JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.

What would you do if asked to illegally confiscate guns from law abiding citizens?

  • I would do as I am told, it's not my job to decide if what I am doing is legal or not.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    15
I do not believe a nation wide confiscation would ever happen, there's too many firearms out there, not feasible. So I think all this talk is moot.

But should it happen on a case basis, such as Katrina...one would have to poll those in your jurisdiction to see how they feel about it.

The Katrina debacle just goes to show how many sheep are running with the sheepdogs. We all know who they are, as they fold like lawn chairs at the hint of confrontation. They may talk a big line, but they are easy to pick out from their useless jaw jacking. I separate myself from these types, I have no use for them...as they are a drain on the profession.

In my opinion, should it happen in my jurisdiction it would be a house by house decision. I know where the types that shouldn't have guns live, I also know the folks who would stand with me should some natural disaster strike as well.

Sad to say but every jurisdiction will be different on the subject.

I do believe you are one of the good guys! But there are alot of those... "sheep are running with the sheepdogs. We all know who they are, as they fold like lawn chairs at the hint of confrontation. They may talk a big line, but they are easy to pick out from their useless jaw jacking. I separate myself from these types, I have no use for them...as they are a drain on the profession." Those will/would be the first ones to uphold the new law of gun confiscations if there were such a law. Just ask the people of Canada and England.
 
I do not believe a nation wide confiscation would ever happen, there's too many firearms out there, not feasible. So I think all this talk is moot.

But should it happen on a case basis, such as Katrina...one would have to poll those in your jurisdiction to see how they feel about it.

The Katrina debacle just goes to show how many sheep are running with the sheepdogs. We all know who they are, as they fold like lawn chairs at the hint of confrontation. They may talk a big line, but they are easy to pick out from their useless jaw jacking. I separate myself from these types, I have no use for them...as they are a drain on the profession.

In my opinion, should it happen in my jurisdiction it would be a house by house decision. I know where the types that shouldn't have guns live, I also know the folks who would stand with me should some natural disaster strike as well.

Sad to say but every jurisdiction will be different on the subject.

The jurisdiction should never be able to trump the Constitution! The Constitution is the law as written by man but given us by God. These rights are not the federal governments, nor the states, nor any jurisdiction to give or take away, they are Our GOD GIVEN RIGHTS as citizens of the United States.
The leo's who confiscated firearms during the katrina disaster violated the rights of the people, broke the law and should be punished and I don't care whose orders they were following. This bull crap belief that if all guns are confiscated during an emergency that the people will be safer is just that, BULL CRAP!

Sorry, again I disagree with you on a nation wide ban on firearms. I believe it's coming, probably before that jerk leaves the white house.

Here is how I would do it if I was a power hungry evil government stooge.

1. Ban all fire arms and require that all firearms be turned in at your local police station within 30 days.
2. Anyone caught with a firearm after 30 days gets 10 years hard labor.
3. Anyone who has a registered firearm that doesn't turn it in within 30 days cannot receive any government benefit, be it a drivers liscense, welfare, unemployment, medicare, etc. Also, they will be fined $1000 a day for every day after 30 that they haven't turned in the weapon. The money will be automatically deducted from your paycheck. Any fines that you don't pay will result in siezure of your assets. Bank accounts, house, car, etc. Your children will have to be taken from you as well because you can't care for them.
4. Anyone who provides information to law enforcement that results in the confiscation of a firearm will receive a bounty of $10,000.
5. If someone tells a law enforcement official that you have a firearm, you will be required to turn it in to the police within 30 days or you will be treated as in item #3. It will be assumed that you have a firearm whether you do or not.

I wouldn't even bother with house to house searches.
 
The second option you allowed "I would refuse unless shown the legal basis for the confiscations." This would need some clarification, as "legal basis" is a bit broad.

Example; The Mayor, County Commissioners, Governor, Fed. Gov. etc. sign an emergency order to allow such a confiscation. This could be taken as the legal basis for which some would act. I would still feel it wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on, and would still disregard it. But I think you can see my point.

A number of states have passed laws that forbid wholesale firearms confiscation such as what happened in the Katrina situation, and those laws preempt any order from any level of government, including Federal. I do not believe Washington or Oregon are among that number... which means this would be a good idea to begin pressing for such a law in our two states here. I believe Idaho, Ohio, Montana, are amongst those who have enacted such protective laws. At least one of them provides for severe penalties against any individual who obeys such an unlawful order within their state borders (Montana?).
 
What would you do if asked to illegally confiscate guns from law abiding citizens?
1. I would do as I am told, it's not my job to decide if what I am doing is legal or not.
2. I would refuse unless shown the legal basis for the confiscations.
3. I would try to put a stop to the actions, and quit my job if unable to stop it.
Other. (Post to explain)


Lets look at # 2. I would refuse unless shown the legal basis for the confiscations. Who has the right to confiscate the firearms of a United States Citizens? The 2nd Amendment says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Now we can get all stupid here and try to dissect this simple statement with asinine lawyer speak such as, "Who are the people this amendment addresses?" And "How far do we take the notion of Arms?" But before we try to decipher, again this simple statement, let us look at where our Rights, as described by our founding fathers, originated. GOD. Now if God gave you these Rights, can man take them away? Only if we let them.
 
What would you do if asked to illegally confiscate guns from law abiding citizens?
1. I would do as I am told, it's not my job to decide if what I am doing is legal or not.
2. I would refuse unless shown the legal basis for the confiscations.
3. I would try to put a stop to the actions, and quit my job if unable to stop it.
Other. (Post to explain)


Lets look at # 2. I would refuse unless shown the legal basis for the confiscations. Who has the right to confiscate the firearms of a United States Citizens? The 2nd Amendment says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Now we can get all stupid here and try to dissect this simple statement with asinine lawyer speak such as, "Who are the people this amendment addresses?" And "How far do we take the notion of Arms?" But before we try to decipher, again this simple statement, let us look at where our Rights, as described by our founding fathers, originated. GOD. Now if God gave you these Rights, can man take them away? Only if we let them.


actually, if we assume the question as put is the case (confiscating arms from LAW ABIDING CITIZENS), then option 2 would not be valid.... as there could BE no "legal basis" for the illegal seizure. Which leaves us with the traitorous number One, or some other option...... but NOT number Two.

One other minor issue, and it will be a hot potato for certain: in the language and context of the original Constitution, which the Bill or Rights ammends as ratified by the states at the time, "people" signified ALL individuals within the borders of the United States. Note well, it did NOT specify the individuals signified be CITIZENS. Nor did it indicate any qualifications as age, race, gender, social status (employed, property owner, taxpayer, visitor). Thus my question: on WHAT basis should illegal or or non-resident aliens be debarred the use of arms? Of course, were they to come en masse and take up arms, they rightly ought to be considered as an invading force. But taken as individuals who have come here, legally or otherwise, why should they be debarred arms? Except possibly on the basis they ARE lawbreakers by their mere presence outside the laws in place... in which case their being armed or not is insignificant, and they, when found, must, by those very laws they violate, be deported.... but that is not done often, either. Certainly legal resident or non-resident) aliens ought to be able to arm themselves... they DO live here legally. NOWHERE does the Constitution restrict the right to keep and bear to citizens. Of so, someone please point out where and how. I really want to know......

tourists should be allowed to carry arms here, just as at home (never mind few are allowed to.. they SHOULD be). Permanent residents not yet citizens bear almost all the same responsibilities as citizens (except to vote and hold public office.. they pay taxes, work, contribute in other ways, and in some cases can serve in the military) So why should they have the Constitution stop at THEIR door?

Haven't really considered this much before... but the question IS a valid one.
 
actually, if we assume the question as put is the case (confiscating arms from LAW ABIDING CITIZENS), then option 2 would not be valid.... as there could BE no "legal basis" for the illegal seizure. Which leaves us with the traitorous number One, or some other option...... but NOT number Two.

One other minor issue, and it will be a hot potato for certain: in the language and context of the original Constitution, which the Bill or Rights ammends as ratified by the states at the time, "people" signified ALL individuals within the borders of the United States. Note well, it did NOT specify the individuals signified be CITIZENS. Nor did it indicate any qualifications as age, race, gender, social status (employed, property owner, taxpayer, visitor). Thus my question: on WHAT basis should illegal or or non-resident aliens be debarred the use of arms? Of course, were they to come en masse and take up arms, they rightly ought to be considered as an invading force. But taken as individuals who have come here, legally or otherwise, why should they be debarred arms? Except possibly on the basis they ARE lawbreakers by their mere presence outside the laws in place... in which case their being armed or not is insignificant, and they, when found, must, by those very laws they violate, be deported.... but that is not done often, either. Certainly legal resident or non-resident) aliens ought to be able to arm themselves... they DO live here legally. NOWHERE does the Constitution restrict the right to keep and bear to citizens. Of so, someone please point out where and how. I really want to know......

tourists should be allowed to carry arms here, just as at home (never mind few are allowed to.. they SHOULD be). Permanent residents not yet citizens bear almost all the same responsibilities as citizens (except to vote and hold public office.. they pay taxes, work, contribute in other ways, and in some cases can serve in the military) So why should they have the Constitution stop at THEIR door?

Haven't really considered this much before... but the question IS a valid one.

IMHO, only LEGAL United States Citizens. You want the right to keep and bare arms? Become a legal United States Citizen. EOS
 
Sorry, again I disagree with you on a nation wide ban on firearms. I believe it's coming, probably before that jerk leaves the white house.

Here is how I would do it if I was a power hungry evil government stooge.

1. Ban all fire arms and require that all firearms be turned in at your local police station within 30 days.
2. Anyone caught with a firearm after 30 days gets 10 years hard labor.
3. Anyone who has a registered firearm that doesn't turn it in within 30 days cannot receive any government benefit, be it a drivers liscense, welfare, unemployment, medicare, etc. Also, they will be fined $1000 a day for every day after 30 that they haven't turned in the weapon. The money will be automatically deducted from your paycheck. Any fines that you don't pay will result in siezure of your assets. Bank accounts, house, car, etc. Your children will have to be taken from you as well because you can't care for them.
4. Anyone who provides information to law enforcement that results in the confiscation of a firearm will receive a bounty of $10,000.
5. If someone tells a law enforcement official that you have a firearm, you will be required to turn it in to the police within 30 days or you will be treated as in item #3. It will be assumed that you have a firearm whether you do or not.

I wouldn't even bother with house to house searches.

Personally I find that extremely unlikely.(Though not impossible) Since something that blatant would spark a civil war almost instantly as soon as it was announced. The outcome would be anyone's guess, but I would bet that it would hinge largely on the number of LEOs, and military personnel who refuse to trample the constitution to take all the guns away. Because even if you don't plan to go door to door, there would be plenty of gun owners who would tell the government "If you want my guns, come get them, but I am gonna give you the bullets first." Or somtething similar. If teh majority of the LEOs/military went along with it than we the people would be seriously outgunned, and pretty much hosed imho.
 
Personally I find that extremely unlikely.(Though not impossible) Since something that blatant would spark a civil war almost instantly as soon as it was announced. The outcome would be anyone's guess, but I would bet that it would hinge largely on the number of LEOs, and military personnel who refuse to trample the constitution to take all the guns away. Because even if you don't plan to go door to door, there would be plenty of gun owners who would tell the government "If you want my guns, come get them, but I am gonna give you the bullets first." Or somtething similar. If teh majority of the LEOs/military went along with it than we the people would be seriously outgunned, and pretty much hosed imho.

it is also more than slightly likely that, should LEO and military come round to seize everyone's weapons, by the time they'd got round to half the population, there would be a WHOLE lot fewer of them... the confiscators, that is. Word would likely spread that "firearms securing detail" was high risk.... and fewer would be willing to do it... many likely even defecting. Remember what happened at Lexington and Concord, 1775....... General Gage had it pretty hard that April morning..... went down to a resounding defeat, he did. And had the colonises the desire to finish them off, they had them well-cornered more than once that day.... and could easily have driven them into the Harbour at Boston....... Britain's Best fell defeated to a helter skelter impromptu band of determined colonists who had simply decided General Gage, nor any other British Hoohah, would disarm them. And followed through. Remember, they did not have radio, telephone, internet, cell phones, telegraph...... signal fires, bells, and patterns of gunfire, along with the rare message relayed by a fast horseman or two. That was their communication system. It worked.. barely faster than the Brits, but enough so they were ready.

I would truly hate to have to redo that day..... but I'd far rather that than surrender ALL our arms, ammunition, and liberty. And that is what it would come to. One, or the other. IF the Kenyan takes it into his silly head to try such a thing, he will have to decide how badly he wants them all.... because they WILL come very dear.... and not all of them. Stupid farmers with squirrel guns bested the mightiest armed force on the planet.... we're far better trained and equipped, relatively speaking, than those men were.
 
Hmm, I had gotten the impression from other posts that we had a pretty large number of LEOs using this forum. <shrug> If not I suppose this just won't get many if any votes.

My other poll posted was to enlighten LEOs to the future possibility and repricussions of blindly following laws that obviously went against the Constitution.

I don't think it would be appropriate of me to post a poll for the sole purpose of reporting the results back here.

Heck, even with the other poll I posted there were several LEOs that thought that that was my very intent in the first place and refused to comment...hence why there were so few replies. My "Libertarian" views are not unknown to the members of policelink.com. Especially since my avatar is of the yellow "Don't Tread on Me" flag.
 
My other poll posted was to enlighten LEOs to the future possibility and repricussions of blindly following laws that obviously went against the Constitution.

I don't think it would be appropriate of me to post a poll for the sole purpose of reporting the results back here.

Heck, even with the other poll I posted there were several LEOs that thought that that was my very intent in the first place and refused to comment...hence why there were so few replies. My "Libertarian" views are not unknown to the members of policelink.com. Especially since my avatar is of the yellow "Don't Tread on Me" flag.

That makes sense. Think you could post a link to my poll here instead then? See if any of them will come to this forum and vote? I doubt we would get a lot of response, but I figure it couldn't hurt to put it out there.
 
I do not believe a nation wide confiscation would ever happen, there's too many firearms out there, not feasible. So I think all this talk is moot.
It could be done if there are enough people the lay down and take it. Dont ever think it cant.

in new orleans, it did.


plus with the introduction of privatized military contractors (blackwater) there are more bodies to DO so and less of a chance youll have the 'good' cops say NO.

there were blackwater operatives on the ground during Katrina confiscating weapons and the whole bit.

blackwater ALONE is something like 130,000 strong.. Just a thought.

Mercenaries have no allegiance to anyone but who pays them..
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top