hope they don't take it."
My answer is give 'em a choice, and act on their choice. "You've taken an oath to the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment protects my right to be armed, and I think we both agree that right now is the most important time I've ever chosen to be armed. I swore that same oath, as did my buddies in the building behind me, and that oath had no expiration date. Think this through son, and decide how you want this to proceed. If it's an unlawful order you've a right to refuse it. If you decide to enforce it, at best you're going to have to deal with the emotional consequences of killing off a pediatrician and her husband who were doing all they could in a nasty situation, and wanted nothing more than to be left alone with their arms so they could resist the evil elements that their government couldn't suppress. At worst you'll go straight to God to answer for this crime. I'll be waiting in my house for your answer. And don't think that me turning my back is an opportunity -- there's at least one rifle you don't see pointed at you right now..."
Look, if you resist you're gonna die. If you go with them you might die, but you'll probably just be put in prison or shipped out of the country or something. So what's a Jew to do when the troops come and bang on the door?
The common answer here seems to be "they may kill an individual family, but if every 10 families only killed one guy who showed up at the door, the government would have rapidly run out of manpower."
There comes a time when evil must be resisted, regardless of the personal consequences. Or at least, those who believe in something bigger than themselves (God, Country, Family, Justice, Rights, whatever) seem to argue this on occasion. Your answer is "meekly give them what they want, but hide something in the hope they don't take it."
My answer is give 'em a choice, and act on their choice. "You've taken an oath to the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment protects my right to be armed, and I think we both agree that right now is the most important time I've ever chosen to be armed. I swore that same oath, as did my buddies in the building behind me, and that oath had no expiration date. Think this through son, and decide how you want this to proceed. If it's an unlawful order you've a right to refuse it. If you decide to enforce it, at best you're going to have to deal with the emotional consequences of killing off a pediatrician and her husband who were doing all they could in a nasty situation, and wanted nothing more than to be left alone with their arms so they could resist the evil elements that their government couldn't suppress. At worst you'll go straight to God to answer for this crime. I'll be waiting in my house for your answer. And don't think that me turning my back is an opportunity -- there's at least one rifle you don't see pointed at you right now..."
Wow, my post sounds militant. I guess there are still some emotions I'm carrying left over from the whole Katrina confiscation thing.
Interesting.
Interesting.
Powderman
Member
To all who have posted:
There is one thing that is somewhat wrong with your way of thinking.
And, here it is:
You ASSUME that all law enforcement officers will attempt to take your guns.
You ASSUME that our Armed Forces consist of mindless drones who will willingly trash the Constitution.
As for the servicemembers, a survey was done a while back, in the 90's. In it, a LTC asked, if an order was given to confiscate firearms from citizens, and you met a pocket of people who refused to give them up, would you fire on these citizens if ordered?
IIRC, well over 90% of these soldiers, sailors, Airmen and Marines said not no, but HELL no!
Moreover, the vast majority of LEO that I know will react in this manner:
Supervisor/Department administrator
"OK, guys, here's the brief. You will go door to door, you will search households, and you will confiscate all firearms, ammunition and equipment for disposal and final disposition. Any questions?"
Line officers, to include Sergeants and most Lieutenants I know:
"Yup. What bowl of crack are YOU chewing on? Screw off. You want to do this, do it yourself."
Administrator:
"You'll lose your job!"
Officers:
"Well, why don't take this nice, shiny badge, polish it up good and smooth, and CRAM IT *&^*(&&^!!@?!?"
Don't assume that because we wear a uniform that we will watch our Nation dissolve without acting.
Remember, the oath said, "Against ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC....."
There is one thing that is somewhat wrong with your way of thinking.
And, here it is:
You ASSUME that all law enforcement officers will attempt to take your guns.
You ASSUME that our Armed Forces consist of mindless drones who will willingly trash the Constitution.
As for the servicemembers, a survey was done a while back, in the 90's. In it, a LTC asked, if an order was given to confiscate firearms from citizens, and you met a pocket of people who refused to give them up, would you fire on these citizens if ordered?
IIRC, well over 90% of these soldiers, sailors, Airmen and Marines said not no, but HELL no!
Moreover, the vast majority of LEO that I know will react in this manner:
Supervisor/Department administrator
"OK, guys, here's the brief. You will go door to door, you will search households, and you will confiscate all firearms, ammunition and equipment for disposal and final disposition. Any questions?"
Line officers, to include Sergeants and most Lieutenants I know:
"Yup. What bowl of crack are YOU chewing on? Screw off. You want to do this, do it yourself."
Administrator:
"You'll lose your job!"
Officers:
"Well, why don't take this nice, shiny badge, polish it up good and smooth, and CRAM IT *&^*(&&^!!@?!?"
Don't assume that because we wear a uniform that we will watch our Nation dissolve without acting.
Remember, the oath said, "Against ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC....."
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
