[smschulz]

More realistic "take your gun" question...

My question is what would you do if the local or state government tried to confiscate your guns as they did in Katrina?


This is more likely than a federal ban. It actually happened!

What would/should you/we do to prepare?

Hide ~ yes

Fight ~ hell yes

 

[Jbpark55]

Re: More realistic "take your gun" question...

I say fight. I will defend myself. That is the time when you will most likely need a firearm.

 

[admin]

Re: More realistic "take your gun" question...

smschulz, you should post this as a poll instead of a regular thread. Just a thought.

 

[magikbullet]

Re: More realistic "take your gun" question...

I think if it reaches the point that there are actually 'gun gestapo' going house to house confiscating, it's already too late

While whatever garbage legislation that authorizes those actions was being up for vote, I'd be raising holy hell, and if it passed, my ass would be looking for residence in another state and I'd be sure the bureaurats knew exactly why.

If we're talking federal, kiss my ass-I'm not complying this time.

 

[smschulz]

Re: More realistic "take your gun" question...

I think if it reaches the point that there are actually 'gun gestapo' going house to house confiscating, it's already too late

You are mostly correct ~ that is why I am asking it now.

Perhaps a hidden compartment or hidden closet for your guns, huh?
I would hope to have wind of a them coming in time to grab my rifle and load some more mags.

 

[magikbullet]

Re: More realistic "take your gun" question...

there are plenty of methods of noncompliance... we already know the .gov is pretty inept.

plenty of means of hiding weapons, plenty of means of subterfuge.

unfortunately, firing shots allows the .gov to focus and do one of the only things it does do well:

 

[SWEEP]

Re: More realistic "take your gun" question...

hmmm.... they best bring body bags.....................just my :2cents:

 

[admin]

Re: More realistic "take your gun" question...

I think they've learned from the last couple of such disasters.

The recent case of Ed and Elaine Brown who didn't think it was right to go to jail for not paying taxes showed that the Marshalls are willing to wait out a situation and avoid violence at all costs. They were in their house for almost 6 months before the Marshalls got them without a single shot being fired (the Marshalls pretended to be supporters and Ed Brown let them into his house, when he turned his back on them they put handcuffs on him and that was the end of the story).

Of course the Marshalls only had that one situation going on in the entire state, if they decided to take peoples guns away, especially in a state like NH, they would have HUNDREDS of thousands of cases like this all going on at the same time.

More than likely though few NH police officers or Marshalls would attempt to confiscate guns. It'll be more like Katrina where they get out of state police to do it. Who may be in for a surprise.

NH cops are generally known to be some of the most reasonable in the country and many of them respect the 2nd amendment and generally all of an individuals rights.

 

[Martens]

Re: More realistic "take your gun" question...

Can someone point me in a direction of a factual article that LE confiscated guns during Katrina? I have heard and read this several times but would appreciate any legit sources to back it up.

I ask as I am fulltime LE and part of a homeland security response team. Part of our training is being available to respond to Katrina type disasters within MO and other states if needed and confiscating guns has never been apart of a training or potential tasks.

Second, if it occurred I would like to know how it came about and the legal basis for it. From my experience with natural disasters in my city/county, confiscating guns has never been mentioned. Emergency responders have too much to do to keep order. Even the one town that we assisted with that went to a curfew, it was enforced via warning first and then non compliance would get your more attention and no one had any problems and there were legit reasons for the curfew.

I would be curios as to why the officers did not question the directive as I cannot imagine a legal reason for it. In our last training scenario they tried to get us to do something initially that had not legal basis for a LE presence much less a WMD team. Once we got through that issue, it was good training but I as a SGT/team leader and our team commander did not just jump in guns blazing when there was not a legal basis.

 

[Kainam]

Re: More realistic "take your gun" question...

http://www.nraila.org/Search/?keyword=katrina

 

[Martens]

Re: More realistic "take your gun" question...

Thank you for the video. If I lived in LA I would be questioning the leaders that made the design to confiscate guns and the basis for it. It would definitely seem that the police had more important things to do and I can't see how confiscating guns made things any better.

 

[SigsRule]

Re: More realistic "take your gun" question...

So Martens, if your're LEO and a situation comes up in MO similar to LA and the Governer issues an order to confiscate weapons what would be your response and how do you think your brother officers would feel?

The New Orleans situation was clearly non-constitutional and not sanctioned by any legal authority - yet the police confiscated the weapons and are making it difficult if not impossible to get them back by asking for original receipts. I don't know about you but many of my guns are over 20-30 years old and after multiple moves I don't have original receipts.

 

[wristlock]

Re: More realistic "take your gun" question...

It seems to me that a bureaucrat decided to call something illegal that wasn't.
Then solve the problem by focusing on the law abiding.

It backfired in N.O. :firepower:

This is human nature as this sort of thing happens in business as well.

 

[Chieftain]

Re: More realistic "take your gun" question...

It seems to me that a bureaucrat decided to call something illegal that wasn't.
Then solve the problem by focusing on the law abiding.

Yup. Those bureaucrats were the Mayor, Police Commissioner and the Chief of police.

Could happen in any city or town with a anti gun Mayor and Chief. Any Town.

Who you vote for matters. Even at the local level.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[Martens]

Re: More realistic "take your gun" question...

Here locally discretion would come into play. If you are peacefully transporting go about your business. With the leadership we have currently it wouldn't come to this. The chief of police is all about the good citizens protecting themselves.

Where it would get real difficult would be outside of jurisdiction and working in a mixed group. If I was given this order I would notfiy the chief and let him take care of it. I would be with 99% certainty say he would pull us out before letting us do something that has no legal standing.

I believe the biggest problem facing our country is the lack of self rellance of the majority of the population. I see it all too frequently at work, especially for a smaller rural city. People want us/the city/the government to do everything for them. I am over exaggerating a little but there are not enough people anymore that take responsibilty for their actions, safety, well being, etc

 

[SWEEP]

Re: More realistic "take your gun" question...

I believe the biggest problem facing our country is the lack of self rellance of the majority of the population. I see it all too frequently at work, especially for a smaller rural city. People want us/the city/the government to do everything for them. I am over exaggerating a little but there are not enough people anymore that take responsibilty for their actions, safety, well being, etc

truer words have not been spoken .. :2cents:

 

[admin]

Re: More realistic "take your gun" question...

Another what-if-scenario:

There are lots of cases in which local police do not (actively) enforce federal laws, immigration for example. So, lets say there is a new Federal AWB. And just like with every other government program the gov't puts out monetary incentives for states to comply, etc. Some states will still not comply (for example NH still has no seat belt law even though if we pass it we'll get 2 million from FedGov).

Lets assume your state does not comply with the new AWB. Since this is a federal law the BATF, FBI or Marshalls or some other Federal enforcement agency will likely come in and do the job for the state.

Lets say your police unit cooperates to the extent that the other guys at least tell you what radio frequency they will be using. So, you're just driving around on your daily patrol and on the radio you here there is a standstill going on between one of your locals and the gun-grabber folks.

1. What would you do? If you answer that you would call your superior, then:
1a. Superior says to do nothing, just keep patrolling like nothing's happening. Would you do that without question?
1b. Superior says to provide backup for the gun grabbers. Would you do that without question?
1c. Superior says to go and try to resolve the situation. Would you do that without question? Who's side would you take? What if you get there and the gun-grabbers tell you to take a hike it's none of your business (give you the whole spiel about how your state is incompetent for refusing the FedGov money and passing the approriate legislation and now they have to come all this way to clean up your mess, etc).

2. When they get to the house of your shooting buddy? It's personal now, what would you do:
2a. Defend your buddy by getting in through the backdoor and standing with him/her till the last bullet flies.
2b. Trying to talk your friend into giving up the guns.
2c. Trying to talk the gun-grabbers into leaving.
2d. Assume the gun-grabbers are breaking the state constitution and are illegally putting your local citizens in harms way. Call for back up and if the gun-grabbers don't leave your town start a civil war.
2e. Keep patrolling like nothing's happening.

3. You're off duty and lets say the new federal law doesn't even allow cops to have fire arms in their home. The gun-grabbers show up at your house:
3a. Give them the guns.
3b. Stand your ground even if it means dying.

 

[admin]

Re: More realistic "take your gun" question...

Just want to point out that I'm exactly expecting an answer. That's just something I hope all law enforcement folks in places where 2nd amendment rights are still respected think about. If you think about the possible gun-grabbing scenarios now then when the actual day comes you will have a much clearer head about what to do.

If you don't mind answering publicly that would be cool, I'm sure many of us non-LEOs would love to hear your responses. Maybe you can even comment on how you think your partners would respond.

 

[Aussie Arms]

Re: More realistic "take your gun" question...

I think, or I will try to, answer this very broad question.

As law enforcement officers we took an oath to uphold the law.

We, as law enforcement officers can't pick and choose which laws we are going to enforce. When a Government body (Fed, State, County, etc) passes a law in is incumbent for their "Law ENFORCEMNT" officers to do what they took an oath to do, and enforce the law. If a department puts into official policy a "you will do" list, that is an order and "IF IT IS A LAWFUL ORDER" each LEO has an obligation to follow that policy or he in fact is in violation of policy and procedures and risks disciplinary measures. In other words, a lawful policy enacted by a LE agency is like a law to it's officers.

If the shit hits the fan like down in New Orleans it's up to the individual officer's and their supervisors to question their orders if they believe it to be unlawful and then take the appropriate action. If you still don't agree with the law you are asked to enforce, give up your gun and badged and join the unemployment line, like a lot of officer's did down south.

Do Law Enforcement Officers enjoy upholding some laws??? NO!
Do Law Enforcement Officers agree with all of the laws? NO!
Are those LEOs in a position to change those laws? NO!

I will put it back to those of you that were military. If the Government declares "Marshal Law" and move the military in to assist local Law Enforcement to uphold the law, do you think you would be in a position to pick and choose the laws you would enforce, or would you follow your lawfully given orders like your training and OATH have taught you too?

Here's the oath of allegiance that is required by law that immigrants take before they become citizens. It is what is expected, and we would expect no less from our new citizens. Please note the words in bold:

The United States Oath of Citizenship is an oath that must be taken by all immigrants who wish to become United States citizens.

The current oath is as follows:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

Here's an example of the oath taken by our Law Enforcement Officers everywhere:

Oath of Office for Law Enforcement Officers

"I, __________________________do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will be alert and vigilant to
enforce the criminal laws of this State; that I will not be influenced in any matter on account of
personal bias or prejudice; that I will faithfully and impartially execute the duties of my office as a
law enforcement officer according to the best of my skill, abilities, and judgment; so help me, God."

I would say that's pretty clear. I wont even put up the oath taken my our military as it's all along the same lines.

What am I trying to say? If you don't like it, you are in the wrong job so get out now while the going is good!

If anyone else has anything to add, please feel free but I think that covers it? Having been in public service for OVER 26 years in law enforcement, this is just my honest opinion. Have I questioned orders? Yes. Have I ever not obeyed a lawfully given order? Well I'm still in law enforcement, so theres your answer! Burn me if you must, but I'm the one that has to eventually answer to the "Highest Power" after taking an OATH.

 

[Kainam]

Re: More realistic "take your gun" question...

I will put it back to those of you that were military. If the Government declares "Marshal Law" and move the military in to assist local Law Enforcement to uphold the law, do you think you would be in a position to pick and choose the laws you would enforce, or would you follow your lawfully given orders like your training and OATH have taught you too?

I think what we are discussing is what if those orders are in direct conflict with the US Constitution?

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.