What does the law tell citizens to do during a confiscation? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : What does the law tell citizens to do during a confiscation?


emt1581
01-25-2010, 00:14
Now most of us know about the gun confiscations that took place during Katrina. Prior to that, however, there were laws on the books that outlawed such practices weren't there?

In any case, there were laws passed afterwards that made it illegal to confiscate gun again in the face of a SHTF situation right?

My question is, what does the law tell citizens to do if anyone in LE/Gov. tries to do it again?

I only ask because while it might be clearly written that we should never have our guns taken away and especially when we need them most...I can't say I've ever read anything on what the citizen is allowed to do to protect him/her-self from such attempts? If nothing is written in terms of what a citizen may do....and we're supposed to rely on the system/courts/etc. after the dust settles...what says we make it that far since we were disarmed??

Thanks!

-Emt1581

9mm +p+
01-25-2010, 01:03
Who cares? In a SHTF situation a true one you'd be a total fool to give up your weps to LE/Mil, I will not. What should you do? Not be where this kind of nonsense will happen(urban area), if you are unlucky enough to be stuck in a city and this is going on you have 2 choices.1)be a good little law abiding citizen and leave you and yours naked to the riff raff that prey on the unarmed, 2) Don't obey the law and give away your means of SD and no longer have good little boy status. Hmmmm, which to choose....

emt1581
01-25-2010, 01:08
Who cares? In a SHTF situation a true one you'd be a total fool to give up your weps to LE/Mil, I will not. What should you do? Not be where this kind of nonsense will happen(urban area), if you are unlucky enough to be stuck in a city and this is going on you have 2 choices.1)be a good little law abiding citizen and leave you and yours naked to the riff raff that prey on the unarmed, 2) Don't obey the law and give away your means of SD and no longer have good little boy status. Hmmmm, which to choose....

That was a good first reply. It didn't really answer how you would disobey...but that's ok. I didn't really ask about it either.

I think all non-sheeple gun owners would hold on to their guns no matter the cost in such a situation...at least I would hope so!

But for the purposes of this thread, you can't escape the door to door confiscations. Mr. confiscator knocks on your door and instructs everyone inside to hand over their guns....what does the law say to do at this point?

Thanks!

-Emt1581

9mm +p+
01-25-2010, 01:13
Well frankly at that point there's going to be some dead folks at my address, either the confiscators or me. I'll not give up my means of SD, period. Sure you could hide some of your stuff elsewhere but that's just as good as giving it up if it's not there when you need it, the only other means is by force IMO.

snair
01-25-2010, 01:15
i wont give them up and honestly if im told to go take them i will be a ****ty searcher(unless you are a scroat looking criminal).

emt1581
01-25-2010, 01:22
Well frankly at that point there's going to be some dead folks at my address, either the confiscators or me. I'll not give up my means of SD, period. Sure you could hide some of your stuff elsewhere but that's just as good as giving it up if it's not there when you need it, the only other means is by force IMO.


But does the law advise on this either way? That is, in terms of the use of lethal force....does it specifically say ANYWHERE that LE/Gov. may be fired upon if they attempt to confiscate?

Personally, I agree with you. And I would do the same thing. And yes, I would happily die, if need be, in the process.

However, I have a VERY hard time believing the law gives the citizen permission to use lethal force on LE/Gov. no matter the circumstance.

Why does the law even matter...it's a SHTF/true survival situation right? Well unless it's a TEOTWAWKI situation, the dust will settle and deaths of LE/Gov. will be investigated....sooner or later someone is going to find out what you did. I'm just curious if the law would support the citizen or the LE/Gov.?

Thanks!

-Emt1581

emt1581
01-25-2010, 01:25
i wont give them up and honestly if im told to go take them i will be a ****ty searcher(unless you are a scroat looking criminal).

Not sure if you are in LE at some level or not, but I'd think if you KNEW it was open season on you if you followed an unlawful order...you might be a little reluctant to comply. At least I'd hope so. I know I'd rather tell my boss to go screw herself rather than be fired upon for doing something I'm not legally allowed to do in the first place.

Thanks!

-Emt1581

AZ Husker
01-25-2010, 01:25
I don't think it's been addressed that deeply yet.

snair
01-25-2010, 01:29
Not sure if you are in LE at some level or not, but I'd think if you KNEW it was open season on you if you followed an unlawful order...you might be a little reluctant to comply. At least I'd hope so. I know I'd rather tell my boss to go screw herself rather than be fired upon for doing something I'm not legally allowed to do in the first place.

Thanks!

-Emt158115 plus years and i will not go to homes and take guns unless i know a ****bag lives there

emt1581
01-25-2010, 01:29
I don't think it's been addressed that deeply yet.


I don't think so either but with the endless laws on the books it might be slipped in somewhere.

I'm thinking the citizen might try posting the page with the law forbidding confiscation on their door along with a warning to anyone trying it.. :dunno:

I have no clue though....which is why I'm askin.

Thanks!:)

-Emt1581

emt1581
01-25-2010, 01:30
15 plus years and i will not go to homes and take guns unless i know a ****bag lives there

If only all LE felt this way, there would be no need to even discuss such an issue.

Thanks! :wavey:

-Emt1581

snair
01-25-2010, 01:31
there are more than say so. now if someone shoots at us it will change

emt1581
01-25-2010, 01:32
there are more than say so. now if someone shoots at us it will change

I don't understand.

-Emt1581

mitchshrader
01-25-2010, 01:33
There isn't going to be a law on the books to instruct you how to act legally in the face of illegal actions by the government. They don't think that way. They assume they're the good guys, and YOU are the one acting illegally.

If you find yourself in a similar hypothetical situation, don't worry. Hypothetical situations are merely a fantasy and shouldn't be confused with reality, a whole different topic.

emt1581
01-25-2010, 01:35
There isn't going to be a law on the books to instruct you how to act legally in the face of illegal actions by the government. They don't think that way. They assume they're the good guys, and YOU are the one acting illegally.

If you find yourself in a similar hypothetical situation, don't worry. It's merely a fantasy and shouldn't be confused with reality, a whole different topic.

...in other words I'm dreaming if I think the gov. is going to advise me to use lethal force or even disobey law enforcement?

Thanks!

-Emt1581

snair
01-25-2010, 01:37
I don't understand.

-Emt1581
there are i believe alot of cops who have no desire in taking law abiding citizens weapons that will be used to protect that individuals family. many i believe would be reluctant to say they will/ may fail to follow orders given to them. no one i know wants to take weapons away but if they are shot at in a shtf situation they will without a doubt end the threat no matter who shot at them

emt1581
01-25-2010, 01:41
there are i believe alot of cops who have no desire in taking law abiding citizens weapons that will be used to protect that individuals family. many i believe would be reluctant to say they will/ may fail to follow orders given to them. no one i know wants to take weapons away but if they are shot at in a shtf situation they will without a doubt end the threat no matter who shot at them

Ok, I understand what you're saying. But it does sound like a moot point, unless people are shooting at LE in the streets and not neccessarily waiting for them to carry out the confiscation....is that what you mean?

In my book that goes along with just taking shots at LE for the fun of it because it's chaos all around. Sort of like what happened in NOLA during Katrina.

Thanks!

-Emt1581

KaTooM
01-25-2010, 01:59
There isn't going to be a law on the books to instruct you how to act legally in the face of illegal actions by the government. They don't think that way. They assume they're the good guys, and YOU are the one acting illegally.

If you find yourself in a similar hypothetical situation, don't worry. Hypothetical situations are merely a fantasy and shouldn't be confused with reality, a whole different topic.

Good post.

WolfNotSheep
01-25-2010, 05:50
I would tell them they are not taking anything of mine, period. They can leave peacefully with nothing of mine. I hope to avoid any situation like this but I will say you have the right to defend yourself from unlawful arrest or seizure.

And, as a cop myself, I will never ask another to give up their guns. Ever.

jordanmills
01-25-2010, 06:26
There isn't going to be a law on the books to instruct you how to act legally in the face of illegal actions by the government. They don't think that way. They assume they're the good guys, and YOU are the one acting illegally.

If you find yourself in a similar hypothetical situation, don't worry. Hypothetical situations are merely a fantasy and shouldn't be confused with reality, a whole different topic.
Actually, Texas law addresses it. You can use force to resist excessive force used in effecting an arrest (but not to resist an arrest, even if its' improper or unlawful), including lethal force. Now actually proving it and not becoming bubba's new girlfriend is a completely different manner. But it is addressed in law. Personally I wouldn't try it.

Texas penal code 9.31(c):

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

Oh and my answer to the actual question: "Sorry officer, someone already stole them."

Tom Kanik
01-25-2010, 07:22
I like your last line!

jordanmills
01-25-2010, 07:28
I like your last line!
It works great with the "plausible deniability hole" that everyone should have handy.

Basically go out in the woods or something near your house, dig a four foot deep hole, and walk away. When they come for your guns, say someone already stole them. If they give you a hard time, say "Look, I buried them in case the government came to get them, but someone already found them and took them." Then take them to the hole.

Glock30 Guy
01-25-2010, 08:09
When they knock on your door do they come in and do a search (without consent) or do they just ask if you have guns? Do they have a list of addresses with guns? I guess I'm confused about this process. I too will not ever give mine up. I'll hide them, lie, and do whatever it takes to keep them.

BR549
01-25-2010, 08:12
I don't understand.

-Emt1581

There you go. :wavey:

LoadedTech
01-25-2010, 08:32
EMT, maybe you can barder some of that gold and or silver you have been saving up, to keep your guns.

greatwun
01-25-2010, 08:32
Everyone says "I wouldn't give up my guns and if they try there gonna have a mess on their hands" but then how come there weren't more people who stood up for their rights when the confiscations took place in New Orleans. In almost all the stories the law came to confiscate their guns and the law abiding citizens just took it.

Ill never had to deal with them since I lost all my guns in that tragic boating accident last year.
http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/734/13jan23clownboatcapsizi.jpg (http://img707.imageshack.us/i/13jan23clownboatcapsizi.jpg/)

volsbear
01-25-2010, 08:46
For the people who say they would open fire on the police or military...

If they take your guns, you might have a problem defending your home (maybe- if it even comes to that). If you open fire on them during the confiscation, do you think you will live through it? I mean, do you think the local police department or military detachment is going to allow that without someone shooting back at you? What if your family (you're trying to protect them, right?) gets caught in the crossfire?

Is there another resolution? How about not answering the door? How about developing a good relationship with local law enforcement so that, should these highly unlikely situations develop, you have a good enough rapport so that the officer overlooks what you might have in the house? Again... is there another resolution? Everybody is quick to say they'd fire on the police, or on the military, apparently without disregard that THIS behavior is more likely to get you and your family killed than surrendering guns or pursuing another resolution. Sorry - just seems like typical internet muscle-flexing to me. I find it hard to believe that if a 12 man squad of Army Rangers asks for your pistol, you're going to open fire. Call me crazy.

Personally - I'm not taking someone's firearms unless I know they're more likely to use them for mischief than for defense. But then again, those peopld shouldn't have them anyway so they'll probably not admit to possession when the .gov comes knocking on the door.

I don't mean any disrespect, but it just seems high unlikely that a homeowner is going to war with the police or military.

Grayson
01-25-2010, 08:56
Is there another resolution? How about not answering the door? How about developing a good relationship with local law enforcement so that, should these highly unlikely situations develop, you have a good enough rapport so that the officer overlooks what you might have in the house?

Sounds good, until someone you haven't even had a CHANCE to develop a relationship with - like the National Guard or other LEO units sent in to help - is the one doing the knocking.

"Throwaway" or "Sacrifice" guns, anyone? :whistling:

Usingmyrights
01-25-2010, 11:55
One thing I didn't really see mentioned, though vols kinda mentioned it was LE/military response. Lets say you decide to shoot. You come out on top. Either the other person/people retreat or are no longer able to fight back. What do you think is going to happen? That they'll just move on to the next house? Even if they're actions were illegal, you just shot at LE/military and the law will soon be forgotten about when they go after the person who shot their brother in arms

Catshooter
01-25-2010, 12:07
EMT, I don't think you've thought the question through.

If there is a squad of 1st class citizens (uniformed) knocking on your door wanting to collect your (2nd class) guns, what law? The only law, at that moment, that the knockers are concerned with is the one coming out of the barrels of their guns. Thus, "the law" is no concern of yours. Your only concern is, what do I do now?

Vosbear raises excellent points, as does Grayson. The odds are that you've never seen the goons at your door before, so no 'good relationship' is possible at that point.

Did you open your door? Why? If there were six gang-bangers knocking at your door wishing to perform a home invasion, would you open it? Is there a difference?

I'll tell you though, now is the time to figure out just what you'll do if the time comes. Not when the knock comes. That's the time to act, whether you're handing over just the bullets or the complete gun it doesn't matter. Have a plan, don't hesitate.

Good luck. :)


Cat

emt1581
01-25-2010, 12:14
EMT, I don't think you've thought the question through.

Nice edit. ;)

I've absolutely thought this question through. I never offered an answer...that's for others to do. How would YOU have phrased/asked the question?

If there is a squad of 1st class citizens (uniformed) knocking on your door wanting to collect your (2nd class) guns, what law? The only law, at that moment, that the knockers are concerned with is the one coming out of the barrels of their guns. Thus, "the law" is no concern of yours. Your only concern is, what do I do now?

Vosbear raises excellent points, as does Grayson. The odds are that you've never seen the goons at your door before, so no 'good relationship' is possible at that point.

Did you open your door? Why? If there were six gang-bangers knocking at your door wishing to perform a home invasion, would you open it? Is there a difference?

I'll tell you though, now is the time to figure out just what you'll do if the time comes. Not when the knock comes. That's the time to act, whether you're handing over just the bullets or the complete gun it doesn't matter. Have a plan, don't hesitate.

Good luck. :)


Cat


-Emt1581

emt1581
01-25-2010, 12:16
One thing I didn't really see mentioned, though vols kinda mentioned it was LE/military response. Lets say you decide to shoot. You come out on top. Either the other person/people retreat are no longer able to fight back. What do you think is going to happen? That they'll just move on to the next house? Even if they're actions were illegal you just committed shot at LE/military and the law will soon be forgotten about when they go after the person who shot their brother in arms

This is an EXCELLENT point!!!

But it really speaks to tactics rather than the original question about who's side the law would be on or what the law advises. Nonetheless, feel free to share your thoughts on how to overcome the military/LE. I haven't the foggiest idea other than the popular "don't be there...head for the hills and stay off their radar" response.

Thanks!

-Emt1581

volsbear
01-25-2010, 12:18
This is an EXCELLENT point!!!

But it really speaks to tactics rather than the original question about who's side the law would be on or what the law advises. Nonetheless, feel free to share your thoughts on how to overcome the military/LE. I haven't the foggiest idea other than the popular "don't be there...head for the hills and stay off their radar" response.

Thanks!

-Emt1581

"Head for the hills" is certainly an option, but in reading other threads it appears to be the secondary option - the first being staying put, bugging in, and defending the homestead with all the benefits of the gear and supplies you've accumulated (or not).

BR549
01-25-2010, 12:56
How far do you live from the hospital?

Here's a good way to test, but the stakes are "much lower".

1. Take that great knife you bought for your concealed weapon on your honeymoon.

2. Put a few of those "pass out to others" firearms that you've been collecting under the seats of your car/truck etc. Hide several all over the car/truck. Conceal one or more with ammo on your person as normal. Put two or three with loose ammo in plain sight.

3. Drive at least 45 miles away from the hospital.

4. Cut the tip of a finger really good with that great knife to produce some blood. (Maybe wipe some on your face.)

5. Drive 30mph over the speed limit toward the hospital. (If you cannot get LEO to attempt to pull you over, you're not doing it right.)

6. Do not yield to LEO, do not slow down, do not turn on your hazard signals for at least ten more miles. Pretend you must get to the hospital AFAP and you absolutely cannot stop for LEO.

7. When they get you stopped (you could just help them out after a long chase if they are not very good at highspeed chases), talk nicely and tell them it was an emergency and you needed to get to the hospital ASAP for stitches in your finger.

8. Report the results here (when you get out of the hospital and/or jail).

:wavey::rofl:

AK_Stick
01-25-2010, 14:28
If you're honestly concerned about the mil/leo coming and taking your weapons away. You have two solutions.

One, hide your guns so well they can search and won't find them/all of them.

Two, don't be there when they come to take them.

While I doubt it will happen like that again, after the blow up over it the first time, my solution is number 2. I live in a place far enough out from the closest city, that it would be almost impossible for them to go door to door collecting guns. I also have my house located in a place where 90% of natural disasters/SHTF scenario's won't destroy my house/force me to relocate.

If it comes to an actual fight over it, you might win the first round, but thats just going to make you a huge target. And they will be back. Especially in a place like Katrina, I think if you'd have shot it out with the police and won, it would have provoked a military response.

Catshooter
01-25-2010, 14:47
-Emt1581 How would you have asked the question?

I wouldn't/didn't. :) So you were just posting the thread to get others to think? Not a bad idea.

I also liked Usingmyrights response. I can just see it: You shoot it out with 'em and win. The surviving LEOs run back to headquarters and report that their efforts to illegally confiscate your guns didn't work and can they all go home now please?:rofl: Yea, probably not.

Not being there is obviously the best tactic; also the toughest to execute.

I'm just not answering the dang door, they can knock all they want. I'll just put my head under a pillow and hope they go away.:crying:


Cat

WilyCoyote
01-25-2010, 19:05
Do you have any idea the resources/manpower it would take to disarm every citizen in a region? A japanease military officer once said that it would be impossible to invade the US mainland because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

Military and LEOs will have their hands full dealing with all kinds of other issues like scumbags, looting, crimesprees etc. No one is gonna have the time or manpower to take a group of cops or military and go door to door with a list of people who have guns, conduct a seach/investigation, and do it safely enough to not get them shot up. If they do get shot at, that slows the progress even more for additional investigations, etc.

Based on what i've read, the only firearm confiscation in Katrina was a result of voluntary turn-ins and chance encounters, NOT door to door.

The real continued danger we face is the slow and deliberate chipping of our right to bear arms over an extended period of time.

fourdeuce2
01-25-2010, 19:10
Just look at what happened to the Japanese-Americans during WWII. They were herded to the internment camps and told they had to stay there. 50 or 60 years later, the government admitted it was illegal and a bad thing to do, but anybody who resisted at the time was forced to go. The government will always tell you to obey their orders, even if they know the orders will be considered illegal later.:crying:

Woofie
01-25-2010, 19:32
I don't own any firearms. Never have, never will. They are evil creatures I will not tolerate in my house. I have no problem admitting that.

slewfoot
01-25-2010, 19:43
Do you have any idea the resources/manpower it would take to disarm every citizen in a region? A japanease military officer once said that it would be impossible to invade the US mainland because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.


This is a far cry from your own government armed with computer files for most guns purchased since 1968.

There are many historical references of governments disarming their populations if you care to research the subject.

Grayson
01-25-2010, 20:26
BTW, this is why CONCEALABLE handguns WIN for SHTF. They may not have as much stopping power as a rifle or a boomstick, but they're much less conspicuous too...

emt1581
01-25-2010, 20:30
BTW, this is why CONCEALABLE handguns WIN for SHTF. They may not have as much stopping power as a rifle or a boomstick, but they're much less conspicuous too...

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1170921&highlight=emt1581+shtf


-Emt1581

WilyCoyote
01-25-2010, 20:40
This is a far cry from your own government armed with computer files for most guns purchased since 1968.

There are many historical references of governments disarming their populations if you care to research the subject.

There are countless examples of govenments disarming their citizens. But most of those examples are legislative. If you'd cared to read my whole post, you'd see that I observe the danger of legislative disarmament.

A stack of papers? :rofl: Since 1968? that's a lot of guns.

"U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies." Making us among the most armed civilian populations in the world.

What I'm saying, slew, again if you care to reseacrh what I actually posted, is that I don't think in any regional disaster it would be a practical use of limited man power to go around door/door confiscating firearms in a disaster zone, nor, if it were done, would it be done with any effectiveness. No matter how big a stack of papers they had at their disposal.

W

emt1581
01-25-2010, 20:47
There are countless examples of govenments disarming their citizens. But most of those examples are legislative. If you'd cared to read my whole post, you'd see that I observe the danger of legislative disarmament.

A stack of papers? :rofl: Since 1968? that's a lot of guns.

"U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies." Making us among the most armed civilian populations in the world.

What I'm saying, slew, again if you care to reseacrh what I actually posted, is that I don't think in any regional disaster it would be a practical use of limited man power to go around confiscating firearms in a disaster zone, nor, if it were done, would it be done with any effectiveness. No matter how big a stack of papers they had at there disposal.

W

Not debating either way here but they are starting to transition to electronic forms. Rifling through warehouses of forms and typing in a last name/soc. sec. # are two VERY different things.

-Emt1581

WilyCoyote
01-25-2010, 21:07
Not debating either way here but they are starting to transition to electronic forms. Rifling through warehouses of forms and typing in a last name/soc. sec. # are two VERY different things.

-Emt1581

I agree, emt1581, but that does not change the practicality of a door/door confiscation attempt in a regional disaster zone, let alone nation wide.

I think if it did happen, people would rarely answer the door, if they did answer the door, they'd lie, and searches just take too damn long to be done effectively. It can take hours to check every location gun could be. Rifles might be east to find, but handguns? forget it.

W

Agonizer
01-25-2010, 21:10
deleted

emt1581
01-25-2010, 21:10
I agree, emt1581, but that does not change the practicality of a door/door confiscation attempt in a regional disaster zone, let alone nation wide.

I think if it did happen, people would rarely answer the door, if they did answer the door, they'd lie, and searches just take too damn long to be done effectively. It can take hours to check every location gun could be. Rifles might be east to find, but handguns? forget it.

W

We're assuming the confiscators will be cordial and/or communicate. What stops them from knocking, knocking door down, removing you from your home, searching (read: trashing) your house, then when they are done, releasing you...maybe...?

-Emt1581

emt1581
01-25-2010, 21:13
Knock Knock

Who's there?

Police. Do you have any firearms in there?

No. I don't own any firearms.

We have papers that show you own firearms.

I sold them all a long time ago.

Let us come in and take a look to be sure you don't have them.

Do you have a search warrant?

No.

Then I respectfully decline to open the door and let you in my house. I am fine and don't need any help. Please leave my property now. I do not consent to any search of my property.


Right...a search warrant...I'm SURE they had one! :whistling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1Qx0cTze0M

-Emt1581

WilyCoyote
01-25-2010, 21:17
We're assuming the confiscators will be cordial and/or communicate. What stops them from knocking, knocking door down, removing you from your home, searching (read: trashing) your house, then when they are done, releasing you...maybe...?

-Emt1581

Again, manpower and resources for one.

Or so what, open the door and let em trash it. By consenting to a search you are less likey to draw scrutiny. Now if you refuse a search and demand a warrant. They may spend a little more time on your place. Supposing they were acting unlawfully that is.

Agonizer
01-25-2010, 21:19
deleted

emt1581
01-25-2010, 21:24
Again, manpower and resources for one.

Or so what, open the door and let em trash it. By consenting to a search you are less likey to draw scrutiny. Now if you refuse a search and demand a warrant. They may spend a little more time on your place. Supposing they were acting unlawfully that is.


So what, open the door and let them trash my home? Seriously?

If my friends and I came knocking at your door and asked to search your home but had no warrants (or badges) would you let us just to avoid drawing attention to yourself?

If so, I'm speechless. If not, why not?

-Emt1581

AK_Stick
01-25-2010, 21:58
So what, open the door and let them trash my home? Seriously?

If my friends and I came knocking at your door and asked to search your home but had no warrants (or badges) would you let us just to avoid drawing attention to yourself?

If so, I'm speechless. If not, why not?

-Emt1581


The problem is what do you do if they don't leave and tell you either you open the door, or they open the door?

squirreld
01-25-2010, 21:59
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMOKh0HUClA

chance encounters huh.....
:whistling:



Based on what i've read, the only firearm confiscation in Katrina was a result of voluntary turn-ins and chance encounters, NOT door to door.

ArmoryDoc
01-25-2010, 22:11
But does the law advise on this either way? That is, in terms of the use of lethal force....does it specifically say ANYWHERE that LE/Gov. may be fired upon if they attempt to confiscate?

However, I have a VERY hard time believing the law gives the citizen permission to use lethal force on LE/Gov. no matter the circumstance.

I'm just curious if the law would support the citizen or the LE/Gov.?

Thanks!

-Emt1581

You are never going to be justified in using force against, or firing upon LEO or the military. Never. The law will always back the LEO or mil. It will be for a court to sort it out later, if you get that lucky, which you won't.

You do what you gotta do and you take your chances. In a true SHTF, it just ain't gonna matter anyhow.

emt1581
01-25-2010, 22:18
The problem is what do you do if they don't leave and tell you either you open the door, or they open the door?


Show them the freshly pulled pin through the window and scream...GAME ON!!!

How about you?

Seriously, the reason I didn't ask what do you do and instead asked what the LAW tells citizens to do is because these threads ALWAYS end the same way and it's depressing.

I did get my answer though that basically the law doesn't give the citizen the right to do anything in the face of LE/Gov. attempting to carry out an unlawful search/seizure. The fourth ammendment doesn't say...

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized....or the people are allowed to use lethal force against the searchers."

IMHO it was implied. I mean look at what the founding fathers did to seperate themselves from those who were depriving them of free speech, the right to bear arms, etc...they KILLED them. There were no hearings or anything like that.

-Emt1581

emt1581
01-25-2010, 22:30
BTW, does anyone have any links or information on the specific law(s) that were created after Katrina that outlaw gun confiscations in times of crisis?

I'd like to have a hard copy of it.

Thanks!:)

-Emt1581

WilyCoyote
01-25-2010, 22:36
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMOKh0HUClA

chance encounters huh.....
:whistling:

Yes, chance encounter. That was a door to door evacuation, not a gun confiscation. And while I admit the circumstances are parallel, there were several factors here about this specific incident that we do not know.

Cheifly is that the video is edited between when you see her holding the gun and when she is tackled by the officer. I never saw her point that gun at anyone. The gun being in play here had nothing to do with the reason the officers were at the door.

If your read down in the comments on that youtube post, there is another longer video about supposed gun confiscation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

this highlights some other stories as well including some citizens crossing a boat on a lake away from their home (chance encounter). a 3rd instance where no evacuation or confiscation was forced. A 4th scenario of a confiscation following an evacuation of a home (chance encounter). And a 5th, similar to the 2nd, where guns were taken from a boater crossing a lake (chance encounter).

and in EVERY instance in both videos where weapons were taken all subjects admitted to weapons possesion before the guns were taken.

Far from a door to door firearms confiscation.

TACC GLOCK
01-25-2010, 22:41
BTW, does anyone have any links or information on the specific law(s) that were created after Katrina that outlaw gun confiscations in times of crisis?

I'd like to have a hard copy of it.

Thanks!:)

-Emt1581

I would also like to read up on some of those. I just don't understand how even the average gun owner gives up his firearms / weapons to LE/MIL without warrants or guns drawn on them. I would think that most people would realize that their firearms may be their only means of protection in the interim.

I would like to hear from some people that were involved with the Katrina confiscation to see exactly what the LE/MIL said to them to make them give up their firarms. Were they asked nicely or threatened?

emt1581
01-25-2010, 22:44
Yes, chance encounter. That was a door to door evacuation, not a gun confiscation. And while I admit the circumstances are parallel, there were several factors here about this specific incident that we do not know.

Cheifly is that the video is edited between when you see her holding the gun and when she is tackled by the officer. I never saw her point that gun at anyone. The gun being in play here had nothing to do with the reason the officers were at the door.

If your read down in the comments on that youtube post, there is another longer video about supposed gun confiscation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

this highlights some other stories as well including some citizens crossing a boat on a lake away from their home (chance encounter). a 3rd instance where no evacuation or confiscation was forced. A 4th scenario of a confiscation following an evacuation of a home (chance encounter). And a 5th, similar to the 2nd, where guns were taken from a boater crossing a lake (chance encounter).

and in EVERY instance in both videos where weapons were taken all subjects admitted to weapons possesion before the guns were taken.

Far from a door to door firearms confiscation.

There are several issues which tell me that the cops were clearly in the wrong I don't care what was cut out of the video.

First off, why were the police in her home? Why were they there for more than a few seconds? Why were they in her kitchen? Why were they backing her into a corner?

If it was because of the forced "evacuation" wouldn't they have yanked her out from the beginning as soon as she opened the door for them? She was HOLDING the revolver, NOT aiming it. Seems like they were more concerned with taking that gun rather than taking her. She didn't exactly have cat-like reflexes and dart around the room while she talked out of her ass.

And remember that spray paint on the outside of the building? LE was searching homes whether people answered the door or not. You answer, they disarmed you and took you. You didn't answer, they kicked in the door and did the same thing or just marked that you were dead inside with that spraypaint.

Not answering isn't really a solution if we use Katrina as an example.

-Emt1581

emt1581
01-25-2010, 22:45
I would also like to read up on some of those. I just don't understand how even the average gun owner gives up his firearms / weapons to LE/MIL without warrants or guns drawn on them. I would think that most people would realize that their firearms may be their only means of protection in the interim.

I would like to hear from some people that were involved with the Katrina confiscation to see exactly what the LE/MIL said to them to make them give up their firarms. Were they asked nicely or threatened?

I hate to throw names around but I know that Faulkner was there. He actually passed ammo out to those in need!! That guy gets a free beer on me anytime!

-Emt1581

WilyCoyote
01-25-2010, 23:03
I would also like to know the extent of forced evacuations and what percentage of the population in the disaster zone was actually forcibly evacuated. I predict those number would be lower than 50% but I may be wrong.

emt1581
01-25-2010, 23:07
I would also like to know the extent of forced evacuations and what percentage of the population in the disaster zone was actually forcibly evacuated. I predict those number would be lower than 50% but I may be wrong.

I'd say a LOT less than 50%. AFAIK they only did it in specific areas.

But what does that have to do with anything?

-Emt1581

TACC GLOCK
01-25-2010, 23:16
Yes, chance encounter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

and in EVERY instance in both videos where weapons were taken all subjects admitted to weapons possesion before the guns were taken.

Far from a door to door firearms confiscation.

So just because an individual admits to having a weapon on their posession what decree was passed telling the LEO's that they can or must confiscate wespons. I can't believe that the police said " would you like us to take your firearms" and people voluntarily game them up. I can understand that for "officer or society safety" during that crisis that the LE's feel more secure if they are the only ones with guns. But for my own and my family's personal safety regardless if I am in my home or on a boat and I am a law abiding citizen not doing anything wrong, why must I give up my firearm?

Glock-it-to-me
01-25-2010, 23:24
As a veteran that was never released from his oath of enlistment, I will resist by any and all means those who fail to abide by the Constitution.

certifiedfunds
01-25-2010, 23:40
They aren't coming for your guns. And they didn't in Katrina. They were opportunistic seizures.

There are too many guns in too many places and too many barriers to manual seizing of weapons.

They will seize them with a pen. Citizens in good standing will be no longer. Jack-booted thugs will wear business suits. Only the finest kind.

You won't have to decide what to do when there is a knock on the door. You WILL have to decide what potential criminal and financial penalty you are willing to endure to continue owning them.

1 year? 5 years? 20 years? Life?

Financial ruin for your family? Don't forget asset forfeiture laws....gun found on person.......warrant issued for search of home....guns found in home = criminal activity, home seized, family homeless.

That kinda fun stuff.

WilyCoyote
01-25-2010, 23:48
I'd say a LOT less than 50%. AFAIK they only did it in specific areas.

But what does that have to do with anything?

-Emt1581

It would support my point that there arent enough resources to conduct a region wide gun confiscation in a disaster zone. Why? because they dont even have the resources to evacuate people to save their lives.

emt1581
01-26-2010, 00:13
It would support my point that there arent enough resources to conduct a region wide gun confiscation in a disaster zone. Why? because they dont even have the resources to evacuate people to save their lives.

True. I'd agree that the didn't have enough resources at Katrina...or not enough of the RIGHT resources. Boats seemed to be in short supply for example.

But when there are no natural barriers preventing them from accessing everyone efficiently and someone decides to give the (unlawful) order to forcefully evacuate/confiscate not much is stopping them at that point.

Do I think the government as a whole is out to disarm me, well no, not really... I mean not now...who knows in the future? And during SHTF situations, it's not hard to throw the law aside and abuse power if in a position to do so. I mean most people are already in a tough spot.

So yes, if they don't have the resources, while there still would be the threat of confiscation, not many will have it carried out on them...do you want to be one of the unlucky though? That's a hell of a gamble IMHO.

-Emt1581

emt1581
01-26-2010, 00:17
They aren't coming for your guns. And they didn't in Katrina. They were opportunistic seizures.

There are too many guns in too many places and too many barriers to manual seizing of weapons.

They will seize them with a pen. Citizens in good standing will be no longer. Jack-booted thugs will wear business suits. Only the finest kind.

You won't have to decide what to do when there is a knock on the door. You WILL have to decide what potential criminal and financial penalty you are willing to endure to continue owning them.

1 year? 5 years? 20 years? Life?

Financial ruin for your family? Don't forget asset forfeiture laws....gun found on person.......warrant issued for search of home....guns found in home = criminal activity, home seized, family homeless.

That kinda fun stuff.


What you wrote about opportunistic seizures could very well be true. I wasn't there and I didn't get to see specifics. But just like I said above...what happens when the situation is bad enough for you but they have all the resources they need...what says they don't do door to door searches and seizures? Had the situation after Katrina been slightly better and there were more to help out with the evac/confiscat. effort, things could have been worse. Most cops I know personally wouldn't ever disarm a law-abiding citizen but they had plenty of out of state cops, national guard troops, etc that seemed to have no problem with it.


As for picking your poison I think you are right. Since the law doesn't give citizens permission to fire on LE, it only leaves the possibility of fighting it out in court when the dust settles and IF you live to that point.

-Emt1581

GAU-8
01-26-2010, 02:01
I remember in katrina a well known black lawyer standing outside his home with a revolver basically saying I am legally armed. Try to confiscate my gun and there will be shooting.

As far as I know he was never challenged or disarmed. I think he had the right idea. .Gov knew they were telling police to violate the law so they were not going to deliberately cause a fight with the legally armed public. IMO this needs to be a publicly stated position of firearms owners, not as individuals but as a whole. something along the lines of "we will not be disarmed, attempt confiscation and there is going to be shooting and where there is shooting others will come and there will be more shooting".

emt1581
01-26-2010, 07:16
I remember in katrina a well known black lawyer standing outside his home with a revolver basically saying I am legally armed. Try to confiscate my gun and there will be shooting.

As far as I know he was never challenged or disarmed. I think he had the right idea. .Gov knew they were telling police to violate the law so they were not going to deliberately cause a fight with the legally armed public. IMO this needs to be a publicly stated position of firearms owners, not as individuals but as a whole. something along the lines of "we will not be disarmed, attempt confiscation and there is going to be shooting and where there is shooting others will come and there will be more shooting".

I remember something similar but it was a white guy.

This little SOB was declaring himself in his driveway with some pretty beefy vehicles rolling down his street. He said something along the lines of "Let them come here!! There'll be some dead people! I'm fine. I have what I need to live. Haven't these people ever gone camping!?!?!!"....hootin and hollarin! Maybe that's the key. Scream in front of cameras, if there is any, and make enough of a fuss that it would look foolish for the gov. to screw with you. I dunno. :dunno:

-Emt1581

certifiedfunds
01-26-2010, 08:38
I remember something similar but it was a white guy.

This little SOB was declaring himself in his driveway with some pretty beefy vehicles rolling down his street. He said something along the lines of "Let them come here!! There'll be some dead people! I'm fine. I have what I need to live. Haven't these people ever gone camping!?!?!!"....hootin and hollarin! Maybe that's the key. Scream in front of cameras, if there is any, and make enough of a fuss that it would look foolish for the gov. to screw with you. I dunno. :dunno:

-Emt1581

There WAS a well known attorney who declared his property a sovereign nation. He had a flag flying, borders marked and everything.

LongGun1
01-26-2010, 13:11
BTW, does anyone have any links or information on the specific law(s) that were created after Katrina that outlaw gun confiscations in times of crisis?

I'd like to have a hard copy of it.

Thanks!:)

-Emt1581


Other than the US Constitution..:whistling:

..http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P3-1083300731.html

RedsoxFan4Lyfe
01-26-2010, 14:33
Well if things get bad enough that they are trying to confiscate legally owned firearms from all of us, it just wont matter anymore. Being charged with a "violation" will be the least of our worries at that point.

Im glad I dont live in or near a city, that is where such nonsense will likely take place. As if the jerks shooting at helicopters and police are going to turn in their weapons right?

I will not surrender my weapons. Period.

Catshooter
01-26-2010, 14:36
I kinda like the "Show them the freshly pulled pin and screm "Game on!" option.

Now where did I put that inert "Complaint Dept, Take a Number" grenade?

:)


Cat

emt1581
01-26-2010, 14:47
There WAS a well known attorney who declared his property a sovereign nation. He had a flag flying, borders marked and everything.

You're not thinking of Petoria are you?

-Emt1581

squirreld
01-26-2010, 17:38
IMO this needs to be a publicly stated position of firearms owners, not as individuals but as a whole. something along the lines of "we will not be disarmed, attempt confiscation and there is going to be shooting and where there is shooting others will come and there will be more shooting".

If every gun owner in America did that, this thread would have never been posted.
If every gun owner actually voted, power of the pen, and exercised their first amendment rights, this thread would have never been posted.

certifiedfunds
01-26-2010, 17:53
You're not thinking of Petoria are you?

-Emt1581

Petoria what? The guy's name?

I wish I could find it somewhere. It was quite funny (though I sympathized with him). An atty friend of mine was saying that he may likely get disbarred for it.

Grayson
01-26-2010, 18:40
"Duh na na na - Da na-Da na - can't touch me!!! STOP - Peter time!!!"

(Will feel a little dumb if that's not even the same eppy, but can't think of any other reason Peter would have Diplomatic Immunity).

And a belated reply to my reply - I'm NOT saying people need to get rid of all their longarms and get CCW-worthy handguns in their place, in the event of an attempted mass confiscation. Just to paraphrase FerFAL, "There ain't gonna be no 'SHTF Day' declared, and even if there is, you can't come into work with your AR slung over your shoulder..."

Well, SOME people possibly could...maybe people who work for people that DON'T have a bunch of Wormtongue-esque liability lawyers in their ear all the time...

ANYHOW, what you lose in 'whup-A-ability' with handguns you gain in pack-ability and CONCEALABILITY.

While I'd probably LIKE a M14 and a chest rig full of mags if I was having to evacuate during a SHTF like Katrina, I'd rather take my chances with a couple of well-concealed handguns.

Woofie
01-26-2010, 18:40
Petoria what? The guy's name?

I wish I could find it somewhere. It was quite funny (though I sympathized with him). An atty friend of mine was saying that he may likely get disbarred for it.

He was going to call it Peter Land, but that gay bar by the airport already used it.

Family Guy reference.

paperairplane
01-26-2010, 23:19
Let's see, what happens when we stand off against the government - Rainbow Farm, Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc etc etc.

You get snipered, some FBI nobody gets fired. Settlements are made and relevant details are swept under the proverbial rug.

TacticalBling
01-27-2010, 08:24
You are never going to be justified in using force against, or firing upon LEO or the military. Never. The law will always back the LEO or mil. It will be for a court to sort it out later, if you get that lucky, which you won't.

You do what you gotta do and you take your chances. In a true SHTF, it just ain't gonna matter anyhow.


Yep.
Jefferson wrote, "The law is merely the tyrant's will," refusing to necessarily equate lawfulness and morality.

Put another way, tyranny is always lawful.

certifiedfunds
01-27-2010, 08:33
Put another way, tyranny is always lawful.

I have never found an eloquent way to say this. Thanks for the words.

fourdeuce2
01-27-2010, 13:38
Let's see, what happens when we stand off against the government - Rainbow Farm, Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc etc etc.

Sometimes we get results like the United States, etc.:tongueout:

You get snipered, some FBI nobody gets fired. Settlements are made and relevant details are swept under the proverbial rug.

And sometimes you get a new government.:wavey:

fourdeuce2
01-27-2010, 13:42
"ANYHOW, what you lose in 'whup-A-ability' with handguns you gain in pack-ability and CONCEALABILITY."

Not necessarily. Sometimes you give up more than you get in return.:cool:

UneasyRider
01-27-2010, 19:16
Everyone says "I wouldn't give up my guns and if they try there gonna have a mess on their hands" but then how come there weren't more people who stood up for their rights when the confiscations took place in New Orleans. In almost all the stories the law came to confiscate their guns and the law abiding citizens just took it.



I think that depending on the severity of the situation it would be like somebody trying to hijack a plane with a box cutter post 9/11.

emt1581
01-27-2010, 21:10
I think that depending on the severity of the situation it would be like somebody trying to hijack a plane with a box cutter post 9/11.

Prior to Katrina in NOLA, was there a TELEVISED situation where LE/Gov. confiscated the guns of law-abiding citizens?

Hell, when was the last time it even happened...televised or not?

I think the only way we'll see any proof if people will fight a confiscation or not, unfortunately, is for LE/Gov. to try again.

If the media IS ALLOWED and starts to show confiscators being fired upon in NICE areas (rather than gang/crime/drug infested ghettos)...but in more than just one neighborhood or street....people might be more likely to follow suit than the typical one person/group standing up and being shown as "nutjobs" by the media. I stress "Allowed" because I have a funny feeling that LE/Gov. would do their damndest to make sure resistance is NOT broadcast to the rest of the flock.

-Emt1581

ArmoryDoc
01-28-2010, 06:14
If it's televised it's hard to put a spin on the story. You can't have the "armed gangland shooting" spin or the "armed white supremicist" spin if people watch it unfold so cameras are not the .gov's firend.

UneasyRider
01-28-2010, 07:49
Prior to Katrina in NOLA, was there a TELEVISED situation where LE/Gov. confiscated the guns of law-abiding citizens?

Hell, when was the last time it even happened...televised or not?

I think the only way we'll see any proof if people will fight a confiscation or not, unfortunately, is for LE/Gov. to try again.

If the media IS ALLOWED and starts to show confiscators being fired upon in NICE areas (rather than gang/crime/drug infested ghettos)...but in more than just one neighborhood or street....people might be more likely to follow suit than the typical one person/group standing up and being shown as "nutjobs" by the media. I stress "Allowed" because I have a funny feeling that LE/Gov. would do their damndest to make sure resistance is NOT broadcast to the rest of the flock.

-Emt1581

We all know about it as do most gun owners since Katrina. In a small situation like a localized hurricane are you going to shoot or sue? But in a complete collapse of society would you do the same or would you shoot to protect your legal rights?

When it goes over a certain line I think that everyone looks after number one or they are fodder. Me, I won't open the door and good luck trying to get in without cost.

emt1581
01-28-2010, 11:32
We all know about it as do most gun owners since Katrina. In a small situation like a localized hurricane are you going to shoot or sue? But in a complete collapse of society would you do the same or would you shoot to protect your legal rights?

When it goes over a certain line I think that everyone looks after number one or they are fodder. Me, I won't open the door and good luck trying to get in without cost.

I'm just curious...before Katrina when was the last time the US gov. or law enforcement actually went door to door and confiscated weapons??

I'm thinking something like this MAY have happened when they put all the Japanese into camps. Other than that, I'm not sure it actually did ever happen before. :dunno:

I do know that since Katrina, at the range, I hear a lot of Molon Labe type comments. Now no, no one is saying things like, "I can't wait to shoot up some cops!" but it's more along the lines of "They better not come to my door!".

So I think even that few day long confiscation was enough to shock and piss off most gun owners until the next time it happens again. However, the "I have a 12ga. and grandpa's .22" crowd might not put up such a fight. That's just what I'm thinking.

Thanks!

-Emt1581

Natty
01-28-2010, 11:57
We will send tanks to enforce suspected 'gun parts' allegations.

We have no problem killing women and children.

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/images/waco.jpg

beatcop
01-28-2010, 13:39
They didn't go door to door searching for guns.

They went door to door searching for people to rescue. In some instances they found guns and in some of those instances they took them.

Or encountered armed individuals on the street, in boats, etc., and took them.

Chief Compass screwed the pooch with his whole "only the police will have guns" statement which shows his intent. But I haven't heard of one credible story where they wasted manpower seeking out guns. (not that it makes it any better).


I wasn't their, but this "sounds" like the truth....?

If you're being evac'd, you have a problem. Time to secure them somewhere, so you'll see them again.

I can't see where even the most poorly trained cop/mil would follow a blanket directive that says to "just take them" from lawful folks on their own property, but that's just my opinion. If you're abandoning you're arsenal I can see where it would serve public safety to secure them.

As far as resisting, go back in the trailer and stick to Red Dawn re-runs. If you think you'll resist a squad set out to do something, you're mistaken. You may prove you're point, but be "dead" right.

Best bet is to use that thing between your ears...

certifiedfunds
01-28-2010, 13:44
Possible I missed someone mentioning having sacrificial guns to give up?

emt1581
01-28-2010, 13:47
We will send tanks to enforce suspected 'gun parts' allegations.

We have no problem killing women and children.


I see the American flag but other than that, I doubt that pic was taken on an American street.

The day they send tanks down Main Street is the day I'll hope I found a supplier for a crate RPG's and have a BOL.

-Emt1581

emt1581
01-28-2010, 13:50
Possible I missed someone mentioning having sacrificial guns to give up?

Something else I'm wondering is how successful it would be to throw on some tree-huggin-hippie/anti-gun clothing (maybe something that says "gun free home" on it and then cry a river and cling to my can of pepper spray begging them on my knees not to take it because it's my only way of protecting myself.

Would that make me seem truely pathetic and obviously not a gun owner that needs his home searched? Or wouldn't it matter...and they'd still search high and low?

Thanks!

-Emt1581

beatcop
01-28-2010, 14:04
This was a localized event involving poor directives from elected leaders. It made the national news and from now on will be paraded out prior to any predictable natural disaster, this shouldn't be an issue anymore.

I'm pretty sure that moving to an area above sea level will result in a 99% reduction of likelihood.

emt1581
01-28-2010, 14:10
This was a localized event involving poor directives from elected leaders. It made the national news and from now on will be paraded out prior to any predictable natural disaster, this shouldn't be an issue anymore.

I dunno about that. I mean I agree it SHOULD not happen anymore. But there's nothing saying it WILL not happen anymore.

I've seen a few hurricanes, floods, and such since then...although nothing even close to being a Kartina situation since Katrina...and I haven't heard anything about people saying "They ain't taking my guns!" or anything along those lines. So I'm not sure if gun ownership will be paraded around.

I think what will happen is the exact same thing that will eventually happen when we get hit by terrorists (successfully) again. People will forget about the threat, let their guard down and BAM (or boom!)...it'll happen.

I would love nothing more than to be wrong though!!

-Emt1581

cyrsequipment
01-28-2010, 14:42
...and I haven't heard anything about people saying "They ain't taking my guns!" or anything along those lines. So I'm not sure if gun ownership will be paraded around.

-Emt1581

As a a former LEO... My advice to you and anyone else is to NOT parade around your gun ownership, especially in a situation where people are nervous... keep it hidden. If you draw attention to yourself, you will get the attention you are seeking...

Bumpfire
01-28-2010, 16:55
I think AZ passed a law against confiscation in a crisis as Katrina. I have researched but can't find it.
As many have said fighting it out with LE/MIL is not the way to go. I agree.

What about the collector that has 2 or 3 or more safes of guns weighing 1,500# ?

They would be harder to carry out than that poor old, frail lady that took Two 200# + men to carry out.
Will they bring a safe cracker or torture you for the combo?
I am retired Mil vet and they spent a lot of time teaching my squad the diff between lawful and unlawful orders in basic training in the 60's before Nam.
Many LEO's are ex mil or respect mil.

I think we are safe if we treat them with respect.
Wishful thinking??

UneasyRider
01-28-2010, 17:45
I'm just curious...before Katrina when was the last time the US gov. or law enforcement actually went door to door and confiscated weapons??

I'm thinking something like this MAY have happened when they put all the Japanese into camps. Other than that, I'm not sure it actually did ever happen before. :dunno:

I do know that since Katrina, at the range, I hear a lot of Molon Labe type comments. Now no, no one is saying things like, "I can't wait to shoot up some cops!" but it's more along the lines of "They better not come to my door!".

So I think even that few day long confiscation was enough to shock and piss off most gun owners until the next time it happens again. However, the "I have a 12ga. and grandpa's .22" crowd might not put up such a fight. That's just what I'm thinking.

Thanks!

-Emt1581

I am with you my friend.

AK_Stick
01-28-2010, 18:26
I see the American flag but other than that, I doubt that pic was taken on an American street.

The day they send tanks down Main Street is the day I'll hope I found a supplier for a crate RPG's and have a BOL.

-Emt1581


That picture was taken in Waco Texas.

emt1581
01-28-2010, 19:40
That picture was taken in Waco Texas.

Ahh ok...I was in elem. school when that happened. From what I remember it was with the Davidians and Koresh thought he was the messiah or something right...? Didn't they have crates of grenades, machine guns, etc and barricaded themself in the compound to escape LE/Gov.?

I probably sound like a Kool-Aid drinker but from when I was a kid and watching TV, that's just what I remember.

Maybe, like Katrina, they were innocent law-abiding citizens...just with hand grenades...:dunno:

But that is a good example IF it was a case of the gov. screwing with innocents. If not, it doesn't really fit here other than showing how FUBAR some gov. ops can get. Now if they were law abiding citizens....and the gun owning community had the same reaction to that...that they did to Katrina, maybe it's like I said and too much time went by and people forgot all about Waco so Katrina's confiscation was a reminder. Seems like the next confiscation attempt would have to happen BEFORE people lose all memory of Katrina...otherwise history is bound to repeat itself.

-Emt1581

certifiedfunds
01-28-2010, 20:10
As a a former LEO... My advice to you and anyone else is to NOT parade around your gun ownership, especially in a situation where people are nervous... keep it hidden. If you draw attention to yourself, you will get the attention you are seeking...

This is not a personal affront, and I'm not saying you're wrong, but with you being former LEO, this opinion bothers me.

AK_Stick
01-28-2010, 20:25
Ahh ok...I was in elem. school when that happened. From what I remember it was with the Davidians and Koresh thought he was the messiah or something right...? Didn't they have crates of grenades, machine guns, etc and barricaded themself in the compound to escape LE/Gov.?

I probably sound like a Kool-Aid drinker but from when I was a kid and watching TV, that's just what I remember.

Maybe, like Katrina, they were innocent law-abiding citizens...just with hand grenades...:dunno:

But that is a good example IF it was a case of the gov. screwing with innocents. If not, it doesn't really fit here other than showing how FUBAR some gov. ops can get. Now if they were law abiding citizens....and the gun owning community had the same reaction to that...that they did to Katrina, maybe it's like I said and too much time went by and people forgot all about Waco so Katrina's confiscation was a reminder. Seems like the next confiscation attempt would have to happen BEFORE people lose all memory of Katrina...otherwise history is bound to repeat itself.

-Emt1581



They claimed they had alot of things like full auto guns ect.

I don't think it was ever proved they had anything illegal.

TacticalBling
01-29-2010, 06:57
If I remember right, even the firearms charges (trumped up or not) weren't enough to get the green light to go in with the APCs and helicopters. Then someone mentioned something about kids being there, so they cooked up a story about 'child molesting' and the rest is history.

They 'rescued' the kids to death, apparently.

racerford
01-29-2010, 11:32
If I remember right, even the firearms charges (trumped up or not) weren't enough to get the green light to go in with the APCs and helicopters. Then someone mentioned something about kids being there, so they cooked up a story about 'child molesting' and the rest is history.

They 'rescued' the kids to death, apparently.

IIRC, they through in some drug allegations to get the helicopters.

Landor
01-29-2010, 12:26
In places like Florida where SHTF cases happen from time to time they are aware of the right to bear arms and do not mess with it. They know it is necessary. In a case where SHTF has not happened in the last 80 years or more the first time local governments will panic and issue orders like gun confiscation. I know Israel has been mentioned in this post a few times. Israel has been on the front line of terrorism for many years, they realized many years ago that an armed public was the best defense they could have. They educated their people and now they have a working solution. People over here would rather whine and cry about armed citizens and then when the SHTF those same whiners and criers will try to find a armed citizen and be friends with them for protection.

When in a SHTF situation the law will not work. If they come to get your guns you can show then the law in black and white and the LEO's will still take your guns. You are better off giving them your gun because they will not leave without it IF THEY KNOW YOU HAVE ONE and any good gun owner will have a backup or two hidden somewhere.

You can sick your lawyer on them after the situation is over. Not that it would do any good.

emt1581
01-29-2010, 12:34
In places like Florida where SHTF cases happen from time to time they are aware of the right to bear arms and do not mess with it. They know it is necessary. In a case where SHTF has not happened in the last 80 years or more the first time local governments will panic and issue orders like gun confiscation. I know Israel has been mentioned in this post a few times. Israel has been on the front line of terrorism for many years, they realized many years ago that an armed public was the best defense they could have. They educated their people and now they have a working solution. People over here would rather whine and cry about armed citizens and then when the SHTF those same whiners and criers will try to find a armed citizen and be friends with them for protection.

When in a SHTF situation the law will not work. If they come to get your guns you can show then the law in black and white and the LEO's will still take your guns. You are better off giving them your gun because they will not leave without it IF THEY KNOW YOU HAVE ONE and any good gun owner will have a backup or two hidden somewhere.

You can sick your lawyer on them after the situation is over. Not that it would do any good.

I agree with the whole sheepdog part. 100%.

However, in terms of the LE/Gov. IGNORING THE LAW...that's sort of their ONLY purpose...to ENFORCE LAW. They aren't doing it at that point...so are they really law enforcers or are they criminals/killers/thieves that should be treated as such?

But more importantly, when LE/Gov. comes knocking...and they want guns. Will they just take the ONE GUN you hand over or will that provoke and give them "just cause" for a search of the property? Would NOT handing over a gun or two provoke the same search?

While I'm not thrilled with it, I'll sacrifice a few crap guns if it'll let me keep my defensive weapons and survive the situations. I'm just not sure giving up any guns will yield a positive outcome for me and my family. :dunno:

-Emt1581

beatcop
01-29-2010, 13:27
However, in terms of the LE/Gov. IGNORING THE LAW...that's sort of their ONLY purpose...to ENFORCE LAW. They aren't doing it at that point...so are they really law enforcers or are they criminals/killers/thieves that should be treated as such?


Improper seizures of property are appealed in a court of law, not by the barrel of a gun. You're on a slippery slope here. The "what if" questions are great when they open the mind, but when they indulge the tin foil conspiracy crowd into rationalizing violence against cops or the US miltary for perceived violations, they lose any benefit thay may be gained in the discussion.

BigFatDog
01-29-2010, 13:38
Some of you folks may want to consult legal counsel. It is often held, generally supported by case law instead of code, that you must obey even the unlawful order of an officer of the law. Your recourse for damages is with the courts...

emt1581
01-29-2010, 13:38
Improper seizures of property are appealed in a court of law, not by the barrel of a gun.

Well this is a tricky statment because while I agree that improper seizures are a court matter, the nature of the seizure, given the circumstances, may prevent one from surviving the situation at hand and make that court room appearance.

So the "barrel of a gun" might be the only thing permitting survival.

If the gov. wanted to seize my (future) kid's toys, kitchen appliances, furniture, etc...fine...let's battle it out in court later. But a gun is a lifesaving device. Sort of like them confiscating heart pills or air/water supply...it means probable death in certain SHTF scenerios.

It does seem like the law limited itself in it's capabilities but never told citizens or gave them permission to do anything if the enforcers of that law broke it's limitations...other than relying on the courts later.

This is why I asked the question...

Now obviously, if they are able to, the LE/Gov. community has FAR bigger toys and could blow an individual off the face of the earth. But does that mean we just submit and accept our fate? I won't. And I'd hope enough would join me accross the nation/state/neighborhood that I wouldn't be alone in my fight.

-Emt1581

racerford
01-29-2010, 14:20
Improper seizures of property are appealed in a court of law, not by the barrel of a gun. You're on a slippery slope here. The "what if" questions are great when they open the mind, but when they indulge the tin foil conspiracy crowd into rationalizing violence against cops or the US miltary for perceived violations, they lose any benefit thay may be gained in the discussion.



And when LEO come on and pretend that illegal actions of law enforce should have no immediate consequences and that the public should just bend over and take it at the time, they do nothing for they credibility.

Instead they should be telling us that they understand the law and their obligations to make sure they do not commit illegal acts against the public, or allow their fellow officers to do it either.

Armed confiscation, in the absence of a warrant, or exigent circumstances (such officer safety while they are there, or someone is shooting at people, response to call) is armed robbery. The fact that they are police officers does not change that or provide a defense. Are you suggesting we should stand by allow that? Allow them to leave us defenseless against looters? How is that not endanegering our lives?

So if we should let armed robbery pass, should we then stand by and allow they to rape our wives and daughters? Confiscate our food and water? I mean it is an action that will addressed in a court of law, not the barrel of a gun. Is that not what the police chiefs and other experts tell us.

At what point is a violent (at the point of a gun) illegal action of a police officer not an "improper" action, but the criminal action of a thug in a uniform? Why is it that ignorance of the law is "no excuse" for us, but it is OK for the police? That smacks of believing that the police are above the law.

I don't advocate violence against the police or military, it is not a good survival plan. But I anxiously await your response on what violent acts by police we are allowed to defend ourselves and our families from.

BigFatDog
01-29-2010, 14:32
It does seem like the law limited itself in it's capabilities but never told citizens or gave them permission to do anything if the enforcers of that law broke it's limitations...other than relying on the courts later.


The ideas that you are questioning are 5000 years old or more and are reaching into theories of justice and the social contract and the answers are likely deeper than you would like to go. However...

According to Rousseau, the problem wasn't the first man who drew a line in the dirt and said, "this is mine." The problem was the first man who agreed with him...

You enjoy the benefits of living under a particular government. Part of your agreement (the reason you get those benefits) is that you do what the government says. Your alternative is to go live under a different government as there are few, if any, places on this earth without a government.

Governments cannot have people ignoring their rules. So they have enforcers of rules. They extend special privileges to these enforcers, deemed necessary to allow them to do their functions (what good would an enforcer of rules be if he wasn't required to be listened to for example).

This is where your problem comes in... What if the enforcer is telling me to do something which I view as detrimental to my self interest (your greatest self interest being continued life) and I believe to be against the rules that we have agreed to? The answer is a simple one although not the one you want to hear. You do what the government says and follow the orders of its agent, the enforcer. Why? Because you agreed to and have received the benefits of that agreement. Because you transferred some of your self interest to the control of others and they agreed with someone else that the line is where they say it is.

Calling for reformation of the government because it is no longer supporting its end of the agreement, by supporting enough of your self interest that you are placated is all well and good. The only way it will occur is if enough of the other contract holders agree with you. Consider, during Katrina most of the other contract holders had fled.

Remembering Aristotle, your government starts in your home and extends to your community, your city, your state etc. Do those people have similar self interests in this matter to yours? If not its time to move.

Remember lots of people show up for the big show, the Presidential Election. They never consider that The President has very little direct impact on their daily lives. Their time can't be wasted with choosing a Sheriff, a Mayor or a Judge. Think back to Katrina again. Who had the most impact? If you don't participate in your local government you are agreeing that the line is where the others say it is.

When was the last time you served on a jury?

And when LEO come on and pretend that illegal actions of law enforce should have no immediate consequences... (snip)

They didn't decide that. Elected officials and Jurors did... Participation, or lack of participation, in the government of your communities (all of your communities) has consequences.

emt1581
01-29-2010, 14:55
The ideas that you are questioning are 5000 years old or more and are reaching into theories of justice and the social contract and the answers are likely deeper than you would like to go. However...

According to Rousseau, the problem wasn't the first man who drew a line in the dirt and said, "this is mine." The problem was the first man who agreed with him...

You enjoy the benefits of living under a particular government. Part of your agreement (the reason you get those benefits) is that you do what the government says.

Are you paraphrasing someone else or stating your own thoughts as facts? I as a citizen NEVER agreed to "do what the government says"! We as citizens created and make-up the government. At least that is what the founding fathers meant for our gov. to be...a governemnt OF, BY, and FOR the PEOPLE...not that the people would serve the government and agree to do what it says in exchange for protection/services.


Your alternative is to go live under a different government as there are few, if any, places on this earth without a government.

Governments cannot have people ignoring their rules.

Again, it's the PEOPLE'S rules! NOT the government. The government/LE are just tools of ENFORCEMENT against those citizens that disagree with the vast majority that one should not steal, rape, etc...and not kill without just cause.


So they have enforcers of rules. They extend special privileges to these enforcers, deemed necessary to allow them to do their functions (what good would an enforcer of rules be if he wasn't required to be listened to for example).

Right, the PEOPLE allow LE to have special powers to enforce the law...NOT to abuse their power against innocent law-abiding citizens. But again, I'm not sure if you're paraphrasing someone or stating your own thoughts/facts.

This is where your problem comes in... What if the enforcer is telling me to do something which I view as detrimental to my self interest (your greatest self interest being continued life) and I believe to be against the rules that we have agreed to? The answer is a simple one although not the one you want to hear. You do what the government says and follow the orders of its agent, the enforcer. Why? Because you agreed to and have received the benefits of that agreement. Because you transferred some of your self interest to the control of others and they agreed with someone else that the line is where they say it is.

Again, these ideas of "agreements" aside...following such orders, seriously jeopardizes my ability to follow through in the process (i.e. attend court later). So IMHO, the process needs to be clarified and altered for this specific situation. That's a hell of a lot easier said than done. And even though the law has gone out of it's way to restrict itself....I think I'd be foolish to expect it to offer a penalty to itself/it's enforcers for breaking those limitations. I'm not sure of any case where the law gives any rights of actions against itself if it gets out of line. I think that's a problem.

Calling for reformation of the government because it is no longer supporting its end of the agreement, by supporting enough of your self interest that you are placated is all well and good. The only way it will occur is if enough of the other contract holders agree with you. Consider, during Katrina most of the other contract holders had fled.

Remembering Aristotle, your government starts in your home and extends to your community, your city, your state etc. Do those people have similar self interests in this matter to yours? If not its time to move.

I'd like to think so. Other than some rediculously liberal places, I don't know of ANY neighborhood where people are hoping someone takes their guns for their own protection. Do YOU live in ot know of such a place?

Remember lots of people show up for the big show, the Presidential Election. They never consider that The President has very little direct impact on their daily lives. Their time can't be wasted with choosing a Sheriff, a Mayor or a Judge. Think back to Katrina again. Who had the most impact? If you don't participate in your local government you are agreeing that the line is where the others say it is.

When was the last time you served on a jury?

I'm not allowed to. Or at least when my county found out what I work closely with police in daily duties, they excused me. But I would LOVE to serve on a jury!!



They didn't decide that. Elected officials and Jurors did... Participation, or lack of participation, in the government of your communities (all of your communities) has consequences.

-Emt1581

racerford
01-29-2010, 15:09
.......They didn't decide that. Elected officials and Jurors did... Participation, or lack of participation, in the government of your communities (all of your communities) has consequences.


Texas law does address it. I will let it speak for itself. It allows force in some circumstances. It does not appear to allow any special protection to police in other sections.

§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful force.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows
is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace
officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or
search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under
Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or
attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly
communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing
he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts
to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or
discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences
with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section
46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in
violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is
justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;
and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this
subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not
apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time
of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the
habitation of the actor.

§ 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in
using force or deadly force against another to protect a third
person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably
believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31
or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against
the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes
to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his
intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

§ 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is
justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another
when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide
or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.
(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly
force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes
the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the
other's life in an emergency.


So some states do tell you what is legal. As you recommended it would be best to consult an attorney, that is familiar with the case law.

It is interesting that they specifically mention, arrest and search, and not seizure. Unless legally seizure falls under "search" from a legal sense.

However, just because it is legal, doesn't mean you still won't wind up dead and vindicated in court.

BigFatDog
01-29-2010, 15:10
-Emt1581

I said it was likely deeper than you wanted to go...

emt1581
01-29-2010, 15:14
I said it was likely deeper than you wanted to go...

And, again, I made no such AGREEMENT.

-Emt1581

BigFatDog
01-29-2010, 15:58
And, again, I made no such AGREEMENT.

-Emt1581

Did your dad ever say, "if you live under my house you follow my rules."

emt1581
01-29-2010, 16:00
Did your dad ever say, "if you live under my house you follow my rules."

Yes, when I was a child and when my parents knew more about life and what was best for me than I did. What's your point? And again, if you'd like to continue the discussion, please clarify early things I aasked.

Thanks!

-Emt1581

BigFatDog
01-29-2010, 17:22
Yes, when I was a child and when my parents knew more about life and what was best for me than I did. What's your point? And again, if you'd like to continue the discussion, please clarify early things I aasked.

Thanks!

-Emt1581

Being "under the roof" of a particular government is your agreement to do what that government says. You don't need to say it out loud.

People do serve the government. The government also serves the people. It's part of an important concept called, "Ruling but being ruled in turn."

As simple citizen your vote is your sole rule and your sole license as provided by the constitution. That is government by the people.

There is no ruling class, no kings, no lords, no party membership requirements. All government offices are filled by ordinary citizens. That is government of the people.

The rules set forth by the selected and licensed members of government, and their appointees (the ones set forth by law) are the rule under which you are governed. That is government for the people. That is also being ruled in turn.

You rule, yet are ruled in turn. People rule up in selecting the members of their government and the government rules back down.

Just being "under the roof" doesn't get you an opportunity to determine the rules, but you still have to follow them. So if you can't or don't vote then, sorry, you are only being ruled.

You do not, as an ordinary citizen, have direct influence on Law Enforcement. The government members licensed by your vote, or their appointees, do.

We have a structure consisting of Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches. Our system is designed to force these branches to compete against each other.

Which branch do you think law enforcement falls under? That they compete it's not so hard to understand that they get limited.

All of these things are Political Science/Theory/Philosophy concepts. You can google many of the phrases I have used and find lots of references. If you want to better understand the founding fathers it helps to understand the context under which they worked and the foundations on which they built their beliefs. Start with Aristotle...

The problem isn't whole communities who want you disarmed. The problem is individuals who are attracted to power and authority. Politicians are, generally speaking, a self selecting lot. The people before ruling up don't often ask enough questions. In turn the elected people appoint like minded people and... New Orleans gun grab.

The only way a simple citizen can directly affect the rules governing them is through jury service. Sorry you haven't had that pleasure.

Noticed I used small G, government and small C constitution. As I wasn't referring to specific entities, but rather generalities.

One of the greatest things about this type of system is that it allows for "bloodless revolution" every time someone walks into a voting booth.

emt1581
01-29-2010, 20:08
Being "under the roof" of a particular government is your agreement to do what that government says.

Where is that said specifically? I mean is it in the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights? Maybe it's somewhere in the Declaration of Independance? See I've read those doccuments and I saw a TON of things saying what the people want and what the gov. is not allowed to do...but I can't say I've ever seen it specifically put that the citizens will agree to do whatever the government says. :dunno:

You don't need to say it out loud.

People do serve the government. The government also serves the people. It's part of an important concept called, "Ruling but being ruled in turn."

As simple citizen your vote is your sole rule and your sole license as provided by the constitution. That is government by the people.

There is no ruling class, no kings, no lords, no party membership requirements. All government offices are filled by ordinary citizens. That is government of the people.

The rules set forth by the selected and licensed members of government, and their appointees (the ones set forth by law) are the rule under which you are governed. That is government for the people. That is also being ruled in turn.

You rule, yet are ruled in turn. People rule up in selecting the members of their government and the government rules back down.

Just being "under the roof" doesn't get you an opportunity to determine the rules, but you still have to follow them. So if you can't or don't vote then, sorry, you are only being ruled.

Actually there's voting and then there's writing senators/reps/etc to express what you will give them a vote for and what you won't. It's their choice whether to listen to the people or find a new job.


You do not, as an ordinary citizen, have direct influence on Law Enforcement. The government members licensed by your vote, or their appointees, do.

And again, the citizens elect most members of government...so in turn, I as a citizen do influence LE and Gov. even if it's just by my vote or by making myself heard.

We have a structure consisting of Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches. Our system is designed to force these branches to compete against each other.

You should tell Obama that. I don't think he was competing with the SCOTUS when he stood a few yards away from them at the State of the Union and said he was going to go around them....not much competition there. But in theory, yes they are supposed to compete.

Which branch do you think law enforcement falls under?

Probably judicial but again, Obama plans on going around them....so which do YOU think law enforcement falls under?

That they compete it's not so hard to understand that they get limited.

All of these things are Political Science/Theory/Philosophy concepts. You can google many of the phrases I have used and find lots of references. If you want to better understand the founding fathers it helps to understand the context under which they worked and the foundations on which they built their beliefs. Start with Aristotle...

The problem isn't whole communities who want you disarmed. The problem is individuals who are attracted to power and authority. Politicians are, generally speaking, a self selecting lot. The people before ruling up don't often ask enough questions. In turn the elected people appoint like minded people and... New Orleans gun grab.

The only way a simple citizen can directly affect the rules governing them is through jury service. Sorry you haven't had that pleasure.

That maybe have been true in the past but lets continue that debate after the next election. I think the tea party movement and independents are going to turn that tradition on it's head. That's through voting, yes, but also through marching, campaigning, etc.

Noticed I used small G, government and small C constitution. As I wasn't referring to specific entities, but rather generalities.

One of the greatest things about this type of system is that it allows for "bloodless revolution" every time someone walks into a voting booth.

This is true, however, if something happens that voting can't stop before that something does any dammage like I dunno...say...a gun confiscation...the bloodless part sort of goes away no? But then again, that was the point of the thread....not how I as an individual can influence or serve LE/Gov.



-Emt1581

Bren
01-29-2010, 20:34
Now most of us know about the gun confiscations that took place during Katrina. Prior to that, however, there were laws on the books that outlawed such practices weren't there?

In any case, there were laws passed afterwards that made it illegal to confiscate gun again in the face of a SHTF situation right?

My question is, what does the law tell citizens to do if anyone in LE/Gov. tries to do it again?


Do whatever you feel is right. If what you feel is right is anything other than giving up your guns, however, there is a good chance you won't survive and a good chance you'll go to jail if you do. Even if the police are doing something illegal or unlawfully arresting you, most states don't allow you to forcibly resist.

Bren
01-29-2010, 20:41
And, again, I made no such AGREEMENT.

-Emt1581

You went to college, right? "Social contract" ring any bells? The fundamental explanation of civilization? Protesting that it doesn't exist after somebody explains it to you doesn't prove much.

emt1581
01-29-2010, 20:58
Social contract describes a broad class of theories that try to explain the ways in which people form states to maintain social order. The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up sovereignty to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law. It can also be thought of as an agreement by the governed on a set of rules by which they are governed.

That part is what BFD sort of focused on. And that's fine. But what I haven't received a real straight answer on is what happens when the rules agreed on aren't played by? Nowhere in the "social contract" does is say that when the agreed on set of rules are violated by those charged with enforcing those rules (or in this case law) that the governed must accept death in lieu of finishing out the agreed upon process (which would be utilization of the courts in this case). Does it?

I only got as far as some post grad work...I didn't go for none of that fancy book lernin. So I'll appreciate the clarification.

-Emt1581

Glock-it-to-me
01-29-2010, 21:01
We will send tanks to enforce suspected 'gun parts' allegations.

We have no problem killing women and children.

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/images/waco.jpg

Killing women and children with poison gas is unfathomable.

emt1581
01-29-2010, 21:05
Killing women and children with poison gas is unfathomable.

Shaw got all warm and fuzzy about it. :whistling:

Something I'm curious about...since Waco was raised...and since I was too young to remember it...were there any trials/hearings/etc. afterwards? Was anyone held accountable AND punished for the crimes on the part of the government?

I mean, we're talking about handing guns over and saddling up after the dust settles...I'm just curious if it happened with Waco...or any other time??

Thanks!:)

-Emt1581

kirgi08
01-30-2010, 00:04
Waco was trumped up by tptb,try looking inta Ruby Ridge while your at it.'08.

emt1581
01-30-2010, 00:20
tptb?

What's that?

Thanks!

-Emt1581

kirgi08
01-30-2010, 01:08
Do the research,if youse can't figure out "tptb" ya missed something.'08.


No prompting,please.As someone said "it's a "slippery slope".

emt1581
01-30-2010, 01:13
Do the research,if youse can't figure out "tptb" ya missed something.'08.


No prompting,please.As someone said "it's a "slippery slope".

Ah ha! I got it!! No searching needed! The Powers That Be!!! See those pesky lowercase letters threw me off. ;)

-Emt1581

kirgi08
01-30-2010, 02:38
I hope your hard at work on that.'08.

skippz
01-30-2010, 05:34
How often do LE try and confiscate your guns anyway? To me we're the last line of defense... If for some reason LE & Military falls... all that stands is armed citizens... just like in the old days haha

BigFatDog
01-30-2010, 08:27
Where is that said specifically? I mean is it in the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights? Maybe it's somewhere in the Declaration of Independance? See I've read those doccuments and I saw a TON of things saying what the people want and what the gov. is not allowed to do...but I can't say I've ever seen it specifically put that the citizens will agree to do whatever the government says.


Read the constitution of your State and The United States Constitution. They are contractual agreements. "We the people" means you too.

You must have missed Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and the similar legislature clause of the constitution of your state.



Actually there's voting and then there's writing senators/reps/etc to express what you will give them a vote for and what you won't. It's their choice whether to listen to the people or find a new job.

And again, the citizens elect most members of government...so in turn, I as a citizen do influence LE and Gov. even if it's just by my vote or by making myself heard.



The simple citizen's sole influence in government is their vote or the co-opting of someone else's. Write a Congressperson in a district where you aren't a constituent and wait for a response...

You should tell Obama that. I don't think he was competing with the SCOTUS when he stood a few yards away from them at the State of the Union and said he was going to go around them....not much competition there. But in theory, yes they are supposed to compete.

It's not theory they do compete. Obama doesn't like competition...

Probably judicial but again, Obama plans on going around them....so which do YOU think law enforcement falls under?

Most unelected senior Law Enforcement positions are a appointed by the chief executive.

That maybe have been true in the past but lets continue that debate after the next election. I think the tea party movement and independents are going to turn that tradition on it's head. That's through voting, yes, but also through marching, campaigning, etc.


Jurys influence case law every day. When was the last time you directly influenced law?

This is true, however, if something happens that voting can't stop before that something does any dammage like I dunno...say...a gun confiscation...the bloodless part sort of goes away no?

If it does the so goes the constitution...

Natty
01-30-2010, 09:16
Shaw got all warm and fuzzy about it. :whistling:

Something I'm curious about...since Waco was raised...and since I was too young to remember it...were there any trials/hearings/etc. afterwards? Was anyone held accountable AND punished for the crimes on the part of the government?

I mean, we're talking about handing guns over and saddling up after the dust settles...I'm just curious if it happened with Waco...or any other time??

Thanks!:)

-Emt1581

The Government was embarrassed. As the nation watched on TV days and days went by and they could not arrest members at this church.

They finally decided enough is enough and they sent in the tanks and punched holes in the wall and pumped in poisonous flammable military CS gas for hours. Then they set off military pyrotechnic devices that burned the church down.

74 men women and children inside died. Including 21 children and 2 pregnant women.

I dont believe any Govt agent was charged with any crime.

http://www.serendipity.li/waco.html

emt1581
01-30-2010, 11:50
Read the constitution of your State and The United States Constitution. They are contractual agreements. "We the people" means you too.

You must have missed Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and the similar legislature clause of the constitution of your state.




The simple citizen's sole influence in government is their vote or the co-opting of someone else's. Write a Congressperson in a district where you aren't a constituent and wait for a response...



It's not theory they do compete. Obama doesn't like competition...



Most unelected senior Law Enforcement positions are a appointed by the chief executive.



Jurys influence case law every day. When was the last time you directly influenced law?



If it does the so goes the constitution...


I don't mind going back and forth with you but seriously, make your point. What do these statements have to do with confiscations or what the law says to do to confiscators?

I was pretty sure we already covered that the law says to use the court process and we as citizens need to decide whether we want to stand up or become sheep...or was there some other point you were trying to make?

Thanks!

-Emt1581

BigFatDog
01-30-2010, 16:54
I don't mind going back and forth with you but seriously, make your point. What do these statements have to do with confiscations or what the law says to do to confiscators?

I was pretty sure we already covered that the law says to use the court process and we as citizens need to decide whether we want to stand up or become sheep...or was there some other point you were trying to make?

Thanks!

-Emt1581

My point, was back a few posts... You do what the government says and follow the orders of its agent, the enforcer. Why? Because you agreed to and have received the benefits of that agreement. Because you transferred some of your self interest to the control of others and they agreed with someone else that the line is where they say it is.

Then you said, "I made no such AGREEMENT."

certifiedfunds
01-30-2010, 18:00
EMT - I mean no disrespect but you're out of your league on this one.

MajorAmby
01-30-2010, 18:20
My point, was back a few posts... You do what the government says and follow the orders of its agent, the enforcer. Why? Because you agreed to and have received the benefits of that agreement. Because you transferred some of your self interest to the control of others and they agreed with someone else that the line is where they say it is.

Then you said, "I made no such AGREEMENT."
I understand what you mean about "this agreement". But in "this agreement", it is also found that it says that people have certain inalienable rights given to humans as soon as they are able to exist, to which the government shall not touch! It also says that the government is not our "rulers", but the carriers of a set of laws which we deem appropriate.

Your argument about "my house my rules" is flawed, because the law is a two-way street. While you may have agreed to be a slave to the government, I'm going to assume that EMT has not subscribed to that camp... "The agreement" that you follow is that the government tells you what to do. The Constitution doesn't say that. It says the government does what the people want it to do. Laws are a 2-way street for the people of a nation, and for its government. It's not just "you live here, so you do as I say". It is, "you live here, and you've elected me to follow certain rules, and you should follow some rules too". We all have inalienable rights that they shouldn't attempt to take away without due process, and anything else is ILLEGAL.

I'd like to see what you do if they came by your house in the aftermath of a disaster and wanted to confiscate your food and water. Hey, their house, their rules, right?

fourdeuce2
01-30-2010, 19:15
My point, was back a few posts... You do what the government says and follow the orders of its agent, the enforcer. Why? Because you agreed to and have received the benefits of that agreement. Because you transferred some of your self interest to the control of others and they agreed with someone else that the line is where they say it is.

Then you said, "I made no such AGREEMENT."

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

In contract law, when one of the parties violates an agreement, the agreement is usually considered null and void.:whistling:

emt1581
01-30-2010, 20:36
In contract law, when one of the parties violates an agreement, the agreement is usually considered null and void.:whistling:

While I didn't say contract law...this is exactly what I was thinking.

If we the people agree to give certain powers to certain people, short of a capital murder case, I don't know of any place where we the people give permission to anyone to kill us or put us into a condition whereby we are thrown to the lions without a sword or two. A possible exception to this might be self-defense situations.

So when the LE/Gov. attempts to do such a thing I would think THEY would be in violation of the contract....social or otherwise.

-Emt1581

emt1581
01-30-2010, 20:53
Something else I'm thinking is a way for no one to have to fire a shot but at the same time not lose any of their guns....well...innocent law-abiding citizens that is...

This would take a LOT of cooperation but from the sounds of it, lots of people here live in neighborhoods where everyone looks out for one another.

But what if the citizens trap the confiscators? That is, allow them to go into a specific home/property, then surround the property and pull the exact same thing on them that they are pulling on the citizens. Give up your guns and there will be no probelms. That way, no one is harmed and there is still the ability to saddle up afterwards in court.

From what I saw on videos from Katrina it seems like the confiscators all focused on one or two parties at a time while the vehicles were paraded down the street.

Might not be the perfect plan or even close to the perfect plan but with enough citizens working together, in theory, it might work....unless we're at the point of tanks, grenades, and enought personnel to overcome the citizens.

-Emt1581

ArmoryDoc
01-30-2010, 21:23
A six or eight man confiscation squad will come out of the house in a defensive circle with M4's leveled in a 360 degree pattern, waiting to ID a target. Or, they'll just stay put, radio for backup and move when the chopper and SWAT units arrive. You aren't gonna have much impact in that regard, I'm afraid.

But then again...

emt1581
01-30-2010, 21:30
A six or eight man confiscation squad will come out of the house in a defensive circle with M4's leveled in a 360 degree pattern, waiting to ID a target. Or, they'll just stay put, radio for backup and move when the chopper and SWAT units arrive. You aren't gonna have much impact in that regard, I'm afraid.

But then again...

Right, but like I said, if their manpower is limited and this happens in more than just one neighborhood at a time....

Personally, I've got plenty of basement space and duct tape....what says they have to come out of the house to be trapped? They as a team goes in, another team goes in right behind them. It could turn out REALLY bad for everyone, but if the dog psychology works, it might prove successful.

I didn't see the M4's raised/360 pattern in the Katrina videos a few years back. I just saw a bunch of VERY lightly armed/armored cops walking/standing around with not so bright looks on their faces.

Not disagreeing with you, but it'd be nice to screw over the confiscators, maintain personal security, and NOT have to kill anyone.

It would also be nice to put the confiscators to work with the survival effort. I'd rather have them doing something constructive to benefit the citizens than tucked away in a crawl space.

-Emt1581

beatcop
01-30-2010, 21:40
We're indulging in fantasy at this point.

Waco pics don't further this thread, they merely illustrate what happens when folks on BOTH sides make poor decisions (whether legal, moral, or otherwise).

If some folks want to "reserve the right" to raise arms against those sworn to protect and serve, that's your decision...paint whatever scenario you have to justify your ends.

emt1581
01-30-2010, 21:51
We're indulging in fantasy at this point.

Possibly, but we never really talk about this kinda stuff. What usually happens is someone will throw out the confiscation card...then two sides will form. Those who would "raise arms" and those who throw their arms up and submit and both sides will piss and moan about the situation and the other side and ultimately the thread usually ends in a flame war right before it's locked....look at some of the confiscation threads and you'll see what I mean.

I'm just throwing alternative ideas out there for discussion which people rarely do...they pick sides and then go back and forth trying to prove their point. My ideas might be nut house material and I'm the first to admit that...but at least throw some of your own out there that doesn't force people to just roll over and die. (I'm not talking to you specifically beatcop. ;) )

Waco pics don't further this thread, they merely illustrate what happens when folks on BOTH sides make poor decisions (whether legal, moral, or otherwise).

I agree. People can make horrible decisions and the gov. has enough toys to serve plates of FUBAR as those pictures show. People tend to make poor decisions when they don't plan and are stressed/under pressure. But if there is a plan ahead of time...much like practicing at the range...there might be the possibility of overcoming the situation.

If some folks want to "reserve the right" to raise arms against those sworn to protect and serve, that's your decision...paint whatever scenario you have to justify your ends.

-Emt1581

racerford
01-31-2010, 03:47
We're indulging in fantasy at this point.

Waco pics don't further this thread, they merely illustrate what happens when folks on BOTH sides make poor decisions (whether legal, moral, or otherwise).

If some folks want to "reserve the right" to raise arms against those sworn to protect and serve, that's your decision...paint whatever scenario you have to justify your ends.

I see you have come back to respond, but haven't ansered my questions.

Nobody wants to "raise arms against those sworn to protect and serve" (OK I am sure a few may, prisons are full of them). They really would prefer that "those sworn to protect and serve" don't do anything illegal to put them in that situation to make a decision.

So do you let you fellow LEO's confiscate your arms? Do you let them endanger your life? Rob you at gun point? Rape your wife and daughter? All the while thinking, I can appeal this in court later?

Enquiring minds want to know what a "Beatcop" thinks. Where do you draw the line? So far you seem to be saying, there is no line.

kirgi08
01-31-2010, 05:23
:popcorn:

Natty
01-31-2010, 05:53
But what if the citizens trap the confiscators? That is, allow them to go into a specific home/property, then surround the property and pull the exact same thing on them that they are pulling on the citizens. Give up your guns and there will be no probelms. That way, no one is harmed and there is still the ability to saddle up afterwards in court.


-Emt1581

During the initial BATF Raid at Waco, 76 heavily armed ATF agents came to serve a search warrant on the church, They even brought their own video cameras. 20 agents were shot. 16 wounded and 4 dead.

The Church leader, Koresh, opened the front door unarmed. Both sides claimed that the other side fired first. Video footage and pictures show the front door shot full of bullet holes. The Door was removed as evidence by the feds and somehow they lost it. Can you imagine that.

It wasn't really a trap but the church had been tipped off that the feds were coming.

DanW
01-31-2010, 07:26
i only got to page 4 so I'm not sure if this was posted yet...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_Recovery_Personal_Protection_Act

The Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 was a bill introduced in the United States Congress intended to prohibit the confiscation of legally-possessed firearms during a disaster. Its provisions became law in the form of the Vitter Amendment to the Department Of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans Chief of Police Eddie Compass ordered police and National Guard units to confiscate firearms from citizens who remained in the area.

The National Rifle Association and Second Amendment Foundation filed a lawsuit against the city of New Orleans to place an emergency injunction forbidding such seizures from continuing. A temporary restraining order was granted September 23, 2005.[1]

The Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 (H.R.5013, S.2599) was a bill introduced March 28, 2006 by Republican Congressman Bobby Jindal in the House and on April 7, 2006 by Republican Senator David Vitter in the Senate.[2] On August 4, 2006, it was referred to committee.

On July 12, 2006 Senator Vitter proposed Senate Amendment 4615 (the Vitter Amendment) to Department Of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (H.R. 5441), to prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law.[3] The proposed amendment was subsequently modified to contain the provisions of the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006. However, the temporary surrender of a firearm could be required "as a condition for entry into any mode of transportation used for rescue or evacuation".

On July 13, 2006, the Vitter Amendment passed the United States Senate 84 to 16. It was retained by the conference committee. President George W. Bush signed the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act on September 30, 2006 and it became Public Law 109-295.[4]

jdavionic
01-31-2010, 08:03
Whether individual states pass laws or not is likely irrelevant if the president declares Martial Law. In that event, it will not be your local PD that is ordered to disarm you. Instead it would be federal troops. Nah...that will never happen. Wrong, it has been done before. Pick your poison, look at Colorado in 1914.

So what does the law tell citizens? It depends on the circumstances. I think a better question is what does common sense tell citizens?

Assuming you're a law-abiding citizen, you will not be subject to a siezure under normal circumstances. However if something in your area or the nation as a whole degrades to the point where the government deems it necessary to disarm you, do you want to entrust your well being and that of your loved ones to the government? You decide.

And if you decide to manage your own survival through whatever situation that has triggered such events, what is the smarter option - confrontation or avoiding confrontation? I would think the examples posted already would serve to help make this answer obvious.

G19lover
01-31-2010, 08:14
We are not alone of preserving our firearms. Check out http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

BigFatDog
01-31-2010, 09:57
I'd like to see what you do if they came by your house in the aftermath of a disaster and wanted to confiscate your food and water. Hey, their house, their rules, right?

I'd give it to them and go about gathering more. Just like I do on every April 15th. The locals get theirs in December.


In contract law, when one of the parties violates an agreement, the agreement is usually considered null and void.:whistling:

No, it isn't. It's called the survivability clause. Also remember we are talking about a contract with multiple parties. You may be ready to declare it void, but are the others?

MajorAmby
01-31-2010, 11:07
I'd like to see what you do if they came by your house in the aftermath of a disaster and wanted to confiscate your food and water. Hey, their house, their rules, right?
I'd give it to them and go about gathering more. Just like I do on every April 15th. The locals get theirs in December.
I thought slavery was abolished over a century ago. I suppose I didn't think there was self-imposed slavery...

This.
So do you let you fellow LEO's confiscate your arms? Do you let them endanger your life? Rob you at gun point? Rape your wife and daughter? All the while thinking, I can appeal this in court later?

Where do you draw the line? So far you seem to be saying, there is no line.
So far, you don't care if they take your guns, or your food and water... what else are you willing for them to take or do to you and yours until you deem they don't deserve to do it?

slvr-star
01-31-2010, 11:17
I don't think so either but with the endless laws on the books it might be slipped in somewhere.

I'm thinking the citizen might try posting the page with the law forbidding confiscation on their door along with a warning to anyone trying it.. :dunno:

I have no clue though....which is why I'm askin.

Thanks!:)

-Emt1581
Wouldn't that be a lot like putting a target on yourself?
I'd think being discreet would be the first line of defense.

emt1581
01-31-2010, 11:41
The more I read replies the more it looks like a BOL is a smart idea...

-Emt1581

jdavionic
01-31-2010, 12:34
The more I read replies the more it looks like a BOL is a smart idea...

-Emt1581

A BOL is an excellent idea. But it doesn't address the issue of confiscation. I have a BOL approximately 100 miles away. But it still means that I have to get there. I am well prepared for bugging out. But it's still an option of last resort.

Say you do have a BOL. If Martial Law is declared and weapons are being confiscated, you can expect road blocks, check points, etc. What next? And suppose you do reach your BOL, why do you think that location is going to be immune to the same issues?

Point being, you still need to give it some thought. It's very unlikely that one family will be such a deterrent to an organized force that they will discourage an attempt to disarm. There are many examples to illustrate that point. So what's plan B for ensuring that you are armed and able to defend yourself and your loved ones?

There are some that take preps well beyond what I can afford at this time. Some people have large plots of land with shelters below ground, etc. For them, I would imagine they can just lock down and wait things out. Some have a large amount of land where they can stash a supply of items to ensure survival and minimize the likelihood of losing them under any kind of siezure. Again, no bravado ideas...just some smart planning. The list of ideas goes on & on. But just having a BOL, that's not the answer to the problem.

Catshooter
01-31-2010, 12:41
Yes. Regardless of how big your basket is, it's a poor idea to let just one contain all your eggs.

Options. Lot's of 'em. The more the merrier.


Cat

certifiedfunds
01-31-2010, 12:45
Yes. Regardless of how big your basket is, it's a poor idea to let just one contain all your eggs.

Options. Lot's of 'em. The more the merrier.


Cat

And yet RWBlue got piles of **** for wanting to stash one little firearm in someone else's wall.

Even though Blue stated that he trusted these people with his life, many railed against him leaving one measly gun there.

jdavionic
01-31-2010, 12:52
And yet RWBlue got piles of **** for wanting to stash one little firearm in someone else's wall.

Even though Blue stated that he trusted these people with his life, many railed against him leaving one measly gun there.

Not from me. :supergrin:

certifiedfunds
01-31-2010, 12:54
Not from me. :supergrin:

No kidding. It got me wondering, "Who the hell do I know and trust that will let me open up a wall to plant a few things?"

(ETA: For a freakin scum of the earth gators fan, you're ok jdavionic :supergrin::tongueout:)

jdavionic
01-31-2010, 13:35
(ETA: For a freakin scum of the earth gators fan, you're ok jdavionic :supergrin::tongueout:)

:rofl::rofl: You're too kind.

bdcochran
01-31-2010, 14:31
#1
emt1581
Curious Member




Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 19,406 " What does the law tell citizens to do during a confiscation? "

1. most people obey whatever laws that they choose to obey. The laws range from not committing chargable murder down to stopping at a stop sign. When shtf, the basic nature of people won't change - id. est. - they will obey whatever laws they choose to obey.
2. if you are concerned that some law enforcement official will misinterpret, misapply or otherwise mangle the law, you have a choice. Follow the instructions or don't follow the instructions. And, endure whatever consequences there may be.

3. Casting practical situations or shtf situations as legal questions or moral questions TODAY is totally irrelevant to probably what you or anyone else will do when faced with options.

On these boards, you tend to get knee jerk reactions like -better tried by 12 than carried by 6 and similar trite expressions.

How about the opposite? Just obey any political, legal, religious figure in their commandments without objection when shtf? Not as frequent a response on these boards, but just as valid as trite, gun magazine responses.

Common sense is not very common.:shocked:

BigFatDog
02-01-2010, 01:31
I thought slavery was abolished over a century ago. I suppose I didn't think there was self-imposed slavery...

(snip) due to one of GT's features... I can assure you that if later generations should find that I am acting as a slave it is only for the benefits.

Slavery is the only way I could describe being up at an unreasonable hour, on a Sunday no less, being on the computer, and in need of comic relief...

So far, you don't care if they take your guns, or your food and water... what else are you willing for them to take or do to you and yours until you deem they don't deserve to do it?

Don't confuse not caring with the realization and subsequent acceptance (some belief systems call such realizations "enlightenment") that in a battle of "might makes right" with a government (or it's agents) that I, as an individual, would lose.

BTW every time I see a post from you, I am reminded to take my D.E. out to the range...


The only validated truism in this thread, including the various bits of drivel that I spout...

#1
Common sense is not very common.:shocked:

MajorAmby
02-01-2010, 06:31
I suppose that it is your right to be preyed upon for the slim chance to live and fight again, but there's no telling whether or not that act that was forced upon you will leave you with the same results you sought to avoid in the first place. Seems like you are risking to just die later rather than stand up for principle in real-time because you believe for a fact you would lose the physical conflict.

I understand where you're coming from, because I'm sure I'm no match for a "confiscation" team either. But if they plan on (unlawfully) leaving me defenseless, or without food or water, or decide they want to rape me or mine... well, I might end up dead anyway - whether I fight them or not. But you're saying, let them do what they want, you'll get them in court later. It's their house, so they get to do what they want... What happens if the situation is so grave that, maybe there will never be another court system in your lifetime to seek justice?

I'm sure you're a nice guy and "enlightened" like Ghandi, but I wonder if anyone you might be putting in danger - if this situation would ever occur - will have the same "enlightenment" as you on this subject? Will they die of hunger more contently? Would they dehydrate just a little bit less painfully? Will they scream less while being raped?

The people you are potentially putting in danger is not only yourself. It's not only your immediate family. It's also your neighborhood, your community, etc... it's telling these authorities that are supposed to 'do good', that it will be easy for them to do what they want with the people. If such a situation would ever to occur, I will cooperate as much as I can without letting them break the law - especially not breaking a law that could result in the endangerment of me or mine. Because it doesn't only stop with me. Doing so, might have done my neighbor or yourself a service as well.

fourdeuce2
02-01-2010, 14:14
"No, it isn't. It's called the survivability clause."

Then it's generally time for "renegotiation", where they throw out the old contract and come up with a new one, which gives the same result.

"Also remember we are talking about a contract with multiple parties. You may be ready to declare it void, but are the others?"

Others have to make their own decisions, just like in any situation. I have to make my own. If I want to do something which involves others, then I'd have to find others who agreed with my decision and work with them.
The American Revolution didn't have unanimous support among colonists. Some were in favor of revolution. Others were against it and wanted to remain loyal to their "legal" government. The vast majority didn't care.

fourdeuce2
02-01-2010, 14:17
We're indulging in fantasy at this point.

Waco pics don't further this thread, they merely illustrate what happens when folks on BOTH sides make poor decisions (whether legal, moral, or otherwise).

If some folks want to "reserve the right" to raise arms against those sworn to protect and serve, that's your decision...paint whatever scenario you have to justify your ends.

The problem with the old "protect and serve" thing is that the courts have ruled that the police have no legal or moral requirement to protect and serve individuals. They say the police are there to protect and serve society as a whole, and that individuals are on their own when it comes to being protected and served. :crying:

kirgi08
02-02-2010, 01:25
Kinda adds a new meaning ta "911".'08.

skippz
02-02-2010, 05:01
I would like to address a couple of things!!!
First: I cannot believe that so many of our nationals & youth are as disrespectful of our nations armed forces! This disgusts me. We are all supposed to be on the same side here!
Second: To the LEO's etc... your lives are no more important than that of a citizen, it sickens me to hear "1st rate citizen... 2nd rate citizen..." "No more cops should die!" Well guess what... I'm a citizen now... does that mean that my life is less expensive than yours? Get over yourselves OMG!
We should work together not against one another b/c when the time comes each other will be all we have.

Glock-it-to-me
02-02-2010, 05:16
Taking guns from 25 million veterans is a task bigger than they can handle.

UneasyRider
02-02-2010, 07:27
Taking guns from 25 million veterans is a task bigger than they can handle.

Agree.

TacticalBling
02-02-2010, 09:41
Some of you folks may want to consult legal counsel. It is often held, generally supported by case law instead of code, that you must obey even the unlawful order of an officer of the law.

Never.

UneasyRider
02-02-2010, 10:04
Doesn't this all come down to the situation? Consider two different scenarios:

1) The U.S. government falls in an economic colapse and it's a life or death free for all. I say shoot.

2) A hurricane forces an evacuation and the police force entry into empty homes and while they are there they take guns. Not all homes are empty but they knock on doors and ask to take your guns for safe keeping until it's all over. I don't shoot, but I don't open my door either. Besides I don't own any guns...

BigFatDog
02-02-2010, 13:17
I suppose that it is your right to be preyed upon for the slim chance to live and fight again, but there's no telling whether or not that act that was forced upon you will leave you with the same results you sought to avoid in the first place. Seems like you are risking to just die later rather than stand up for principle in real-time because you believe for a fact you would lose the physical conflict.

The problem doesn't lie in the loss of a battle. It lies in the inevitable loss of a war.

I understand where you're coming from, because I'm sure I'm no match for a "confiscation" team either. But if they plan on (unlawfully) leaving me defenseless, or without food or water, or decide they want to rape me or mine... well, I might end up dead anyway - whether I fight them or not. But you're saying, let them do what they want, you'll get them in court later. It's their house, so they get to do what they want... What happens if the situation is so grave that, maybe there will never be another court system in your lifetime to seek justice?

The "confiscation team" that you are battling also is not the problem. The problem in that instance lies with the entity that is standing behind it giving it license to act.


I'm sure you're a nice guy and "enlightened" like Ghandi, but I wonder if anyone you might be putting in danger - if this situation would ever occur - will have the same "enlightenment" as you on this subject? Will they die of hunger more contently? Would they dehydrate just a little bit less painfully? Will they scream less while being raped

The people you are potentially putting in danger is not only yourself. It's not only your immediate family. It's also your neighborhood, your community, etc... it's telling these authorities that are supposed to 'do good', that it will be easy for them to do what they want with the people. If such a situation would ever to occur, I will cooperate as much as I can without letting them break the law - especially not breaking a law that could result in the endangerment of me or mine. Because it doesn't only stop with me. Doing so, might have done my neighbor or yourself a service as well.

I am nothing like Ghandi. You seem to confuse my choosing not to fight battles that I might be able to win because of the realization that the battle would lead to a greater war that I cannot win, with pacifism...

These things don't happen in a vacuum. I work from the bottom up. Starting with myself and extending up through the various layers of my communities to prevent these sort of things, rather than wait for them to arrive at my door. At that point it's too late.

Further, if taking your food, water and especially your guns leaves you in a position where you are so desperate, that you consider your only option fighting a battle of "might makes right" which will undoubtedly end in a war of "might makes right" where you will be proven unabashedly wrong; frankly, you aren't very well prepared.


"No, it isn't. It's called the survivability clause."

Then it's generally time for "renegotiation", where they throw out the old contract and come up with a new one, which gives the same result.


There isn't a Survivability it's Severability and a clerical error on my part... and no just because a portion of a contract is held as invalid doesn't mean it gets thrown out and renegotiated.

The United States Constitution's Severability Clause might not be explicit, but its existence was proven by the "War of Norther Aggression."



Others have to make their own decisions, just like in any situation. I have to make my own. If I want to do something which involves others, then I'd have to find others who agreed with my decision and work with them.
The American Revolution didn't have unanimous support among colonists. Some were in favor of revolution. Others were against it and wanted to remain loyal to their "legal" government. The vast majority didn't care.



Certainly, you must decide for yourself. Otherwise there is no agreement and you are just a "slave." :supergrin:

Contracts are enforced. The force being the important part. Realize that in a battle of force, where justice is determined by "might makes right" the one with the most might wins.

Durring the Revolutionary Period, just like today there were those who took sides and those who didn't. Thankfully for us, at least as far as I'm concerned, The Revolutionaries proved to be the mightiest.

I'm also quite happy that the Republican Voters were proven to be the mightiest in the recent Massachusetts election.


Doesn't this all come down to the situation? Consider two different scenarios:

1) The U.S. government falls in an economic colapse and it's a life or death free for all. I say shoot.


Just because one layer of your government may fall doesn't mean that no one will be by to ask questions later. In your case it may be someone from Tallahassee.

MajorAmby
02-02-2010, 14:48
The problem doesn't lie in the loss of a battle. It lies in the inevitable loss of a war..
Please explain what you mean by this.

fourdeuce2
02-02-2010, 16:02
"The United States Constitution's Severability Clause might not be explicit, but its existence was proven by the "War of Norther Aggression." "

Just because the North happened to win doesn't prove the South was wrong. The winners write the history and they also write the laws. If the South had won, people today might be saying that proved they were right in their actions.
Might doesn't make right, as the old saying goes. Might just makes victory easier.

shotgunred
02-02-2010, 20:51
I don't think it's been addressed that deeply yet.

Most government agencies believe that when they declare marshal law all laws and the constitution goes out the window. At that point they consider themselves the only law!

certifiedfunds
02-02-2010, 21:08
"The United States Constitution's Severability Clause might not be explicit, but its existence was proven by the "War of Norther Aggression." "

Just because the North happened to win doesn't prove the South was wrong. The winners write the history and they also write the laws. If the South had won, people today might be saying that proved they were right in their actions.
Might doesn't make right, as the old saying goes. Might just makes victory easier.

Man, I'm totally stealing this from a member here who's name I can't recall:

Tyranny is always legal

emt1581
02-02-2010, 21:12
Man, I'm totally stealing this from a member here who's name I can't recall:

Tyranny is always legal

So does this mean in order to fight tyranny illegal actions must be taken?

It seems to have been the case with our founding fathers.

-Emt1581

certifiedfunds
02-02-2010, 21:28
So does this mean in order to fight tyranny illegal actions must be taken?

It seems to have been the case with our founding fathers.

-Emt1581

Not necessarily.

dherloc
02-02-2010, 21:30
Substitue the word "guns" for "droids".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnjaUoR15dU

emt1581
02-02-2010, 21:32
Not necessarily.

Do any examples of where tyranny has been successfully faught without breaking the law come to mind?

-Emt1581

certifiedfunds
02-02-2010, 21:49
Do any examples of where tyranny has been successfully faught without breaking the law come to mind?

-Emt1581

Aw, hell. I dunno. Most of the world lives under tyranny and I don't see anyone really fighting it legally or illegally.

We arguably live under a soft tyranny now because Constitutional limitations on government have been largely ignored for the last 100 years, but it doesn't require illegal actions to combat it.

I suppose it matters HOW you define tyranny and when it reaches the point that legal remedies are no longer feasible.

Either way, I'm mentally tired and could certainly be wrong.

fourdeuce2
02-03-2010, 13:23
When I was in Germany the last time(1994-1998) my father-in-law(at the time) proudly showed me his Hitler Jugend dagger and belt, which he used to wear in parades as they marched in their small town. He, like many other old Nazis, doesn't think Hitler was proven wrong, just that he happened to lose the war.:dunno:

TacticalBling
02-03-2010, 13:35
So does this mean in order to fight tyranny illegal actions must be taken?

It seems to have been the case with our founding fathers.

-Emt1581

When tyranny becomes firmly established, I'd say yes.

Remember, the Founding Fathers expected that America would have more-or-less regular revolutions, renewing the government. Who knows, maybe that's one reason they abhorred the idea of a standing American army; they worried that sooner or later, it would be used to oppress the American people.

What I don't understand is their thinking when penning the part of the Constitution that listed 'suppressing insurrections' as one of the duties of the Government...especially given that they'd just created the Nation by a very large act of insurrection. ESPECIALLY since they'd ensured with the 2nd Amendment that the American people would always have the tools of insurrection if they needed them. Beats me. :dunno:

BigFatDog
02-03-2010, 15:14
Please explain what you mean by this. "The problem doesn't lie in the loss of a battle. It lies in the inevitable loss of a war..."

What's the thread about?

"The United States Constitution's Severability Clause might not be explicit, but its existence was proven by the "War of Norther Aggression." "

Just because the North happened to win doesn't prove the South was wrong. The winners write the history and they also write the laws. If the South had won, people today might be saying that proved they were right in their actions.
Might doesn't make right, as the old saying goes. Might just makes victory easier.

That IS "might makes right," no matter how unjust.

When tyranny becomes firmly established, I'd say yes.

Remember, the Founding Fathers expected that America would have more-or-less regular revolutions, renewing the government. Who knows, maybe that's one reason they abhorred the idea of a standing American army; they worried that sooner or later, it would be used to oppress the American people.

What I don't understand is their thinking when penning the part of the Constitution that listed 'suppressing insurrections' as one of the duties of the Government...especially given that they'd just created the Nation by a very large act of insurrection. ESPECIALLY since they'd ensured with the 2nd Amendment that the American people would always have the tools of insurrection if they needed them. Beats me. :dunno:

Because insurrection is unnecessary, but the fear of it isn't.

beatcop
02-04-2010, 11:47
I see you have come back to respond, but haven't ansered my questions.

Nobody wants to "raise arms against those sworn to protect and serve" (OK I am sure a few may, prisons are full of them). They really would prefer that "those sworn to protect and serve" don't do anything illegal to put them in that situation to make a decision.

So do you let you fellow LEO's confiscate your arms? Do you let them endanger your life? Rob you at gun point? Rape your wife and daughter? All the while thinking, I can appeal this in court later?

Enquiring minds want to know what a "Beatcop" thinks. Where do you draw the line? So far you seem to be saying, there is no line.

I hadn't planned on responding, nothing personal, just didn't want to go down the road of conspiracy theories, etc.

To answer the basics of your question, actions that are not within the scope of a LEO job description, that are violations of law (clearly criminal acts, ie rape) are not indemnified....obviously.

Actions that are violations of rights are addressed by 42 USC 1983:

Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

I suspect you're already aware of this. Yup, I recognize the subtleties of this issue....search & seizure law, imminent vs. immediate harm caused by losing your guns....It is (or was) a sticky situation, you're told you have no choice, but to evac and you can't bring guns. What to do? I don't have the answer, but I do know that rationalizing armed resistance will be a stretch.

I'm just saying that the "Mad Max" days aren't here yet. It's nice to "game" this out and work out a survival plan that makes sense, but let's try to establish some scenarios that are in the realm of possibility. I don't think "rape and plunder" by leo/troops is a viable scenario, but that's just my opinion.

I'm a leo and a National Guard soldier who has gone on multiple desert tours, when someone tries to alienate me with the jbt, .gov, tyranny, Ruby Ridge, Waco, kneal knox propaganda I start to raise an eyebrow. I'm pretty sure that no one in mil/PD starts their day off thinking it's time to violate rights.

emt1581
02-04-2010, 11:53
I'm pretty sure that no one in mil/PD starts their day off thinking it's time to violate rights.

Most soldiers I know personally feel the exact same way. Although I hate to compare here...I wonder if the soldiers that made up Germany's, Russia's, and China's armed forces felt the same way...or were they praying for a chance to kill their fellow country-men on a daily basis and when their leaders gave the order it made them feel like a kid in a candy store?

-Emt1581

beatcop
02-04-2010, 14:22
Most soldiers I know personally feel the exact same way. Although I hate to compare here...I wonder if the soldiers that made up Germany's, Russia's, and China's armed forces felt the same way...or were they praying for a chance to kill their fellow country-men on a daily basis and when their leaders gave the order it made them feel like a kid in a candy store?

-Emt1581

I'm a little skeptical that US troops would participate in the kind of wholesale genocide that occurrs in other countries. Not just because I had to sit through a "Laws of War" briefing for the 20th time at my last drill, but because we don't have the kind of "history" that other countries that have had these types of problems do. We don't have an ignorant peasant class that is going to rise up, a history of having our land and citizenry plundered/seized by other countries, or a country divided by religion.

The American soldier, and citizen for that matter, is taught to "do the right thing". Will there be individuals who commit heinous acts? Sure, probably on par with the typical criminal element in any society.

emt1581
02-04-2010, 15:00
I'm a little skeptical that US troops would participate in the kind of wholesale genocide that occurrs in other countries. Not just because I had to sit through a "Laws of War" briefing for the 20th time at my last drill, but because we don't have the kind of "history" that other countries that have had these types of problems do. We don't have an ignorant peasant class that is going to rise up, a history of having our land and citizenry plundered/seized by other countries, or a country divided by religion.

The American soldier, and citizen for that matter, is taught to "do the right thing". Will there be individuals who commit heinous acts? Sure, probably on par with the typical criminal element in any society.

I see what you're saying in terms of not having the history that other nations have. However, I think back to the Japanese being huddled into camps, lawful slavery, and yes, even the confiscations/forced evacuations that took place during Katrina (as few as there may have been in relation to the 300,000,000 of us sharing this country) and while the killing was rather minimal, these were still horrifying acts committed by our LE/Gov. (which includes soldiers) community.

Now slavery being an acception, those carrying out the orders did so without question and I'd go so far as to say they were doing their patriotic duty in following such orders.

-Emt1581

MajorAmby
02-04-2010, 15:02
What's the thread about?
I'm trying to understand your position on this, so that is why I asked for you to clarify what you meant. Apparently you're not really interested in being understood.

If in the aftermath of a disaster, a few thugs came to your neighbor's house and tied them up and stole their water, food and guns... What would you do if they came to your door?

beatcop
02-04-2010, 15:16
I see what you're saying in terms of not having the history that other nations have. However, I think back to the Japanese being huddled into camps, lawful slavery, and yes, even the confiscations/forced evacuations that took place during Katrina (as few as there may have been in relation to the 300,000,000 of us sharing this country) and while the killing was rather minimal, these were still horrifying acts committed by our LE/Gov. (which includes soldiers) community.

Now slavery being an acception, those carrying out the orders did so without question and I'd go so far as to say they were doing their patriotic duty in following such orders.

-Emt1581

I guess if I was Japanese I would have a strong opinion, but I don't really see any comparison between atrocities/genocide and the evacuation of folks during a natural disaster. Horrifying is 6 million people in ovens, hacking limbs and mass graves.

What killing took place during Katrina by LE/GOV?

When the sole purpose of gov't action is to subjugate the populace, we have a problem. When you don't like the "help" or unintended consequences of said "help", it's a "teachable moment"....

"I'm from the government; I'm here to help!!!"

Ok, it's been fun....I'm out.

emt1581
02-04-2010, 15:18
I'm trying to understand your position on this, so that is why I asked for you to clarify what you meant. Apparently you're not really interested in being understood.

If in the aftermath of a disaster, a few thugs came to your neighbor's house and tied them up and stole their water, food and guns... What would you do if they came to your door?

I'm not answering for anyone else, but being the thread starter I'll throw in my .02 of what I've gathered from others here.

If those thugs have badges, the law tells us to allow them to do with us as they wish which includes rape our wives/children, torture us (possibly to death), and/or kill us. We're not questioning whether Americans will actually do such things or not to their own people...we are ONLY looking at the law here. However, if the thugs choose not to leave us for dead we are then encouraged by the law to seek retribution/clarification through the court system at a later date of the state's/govt's choosing.

Now if I've misunderstood anything, someone better correct me ASAP. If not, at this point, it sure as hell seems like the individual as given up their rights/lives to the LE/Gov. community.



What I've really learned from this thread is that without massive amounts of the population standing up to the LE/Gov. community when they attempt to carry out anything unlawful...we as individuals are screwed. And since the LE/Gov. tend to plan specific operations one by one rather than issuing general orders to their entire enforcement community (as evidenced by drug busts, stings, etc.) I'd be willing to be that when the time comes for the LE/Gov. to act unlawfully against it's own people it'll be done bit by bit rather than thinning out their defenses and doing it all at once.

BTW, what I was referring to with drugs busts and such is that one SWAT team doesn't thin itself out and knock down every drug dealer's door at the same time. They use the entire team on ONE house at a time...seems to be more effective that way.

-Emt1581

emt1581
02-04-2010, 15:26
I guess if I was Japanese I would have a strong opinion, but I don't really see any comparison between atrocities/genocide and the evacuation of folks during a natural disaster. Horrifying is 6 million people in ovens, hacking limbs and mass graves.

So if I (as an agent of the government) came to your door and said "alright beatcop, drop the Twinkie and get in the van!"...that wouldn't be horrifying for you...not knowing where you are going, why what will be done to your wife/children, if you'll be killed, etc?

What killing took place during Katrina by LE/GOV?

AFAIK, only a few killings took place. One was of a MENTALLY RETARDED man that tried crossing a gaurded bridge with his brother! That definitely took guts (or rather a strong stomach) to carry out. I don't have the stomach for such a thing. The name escapes me but I remember seeing a doccumentary on it. Just google Katrina, killing, bridge, etc. and you'll probably find it.


EDIT: Here ya go!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9486975



When the sole purpose of gov't action is to subjugate the populace, we have a problem.

Exactly. The same problem many people have had throughout history that found themselves in such a situation... up s**** creek with only pistols and rifles for paddles.

When you don't like the "help" or unintended consequences of said "help", it's a "teachable moment"....

Could indeed be a teachable moment. It is more likely going to be a regret/mistake (possibly spoke of at your funeral if any loved ones are left).



-Emt1581

beatcop
02-04-2010, 15:47
So if I (as an agent of the government) came to your door and said "alright beatcop, drop the Twinkie and get in the van!"...that wouldn't be horrifying for you...not knowing where you are going, why what will be done to your wife/children, if you'll be killed, etc?

C'mon now, this is fun, but that's a little ridiculous....I think it's safe to say that 99.9% of the folks would probably figure out that it's not the PBA soliciting donations....as I wade to my front door to answer it.

I think we've established you can use force to prevent a true crime....
and when there's no more fuel for my cruiser, direct deposit for my paycheck, value to my savings, food in the pantry, I'll be out there on the badlands. An unemployed cop.


http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/19/MAD_MAX.jpg

emt1581
02-04-2010, 16:00
C'mon now, this is fun

FUN!?! The fact that the law tells me to obey LE/Gov no matter what scares the unholy s*** out of me...despite how rare horrific occurances are!

, but that's a little ridiculous....I think it's safe to say that 99.9% of the folks would probably figure out that it's not the PBA soliciting donations....as I wade to my front door to answer it.

Aside from the rediculous comment, I agree with you...but what's the point you are making? We're still sitting ducks at the mercy of our gov./LE if unable to leave the area prior to/during the situation...according to the law.

I think we've established you can use force to prevent a true crime....

Not when it comes to LE/Gov. Otherwise, please show me where such a thing is said in the law.

and when there's no more fuel for my cruiser, direct deposit for my paycheck, value to my savings, food in the pantry, I'll be out there on the badlands. An unemployed cop.


-Emt1581

beatcop
02-04-2010, 16:42
Someone once said that you seldom change anyone's mind in a discussion.

We all get indoctrinated in some fashion, whether it's Limbaugh, a police academy, boot camp, Kneal Knox...their verbage plays upon our fears at times. Some of those fears are real, while others are imagined or greatly exaggerated.

For example, Mad Max pic was an example of an exaggerated fear of a survival scenario and the hope that an individual can prevail. Wishful thinking?

The trick is distinguishing our current reality from the one portrayed by folks with political agendas or paranoia.

racerford
02-04-2010, 17:01
........ It's nice to "game" this out and work out a survival plan that makes sense, but let's try to establish some scenarios that are in the realm of possibility. I don't think "rape and plunder" by leo/troops is a viable scenario, but that's just my opinion.

.......


I am lucky Texas is reasonably clear when one can use force and deadly force against law enforcement. I don't plan to use it, or want to use it, or recommend using even if legally allowed.

I don't know about the rape side, but there is photographic evidence of the plunder side by a small percentage of the leo community in the Katrina event. So I think we can say it is a viable scenario, just involving a very small contingent. However, if you are on the receiving end that is small consolation.

We agree rape is outside the scope of duties and clearly illegal. Is armed robbery? If yes, do you consider confication, or commandeering without receipt, while openly carrying a weapon armed robbery? If it is weapon they are taking, one might say it is just a rights violation covered by the code you quoted. If it is food, it is not.

I agree it is a very tricky situation.

I am less concerned about mass action, and more concerned about rogue actions. How do I discern between legitimate police actions, with illegal aspects (i.e. illegal seizure). And bandits that have stolen uniforms and are out robbing and looting while pretending to be police? Especially when communications are down.

beatcop
02-04-2010, 18:22
I am lucky Texas is reasonably clear when one can use force and deadly force against law enforcement. I don't plan to use it, or want to use it, or recommend using even if legally allowed.

I don't know about the rape side, but there is photographic evidence of the plunder side by a small percentage of the leo community in the Katrina event. So I think we can say it is a viable scenario, just involving a very small contingent. However, if you are on the receiving end that is small consolation.

We agree rape is outside the scope of duties and clearly illegal. Is armed robbery? If yes, do you consider confication, or commandeering without receipt, while openly carrying a weapon armed robbery? If it is weapon they are taking, one might say it is just a rights violation covered by the code you quoted. If it is food, it is not.

I agree it is a very tricky situation.

I am less concerned about mass action, and more concerned about rogue actions. How do I discern between legitimate police actions, with illegal aspects (i.e. illegal seizure). And bandits that have stolen uniforms and are out robbing and looting while pretending to be police? Especially when communications are down.

I believe you are on target with some of NOPD, iirc some did loot. I don't remember what they took...if it was a dry set of workboots with a signed note, fine...I can live with that. If it was a plasma TV, then they should be shackled and flogged in the town square like anyone else.

Not that it matters, but the definition of larceny usually has some wording about intending to permanently remove property from an individual and/or reappropriate it to ones own personal use permanently.

As far as I know, comandeering vehicles, etc for military necessity has been done in the past (maybe not in the USA), but there is a case where a soldier commandeered a vehicle from a sheik in Iraq...the situation didn't meet the legal requirements set forth and the soldier was court marshalled. It's a pretty well known case.

I think it's safe to say that a lot of this stuff is on the outer limits of probability....but you are right, some agencies have a history of poor screening police candidates. This needs to be addressed at a local level through city gov't and professional standards divisions within the PD.
***************
After a brief search:

Despite an avalanche of public outrage over the officers’ actions, an internal investigation recently cleared them of looting allegations, said Assistant Chief Marlon Defillo, commander of the Public Integrity Bureau. He said the officers had permission from their superiors to take necessities for themselves and other officers. The New Orleans Police Department later informed Wal-Mart management, after the store had been secured, that its officers had taken some needed items, he said.

certifiedfunds
02-04-2010, 18:53
I believe you are on target with some of NOPD, iirc some did loot. I don't remember what they took...if it was a dry set of workboots with a signed note, fine...I can live with that. If it was a plasma TV, then they should be shackled and flogged in the town square like anyone else.

Not that it matters, but the definition of larceny usually has some wording about intending to permanently remove property from an individual and/or reappropriate it to ones own personal use permanently.

As far as I know, comandeering vehicles, etc for military necessity has been done in the past (maybe not in the USA), but there is a case where a soldier commandeered a vehicle from a sheik in Iraq...the situation didn't meet the legal requirements set forth and the soldier was court marshalled. It's a pretty well known case.

I think it's safe to say that a lot of this stuff is on the outer limits of probability....but you are right, some agencies have a history of poor screening police candidates. This needs to be addressed at a local level through city gov't and professional standards divisions within the PD.
***************
After a brief search:

Despite an avalanche of public outrage over the officers’ actions, an internal investigation recently cleared them of looting allegations, said Assistant Chief Marlon Defillo, commander of the Public Integrity Bureau. He said the officers had permission from their superiors to take necessities for themselves and other officers. The New Orleans Police Department later informed Wal-Mart management, after the store had been secured, that its officers had taken some needed items, he said.

A number of NOPD officers stole Cadillacs.

YUP. Caddys from a dealership. Some of them then abandoned the town and were caught in Texas with the cars.

Others were caught on video looting a Wal Mart.

Defillo is covering because these officers were simply among other looters in Wally World.

Now the Wal Mart in neighboring Jefferson Parish DID open its doors to the JPSO and told them to take whatever they needed.

PDXShooter1981
02-04-2010, 21:02
I just put ran this scenario through my outcome generator (Grand Theft Auto on the PS2) with the following outcome.

1. The first cop who came I beat to death. Apparently he was able to radio for help because more cops showed up.

2. After beating a couple more cops to death, some of them started shooting at me. So I pulled my gun and shot back. This was not well received and caused more cops to come.

3. After beating or shooting about 10 cops to death the SWAT team showed up. When I killed about 10 of them they called in the Feds, who apparently don't have much patience. Oh, I may have shot down a helicopter or 5 in the process.

4. After killing some of the feds, the military showed up. I tried explaining to them that I was only trying to keep the po-po from carrying out an illegal order, but I don't think they could hear me over all my gunfire.

5. They killed me.... but I never gave up my guns till then....

So, while my outcome generator may not be exactly true to life, I would assume the end result will probably be the same if you decide to beat down or shoot at LEO in any situation...

YMMV

emt1581
02-04-2010, 21:21
I just put ran this scenario through my outcome generator (Grand Theft Auto on the PS2) with the following outcome.

1. The first cop who came I beat to death. Apparently he was able to radio for help because more cops showed up.

2. After beating a couple more cops to death, some of them started shooting at me. So I pulled my gun and shot back. This was not well received and caused more cops to come.

3. After beating or shooting about 10 cops to death the SWAT team showed up. When I killed about 10 of them they called in the Feds, who apparently don't have much patience. Oh, I may have shot down a helicopter or 5 in the process.

4. After killing some of the feds, the military showed up. I tried explaining to them that I was only trying to keep the po-po from carrying out an illegal order, but I don't think they could hear me over all my gunfire.

5. They killed me.... but I never gave up my guns till then....

So, while my outcome generator may not be exactly true to life, I would assume the end result will probably be the same if you decide to beat down or shoot at LEO in any situation...

YMMV


Nice reply!

Yes it's true fantasy since it comes out of a video game but you mentioned something I totally forgot about....RADIOS!!

I know a guy who is now a constable. But he's also a true radio/computer wiz! Anyways, he said that he has gear that could totally shut down (jam) all LE communication for miles and miles. I don't know how easy or true that is but it'd be a nice pet to have during a SHTF situation where the LE/Gov is the enemy. That was one of the MASSIVE SNAFU's during 9/11. Everyone freaked out because, aside from the attack itself, the communication structure was screwed up big time, so much that all fire/ems personnel had to go through special trainings just so we could communicate with each other, along with LE/Feds/etc.

Now you mentioned more cops/feds/military/etc...showed up because they were able to radio for backup. Well what if they couldn't? Again, there's no NEED for anyone to get hurt, but they can either easily be engaged/taken prisoner or at least communications wouldn't be an option so no calls for back-up. Might make them think twice about carrying out any unlawful order. Maybe not. I don't know.

As mentioned before though, this would take a LOT of people to succeed...but it's at least plausible that it could work.

-Emt1581

BigEd
02-04-2010, 22:26
Guns were confiscated during Katrina? Exactly who did the confiscating? This is the first time I'm hearing about this. Pretty scary stuff. Reminds me of the story my Dad once told me about what happened to his family (& all Cubans) when the Castro Regime took over. My Dads family owned a huge sugar cane plantation out in the sticks. It was like the wild, wild west and just about every household was armed. Most men open carried back in those days. Handguns were used for self defense and rifles for hunting and dealing with livestock. To make a long story short...one morning a group of soldiers and a General showed up to the family farm and demanded that there weapons be turned over. My family reluctantly handed them over. Thoughts of shooting that General and his men crossed the minds of the men of the house but they decided not to. You may think of them as cowards and that's understandable. However, my family was able to move hear to the United States and make new lives for themselves. My Dad is still alive and if he would of decided to go with option A I would have probably never been born. Reading posters comments about shooting LE or Military in the event of a confiscation sort of makes me feel uncomfortable.

emt1581
02-04-2010, 22:39
Guns were confiscated during Katrina?

Yes

Exactly who did the confiscating?

I haven't payed close enough attention to say for sure but I'm pretty sure it was out of state LEO's that did most of the confiscating.

This is the first time I'm hearing about this. Pretty scary stuff. Reminds me of the story my Dad once told me about what happened to his family (& all Cubans) when the Castro Regime took over. My Dads family owned a huge sugar cane plantation out in the sticks. It was like the wild, wild west and just about every household was armed. Most men open carried back in those days. Handguns were used for self defense and rifles for hunting and dealing with livestock. To make a long story short...one morning a group of soldiers and a General showed up to the family farm and demanded that there weapons be turned over. My family reluctantly handed them over. Thoughts of shooting that General and his men crossed the minds of the men of the house but they decided not to. You may think of them as cowards and that's understandable. However, my family was able to move hear to the United States and make new lives for themselves. My Dad is still alive and if he would of decided to go with option A I would have probably never been born. Reading posters comments about shooting LE or Military in the event of a confiscation sort of makes me feel uncomfortable.


Thank you for sharing!! You raise a good point in that if your father wouldn't have handed over the guns, you wouldn't have been born and your family wouldn't have been able to move here to the US.

Two thoughts on that though...

IMHO the US is the last great nation on this planet. We are pretty much the most liberated country out there and I really would never want to move anywhere else because I know I'd be trading down, not up. So unlike you, who are greatful to come here, I look at it as unfortunate you had to leave your homeland! I can think of nothing more horrible, as a patriot, than being forced to leave my homeland because I fear it's government. I'd honestly rather stand up, fight, and if need be die in the process.

Now had your father/family killed/burried those soldiers AND the majority of other citizens followed suit...would that dictatorship or at least disarming of the citizens have been successful? I don't think anyone can say for sure, but it's something to think about.

I had a Cuban friend growing up. She spoke of how her family "escaped" the country...rather than being allowed to leave. It's just something I'm curious about, but was it really that easy to leave?




Thanks for the reply!!:)

-Emt1581

emt1581
02-04-2010, 22:42
That last reply made me think of something....

Aside from the founding fathers, have ANY societies SUCCESSFULLY broke away from their rulers/governments through the use of force?

I'm trying to think of revolutions throughout history and as it relates to a government disarming it's citizens, I can't really think of any. Maybe Scottland, but that's really debatable given their current state of affairs today.

Thanks!

-Emt1581

certifiedfunds
02-04-2010, 22:56
Guns were confiscated during Katrina? Exactly who did the confiscating? This is the first time I'm hearing about this. Pretty scary stuff. Reminds me of the story my Dad once told me about what happened to his family (& all Cubans) when the Castro Regime took over. My Dads family owned a huge sugar cane plantation out in the sticks. It was like the wild, wild west and just about every household was armed. Most men open carried back in those days. Handguns were used for self defense and rifles for hunting and dealing with livestock. To make a long story short...one morning a group of soldiers and a General showed up to the family farm and demanded that there weapons be turned over. My family reluctantly handed them over. Thoughts of shooting that General and his men crossed the minds of the men of the house but they decided not to. You may think of them as cowards and that's understandable. However, my family was able to move hear to the United States and make new lives for themselves. My Dad is still alive and if he would of decided to go with option A I would have probably never been born. Reading posters comments about shooting LE or Military in the event of a confiscation sort of makes me feel uncomfortable.

I don't doubt your story for a minute and this comment isn't directed at you, but I've never met a Cuban who's family DIDN'T own a huge plantation before the revolution.

BigEd
02-05-2010, 00:02
emt, you bring up some good points. I don't know what would of happened if all armed Cuban citizens back in those days would've fought the confiscations. Those were some difficult times and the Cuban people had been thru a lot with the prior regime. Added to that, Castro and Che were very young and charismatic and made promises of a utopia (remind you of anyone?) and quite honestly I think the majority of Cubans were shocked once the confiscations started occuring. My family was lucky enough to be able to flee Cuba with the assistance of a Catholic church here in California. Leaving Cuba was not easy and before leaving were branded as traitors and were only allowed to leave with the clothes on their backs. My sister was was about 6 or 7 when my parents left Cuba. The Cubans at the airport insisted that she could not leave the country without a vaccine. The "vaccine" consisted of being jammed in the arm with a rusted nail. She arrived in Miami with a really bad infection and required urgent medical help.

certified, this is very true. Reason being is that Cuba was once very agricultural. Livestock, sugar cane and tobacco mostly. The farmers and land owners were the ones that had their properties confiscated and therefore decided to come here to the states. The people who rented or that did not own property had these lands handed to them (re-distribution of wealth) and they decided to stay. So therefore, the majority of Cubans that you will encounter here were at one point plantation owners, land owners or farmers.

MajorAmby
02-05-2010, 00:14
I don't doubt your story for a minute and this comment isn't directed at you, but I've never met a Cuban who's family DIDN'T own a huge plantation before the revolution.
:wavey:
My folks were from the construction business. Same results though.

emt1581
02-05-2010, 00:19
emt, you bring up some good points. I don't know what would of happened if all armed Cuban citizens back in those days would've fought the confiscations. Those were some difficult times and the Cuban people had been thru a lot with the prior regime. Added to that, Castro and Che were very young and charismatic and made promises of a utopia (remind you of anyone?) and quite honestly I think the majority of Cubans were shocked once the confiscations started occuring. My family was lucky enough to be able to flee Cuba with the assistance of a Catholic church here in California. Leaving Cuba was not easy and before leaving were branded as traitors and were only allowed to leave with the clothes on their backs. My sister was was about 6 or 7 when my parents left Cuba. The Cubans at the airport insisted that she could not leave the country without a vaccine. The "vaccine" consisted of being jammed in the arm with a rusted nail. She arrived in Miami with a really bad infection and required urgent medical help.

certified, this is very true. Reason being is that Cuba was once very agricultural. Livestock, sugar cane and tobacco mostly. The farmers and land owners were the ones that had their properties confiscated and therefore decided to come here to the states. The people who rented or that did not own property had these lands handed to them (re-distribution of wealth) and they decided to stay. So therefore, the majority of Cubans that you will encounter here were at one point plantation owners, land owners or farmers.

You definitely raise some great points with the similarities between Castro and Obama. However, the US doesn't really have a history of dictatorships. Some might claim it's semantics though.

Thanks!:)

-Emt1581

PDXShooter1981
02-05-2010, 03:40
Nice reply!

Yes it's true fantasy since it comes out of a video game but you mentioned something I totally forgot about....RADIOS!!

I know a guy who is now a constable. But he's also a true radio/computer wiz! Anyways, he said that he has gear that could totally shut down (jam) all LE communication for miles and miles. I don't know how easy or true that is but it'd be a nice pet to have during a SHTF situation where the LE/Gov is the enemy. That was one of the MASSIVE SNAFU's during 9/11. Everyone freaked out because, aside from the attack itself, the communication structure was screwed up big time, so much that all fire/ems personnel had to go through special trainings just so we could communicate with each other, along with LE/Feds/etc.

Now you mentioned more cops/feds/military/etc...showed up because they were able to radio for backup. Well what if they couldn't? Again, there's no NEED for anyone to get hurt, but they can either easily be engaged/taken prisoner or at least communications wouldn't be an option so no calls for back-up. Might make them think twice about carrying out any unlawful order. Maybe not. I don't know.

As mentioned before though, this would take a LOT of people to succeed...but it's at least plausible that it could work.

-Emt1581

Well, I don't think knocking out their radios is quite as easy as your friend makes it sound, especially if there is no power to run the equipment it would take to do so.

Even beyond that, responders these days are well trained in the use of the Incident Command system. And even past that, there are now techniques and practices in place to keep better track of where units are during disasters through systems like T-Cards.

To extend things even further, I think in a future disaster response on the scale of Katrina, you will see a faster military response. I don't know about you, but the guns I keep are not going to compete very well against military weaponry, my magazines don't hold nearly as much ammo as theirs do, and likely I would be outnumbered.

I have yet to see any reason why I would want to engage with someone who is in what appears to be a uniform. Like it has been said already, the best thing to do will be to make yourself scarce when the time comes....

emt1581
02-05-2010, 07:37
Well, I don't think knocking out their radios is quite as easy as your friend makes it sound, especially if there is no power to run the equipment it would take to do so.

Do you know what it WOULD take? I don't. I was hoping someone with that experience would chime in.

Even beyond that, responders these days are well trained in the use of the Incident Command system.

I was talking about the ICS. However, I know that most of the guys I work with have forgotten most of that structure/training. I mean we just don't use it. It's the same for all the surrounding counties. Now sure, we might use it on a national/mass. scale emergency, and people MIGHT remember it but otherwise, on a local level, no.

And even past that, there are now techniques and practices in place to keep better track of where units are during disasters through systems like T-Cards.

To extend things even further, I think in a future disaster response on the scale of Katrina, you will see a faster military response. I don't know about you, but the guns I keep are not going to compete very well against military weaponry, my magazines don't hold nearly as much ammo as theirs do, and likely I would be outnumbered.

Are you talking about belt fed or what? Otherwise, what mags do they use that don't hold as much ammo as yours? On a military level I'd be more concerned with the weapons that go boom instead of bang.

I have yet to see any reason why I would want to engage with someone who is in what appears to be a uniform. Like it has been said already, the best thing to do will be to make yourself scarce when the time comes....

Well certainly if that's an option. But this thread is about what the law tells us to do against unlawful confiscation. So if you couldn't leave....do you hand all guns over and let them search or no?




-Emt1581

certifiedfunds
02-05-2010, 07:42
certified, this is very true. Reason being is that Cuba was once very agricultural. Livestock, sugar cane and tobacco mostly. The farmers and land owners were the ones that had their properties confiscated and therefore decided to come here to the states. The people who rented or that did not own property had these lands handed to them (re-distribution of wealth) and they decided to stay. So therefore, the majority of Cubans that you will encounter here were at one point plantation owners, land owners or farmers.

That makes perfect sense.

I wonder how they will go back and re-distribute the land back to the correct owners/families after the communist regime falls. I wonder if those records still exist or if Castro destroyed them?

And how the current society will react having "their" land taken from them.

MajorAmby
02-05-2010, 09:09
That makes perfect sense.

I wonder how they will go back and re-distribute the land back to the correct owners/families after the communist regime falls. I wonder if those records still exist or if Castro destroyed them?

And how the current society will react having "their" land taken from them.
That's probably not going to happen. While there still may be records, many people may attempt to do this in isolated instances, but not as a general sweep. Many of the properties that have been taken over weren't given to a single person or family, they most likely were divided to many more people, and taking back the property would mean kicking out people out of their homes for the last 50 years. You have to understand that while those that got new places to live didn't have as much reason to defect, they were seduced into staying. They were also victims of the revolution to some degree. And only because they were given a new home, it doesn't mean they didn't suffer with utter poverty and ridiculous laws for the last 50 years.

At this point, it's probably a new generation that inhabits the place, and I don't think that the majority of people will be as heartless as to throw out people of the only homes they've known. I think that rebuilding Cuba after communist/dictator regime will be pretty messy. But knowing the sentiment of Cubans that have defected, they will not go back to Cuba just to rip out homes of people that have been suffering for the last 50 years. Their attitude is to rebuild, and establish free trade all over again.

PDXShooter1981
02-05-2010, 13:53
Originally Posted by PDXShooter1981
Well, I don't think knocking out their radios is quite as easy as your friend makes it sound, especially if there is no power to run the equipment it would take to do so.

Do you know what it WOULD take? I don't. I was hoping someone with that experience would chime in.

From Wikipedia....Intentional communications jamming is usually aimed at radio signals to disrupt control of a battle. A transmitter, tuned to the same frequency as the opponents' receiving equipment and with the same type of modulation, can, with enough power, override any signal at the receiver.
The most common types of this form of signal jamming are random noise, random pulse, stepped tones, warbler, random keyed modulated CW, tone, rotary, pulse, spark, recorded sounds, gulls, and sweep-through. These can be divided into two groups – obvious and subtle.
Obvious jamming is easy to detect because it can be heard on the receiving equipment. It usually is some type of noise such as stepped tones (bagpipes), random-keyed code, pulses, music (often distorted), erratically warbling tones, highly distorted speech, random noise (hiss) and recorded sounds. Various combinations of these methods may be used often accompanied by regular morse identification signal to enable individual transmitters to be identified in order to assess their effectiveness. For example, China, which used jamming extensively and still does, plays a loop of traditional Chinese music while it is jamming channels (c.f. Attempted jamming of number stations).
The purpose of this type of jamming is to block out reception of transmitted signals and to cause a nuisance to the receiving operator. One early Soviet attempt at jamming western broadcasters used the noise from the diesel generator that was powering the jamming transmitter.
Subtle jamming is jamming during which no sound is heard on the receiving equipment. The radio does not receive incoming signals yet everything seems superficially normal to the operator. These are often technical attacks on modern equipment, such as "squelch capture". Thanks to FM capture effect, Frequency Modulated broadcasts may be jammed, unnoticed, by a simple unmodulated carrier.

I think one of the key points is "With Enough Power"... something likely to not be available during the first part of a disaster....

Even beyond that, responders these days are well trained in the use of the Incident Command system.

I was talking about the ICS. However, I know that most of the guys I work with have forgotten most of that structure/training. I mean we just don't use it. It's the same for all the surrounding counties. Now sure, we might use it on a national/mass. scale emergency, and people MIGHT remember it but otherwise, on a local level, no.

While not often practiced at the local level, I can tell you from my experience on a disaster response team / Task Force that not only is it practiced in every drill and training, but we are required to retake the certification every year or two depending on the level.

And even past that, there are now techniques and practices in place to keep better track of where units are during disasters through systems like T-Cards.

To extend things even further, I think in a future disaster response on the scale of Katrina, you will see a faster military response. I don't know about you, but the guns I keep are not going to compete very well against military weaponry, my magazines don't hold nearly as much ammo as theirs do, and likely I would be outnumbered.

Are you talking about belt fed or what? Otherwise, what mags do they use that don't hold as much ammo as yours? On a military level I'd be more concerned with the weapons that go boom instead of bang.

Well, while I imagine the military would have access to belt fed as well, I was more referring to just a standard load-out. I am pretty sure that the magazines for the M4A1 carries more ammunition than my Glock or any of my hunting rifles. And weapons that go boom are also quite a concern. Again, good reasons to not engage....


I have yet to see any reason why I would want to engage with someone who is in what appears to be a uniform. Like it has been said already, the best thing to do will be to make yourself scarce when the time comes....

Well certainly if that's an option. But this thread is about what the law tells us to do against unlawful confiscation. So if you couldn't leave....do you hand all guns over and let them search or no?

Here is a link to a blog post I found by a lawyer. While it is looking at a very different situation, I can't say that I disagree with what he says. http://lawyerjimfreeman.com/blog/2009/04/23/unlawful-orders-police

Again, I think the best course of action is to be gone. I can certainly tell you that if a military squad or a group of cops shows up to confiscate my arms, I severely doubt that I would decide to fight it out with them as my best course of action. I don't think you can protect your property or family any better dead than you can without firearms. ****ty situation, but I can not see any situation where picking a firefight with cops or military is going to end up any good way for you.

-Emt1581


Just my .02, and YMMV

emt1581
02-05-2010, 14:31
Just my .02, and YMMV

While I appreciate your reply, the whole...don't pick a fight, the military will easily defeat you, etc...doesn't make sense logically in the grand scheme of things. And realize we're talking about situations whereby the lack of a gun will almost promise you death.

The whole idea of avoiding a confrontation and just rendering myself defenseless doesn't make much sense. It's sort of a "pick your poison" situation. Either you get killed by putting up a fight with the cops/gov./confiscators or you get killed later when the (other) BG's come calling.

This is where that link doesn't make sense. You absolutely can give up your guns. However, it advises against getting into a confrontation at the "scene"...going back to what we were talking about earlier in the thread. You give up your guns, you won't make it PASSED the "scene"...no court, no complaint, no getting your guns back.

But I think we all can agree, if given the option, we'd like to be somewhere else instead of be subjected to confiscation. :)

-Emt1581

racerford
02-05-2010, 16:26
....Here is a link to a blog post I found by a lawyer. While it is looking at a very different situation, I can't say that I disagree with what he says. http://lawyerjimfreeman.com/blog/200...-orders-police

.......


A short but interesting read. However, it just refers to unlawful orders. The real issue is the taking of your property by force. Which in the absence of a receipt, would fall outside normal procedure for commandeering supplies or seizures.


That is more that just an unlawful order.

PDXShooter1981
02-05-2010, 17:10
While I appreciate your reply, the whole...don't pick a fight, the military will easily defeat you, etc...doesn't make sense logically in the grand scheme of things. And realize we're talking about situations whereby the lack of a gun will almost promise you death.

The whole idea of avoiding a confrontation and just rendering myself defenseless doesn't make much sense. It's sort of a "pick your poison" situation. Either you get killed by putting up a fight with the cops/gov./confiscators or you get killed later when the (other) BG's come calling.

This is where that link doesn't make sense. You absolutely can give up your guns. However, it advises against getting into a confrontation at the "scene"...going back to what we were talking about earlier in the thread. You give up your guns, you won't make it PASSED the "scene"...no court, no complaint, no getting your guns back.

But I think we all can agree, if given the option, we'd like to be somewhere else instead of be subjected to confiscation. :)

-Emt1581

While you argue my "don't pick a fight" logic makes no sense, I fail to see the sense in getting in a gunfight with the police or military, both of who are potentially and likely better trained in combat tactics and shooting situations. While you state that giving up your arms will almost promise you death. I fail to see this argument. Does it put you at a disadvantage to be unarmed... of course. Does it spell imminent and likely death. Not in my mind. If so the hundreds of thousands of people who were unarmed during Katrina should have ended up dead by your logic.

Again, I am not advocating rendering yourself defenseless... grab what you need, and go somewhere that you won't be subjected to the illegal search and seizure. Or hide your stuff really well and hope whoever is looking does not do a good job. Either way, I just can not see in what situation remaining to confront an armed party is going to end up in any situation besides you dead or in jail, neither of which allow you to protect your property or loved ones.

I'm not trying to be a dick, and I am not upset, I just fail to see how my live to fight another day stance makes any less sense than picking a gunfight with a superior force over the lawfulness of the order. At least with my option, you could end up rich in the civil rights lawsuit to follow. Your option, while right in concept (opposing unlawful order), likely ends up with you laying in a grave, at which point the righteousness will not do you much good....
:wavey:

Bumpfire
02-05-2010, 17:27
The simple solution is to have a cheap crappy gun out and any good or favorite guns hidden with ammo. If you think you will win a battle and follow up go for it. If on the other hand you are smart just let them have the cheap crappy one and live to tell about it. This is so simple a caveman could do it.
I asked a few pages ago it they bring a locksmith or torture you for the combo if you have a one ton safe?

emt1581
02-05-2010, 17:28
While you argue my "don't pick a fight" logic makes no sense, I fail to see the sense in getting in a gunfight with the police or military, both of who are potentially and likely better trained in combat tactics and shooting situations. While you state that giving up your arms will almost promise you death. I fail to see this argument. Does it put you at a disadvantage to be unarmed... of course. Does it spell imminent and likely death. Not in my mind. If so the hundreds of thousands of people who were unarmed during Katrina should have ended up dead by your logic.

There were a TON of robberies, rapes, and yes, some killings during Katrina. Hell, even cops' houses were targeted! Only thing that has been proven to work against such criminals is a lead implant or, if you are REALLY good, a few slashes/stabs. I know I'm not THAT good though.

Again, I am not advocating rendering yourself defenseless... grab what you need, and go somewhere that you won't be subjected to the illegal search and seizure. Or hide your stuff really well and hope whoever is looking does not do a good job. Either way, I just can not see in what situation remaining to confront an armed party is going to end up in any situation besides you dead or in jail, neither of which allow you to protect your property or loved ones.

Like I said, it's pick your poison...only difference is in one situation you are standing up for what's right not only against thugs but also against tyranny and unlawful/criminal actions. Being tortured/raped/killed by a gang just let's you die fighting against unlawful/criminal actions.

I'm not trying to be a dick, and I am not upset, I just fail to see how my live to fight another day stance makes any less sense than picking a gunfight with a superior force over the lawfulness of the order. At least with my option, you could end up rich in the civil rights lawsuit to follow.

But my point is who says you make it that far? Sure, I agree, it would be a lawyer's dream case. However, the very nature of the confiscation makes it unlikely, given a bad enough SHTF, that you'll make your appearance in court.

Your option, while right in concept (opposing unlawful order), likely ends up with you laying in a grave, at which point the righteousness will not do you much good....


I'm gathering from your reply that guns aren't really NEEDED for survival during a SHTF, so out of curiosity...why would you need a gun during a SHTF?


-Emt1581

emt1581
02-05-2010, 17:34
The simple solution is to have a cheap crappy gun out and any good or favorite guns hidden with ammo. If you think you will win a battle and follow up go for it. If on the other hand you are smart just let them have the cheap crappy one and live to tell about it. This is so simple a caveman could do it.

This works well ONLY if they accept that one crappy gun and then move on. If they yank you out or if that gives them more reason to believe you have more....they could search you anyway.

I asked a few pages ago it they bring a locksmith or torture you for the combo if you have a one ton safe?

Just going on what I saw with Katrina, they don't bring a locksmith and I doubt they'd spend THAT much time torturing for a combo. So that's a good question...what WOULD they do if you have a 2000lb. safe? That's not something a group of soldiers could just rip out off the concrete/floor (short of using chains/vehicle and ripping the house apart.) Hopefully someone else can chime in on that one.



-Emt1581

jdavionic
02-05-2010, 18:17
WRT the idea of a safe, I can't believe that folks would actually think you might get tortured for the combo. Perhaps they were just being sarcastic and I'm too tired to appreciate it.

If you had a 2000 lbs safe and refused to give the combo, my guess is that you'd be arrested.

Bumpfire
02-05-2010, 18:17
If you have security cameras watching all of this will they break the cameras before or after ?
So you have several guns to give up? Why would they look for more? I didn't see metal detectors when they took that cheap crappy revolver from that poor old lady by overwhelming force. That is how MIL fights wars. Shock and awe.
I can not understand why anyone would resist. It never works. I hear many arm chair commandos talk of how they will go for it. I just can't get my mind around that. I understand that emotions can take over. I would try my best to cooperate.

Bumpfire
02-05-2010, 18:29
WRT the idea of a safe, I can't believe that folks would actually think you might get tortured for the combo. Perhaps they were just being sarcastic and I'm too tired to appreciate it.

If you had a 2000 lbs safe and refused to give the combo, my guess is that you'd be arrested.

I know that unless they were desperate they would not tourture for the combo but if they arrested you what would be the charge?

I am very pro MIL/LE but they are people with all of the baggage we all carry.
I am just saying it would be stupid to resist. "Can't we all just get along?"
I am ret vet so I feel close to this issue. As I have said earlier I had several classes in basic training in the 60's about lawful and unlawful orders.

jdavionic
02-05-2010, 18:44
I know that unless they were desperate they would not tourture for the combo but if they arrested you what would be the charge?

I am very pro MIL/LE but they are people with all of the baggage we all carry.
I am just saying it would be stupid to resist. "Can't we all just get along?"
I am ret vet so I feel close to this issue. As I have said earlier I had several classes in basic training in the 60's about lawful and unlawful orders.

I don't blame you for not having read my early post several pages back. I don't go through them all myself. But I specifically stated something similar...avoid confrontation. You're not going win a confrontation against an organized force and there are many examples to prove the point.

As far as the charges, I'll plead ignorance. Dunno. My best guess...obstruction of a law enforcement officer???

Bumpfire
02-06-2010, 01:44
I don't blame you for not having read my early post several pages back. I don't go through them all myself. But I specifically stated something similar...avoid confrontation. You're not going win a confrontation against an organized force and there are many examples to prove the point.

As far as the charges, I'll plead ignorance. Dunno. My best guess...obstruction of a law enforcement officer???

I am sorry that there are so many pages but we are on the same page.
I will try to keep up.

Anglowulf
02-07-2010, 19:02
We should always obey the law, and the person delivering it.
They day confiscation happens and you decide to keep your stuff, you are a felon.

There are those who see the inevitable coming, think they call them preppers. They have ways of "disappearing" their SD preps. They keep 10% of their stash handy to protect themselves with, or to give the legal looters. They would then resupply later. (Definitely not on your immediate property, they do have ground penetrating radar...)

There are ways of hiding your stuff I am sure, but putting it here would be senseless and ignorant.
This leads me to another topic, I will look over the site to see if it is already being addressed. How Mr. Sam collects our computer correspondence...

kalifornia
02-24-2012, 21:54
does the name David Koresh mean anything to you?

UneasyRider
02-25-2012, 07:23
We should always obey the law, and the person delivering it.
The day confiscation happens and you decide to keep your stuff, you are a felon.



Good idea... unless of course they pass a law that euthenizes the sick and old say, or puts the jews or blacks in ovens... then you might want to shoot somebody, but wait, you gave up your guns! Oh well, maybe next time.

Commander_Zero
02-25-2012, 11:54
In any case, there were laws passed afterwards that made it illegal to confiscate gun again in the face of a SHTF situation right?

My question is, what does the law tell citizens to do if anyone in LE/Gov. tries to do it again?

Well, look at it this way - does a person have a right to resist an unlawful arrest? The courts have shown, I believe, that they don't. If they come to arrest you and you are 100% certain that the arrest is unlawful, you cannot legally resist. You sort it out afterwards in front of the judge.

I would bet its the same thing in the case you mention ... you go along with it and let the judge and the courts sort it out.

G29Reload
02-25-2012, 12:27
Don't give weapons to LEO, EVER. Unless they have you at gun point then its your call as to how you want to proceed.

Depriving someone of their civil rights under color of law is a felony.

If one were confiscated wrongly, you might be able to request a writ of mandamus forcing the LEO to comply.

Without registration, .gov has no way of knowing how many weapons you have.

Syclone538
02-25-2012, 12:52
If every armed citizen resisted forced confiscation, with force, the problem would go away very quickly, but that wouldn't make it any easier for the first ones up.

emt1581
02-25-2012, 20:04
If every armed citizen resisted forced confiscation, with force, the problem would go away very quickly, but that wouldn't make it any easier for the first ones up.

I'm thinking this would happen in the south and mid-west a LOT more than in the west and north-east. Here, the people would probably cower and form mobs in SUPPORT of the confiscators...after all we have to cooperate to keep the peace...

However, looking a bit into our history...did the founding fathers really say to hand over the weapons and settle it out in court??

Didn't they stand up to their law enforcers and government back in the day?

Were they hypocrites or could it be that the idea came later or possibly MUCH later in our nation's history??

-Emt1581

shotgunred
02-25-2012, 20:49
...in other words I'm dreaming if I think the gov. is going to advise me to use lethal force or even disobey law enforcement?

Thanks!

-Emt1581

No the cops are going to throw your *** in jail if not kill you outright. If you barricade they call swat and then they throw your *** in jail if not kill you outright.

emt1581
02-25-2012, 21:00
No the cops are going to throw your *** in jail if not kill you outright. If you barricade they call swat and then they throw your *** in jail if not kill you outright.

Good luck with that! I think many of us would be an absolute nightmare to attack at home. Even SWAT has to operate within certain parameters in this country. This means snipers (308's), AR's and Glocks along with the usual gas, flashbangs and maybe a sting ball if they even use those anymore. They can't exactly fire a rocket, drop a bomb or even toss a grenade.

I've seen SWAT defeated multiple times, mostly by drug dealers who planned on getting raided. In some cases, a simple .22lr pistol would have taken out the entire entry team. Sure the second or third string will eventually get you without some sort of escape.

...it'd be far easier to get me with a head shot at Wal-mart.

But then again this thread was never about playing Rambo for a day...

Instead scroll up and see where the conversation led. It's more theoretical and about the spirit of the law or rather the American citizen.

-Emt1581

shotgunred
02-25-2012, 23:01
[\quote]That last reply made me think of something....

Aside from the founding fathers, have ANY societies SUCCESSFULLY broke away from their rulers/governments through the use of force?

I'm trying to think of revolutions throughout history and as it relates to a government disarming it's citizens, I can't really think of any. Maybe Scottland, but that's really debatable given their current state of affairs today.

Thanks!

-Emt1581

You should look a little more east. try looking at Yugoslavia. Were people had been disarmed for generations. they literally yanked guns out of the hands of the army troops.

Instead scroll up and see where the conversation led. It's more theoretical and about the spirit of the law or rather the American citizen.

this is the spirit of the law.

Well, look at it this way - does a person have a right to resist an unlawful arrest? The courts have shown, I believe, that they don't. If they come to arrest you and you are 100% certain that the arrest is unlawful, you cannot legally resist. You sort it out afterwards in front of the judge.

Besides with the recent passage of the National Defense Authorization Act you can be arrested and detained for life if you are alleged to be a terrorist by the government.

emt1581
02-25-2012, 23:12
You should look a little more east. try looking at Yugoslavia. Were people had been disarmed for generations. they literally yanked guns out of the hands of the army troops.

What the hell kind of army allows itself to be disarmed?? And we are talking about citizens here, not soldiers.



this is the spirit of the law.



Besides with the recent passage of the National Defense Authorization Act you can be arrested and detained for life if you are alleged to be a terrorist by the government.

That's horrific and tyrannical in and of itself. But I think having it on paper and implementing it are two different things. Kind of like the 2nd amendment is for all those who say "gotta hand them over and submit" here...

-Emt1581

shotgunred
02-26-2012, 00:20
What the hell kind of army allows itself to be disarmed?? And we are talking about citizens here, not soldiers.

-Emt1581
Yes citizens disarmed a lot of troops. Citizens with no weapons at all. Yugoslavia in the 1990's turned into the bloodiest places in the world since WW2.

When I was in the army I had to stand watches with an m16. Sometimes I had no ammo. Other times I was issued three rounds. With orders that the first round was to be shot into the ground as a warning. How hard do you think it would be to disarm a soldier under those circumstances?

But Yugoslavia in the 1990's is the opposite side of the spectrum as we are in the USA today. Today we can't give our freedoms up fast enough in the name of security.

I personally believe that more than 80% of gun owners would turn them over to the state if told to do so. 18% would hide/burry them and only 1 or 2 % would actively resist.

racerford
02-26-2012, 00:34
Well, look at it this way - does a person have a right to resist an unlawful arrest? The courts have shown, I believe, that they don't. If they come to arrest you and you are 100% certain that the arrest is unlawful, you cannot legally resist. You sort it out afterwards in front of the judge.

I would bet its the same thing in the case you mention ... you go along with it and let the judge and the courts sort it out.

It depends on the state. Some states allow you to resist illegal actions by police.

So do you think that if a uniformed police office came into your home and atatcked and was attempting to rape your wife or child, that the law would say it was not OK to resist? That your only remedy is the courts?

You should carefully check the laws in your state. Also remember that resisting could get you killed, and that will be sorted out in court with maybe no witnesses on your side as to what went down.

You should know te laws in your state on the use of force and deadly force. It may just save your life and/or keep you out of prison.

kirgi08
02-26-2012, 00:49
Ghost,if not found walla.''08.

Syclone538
02-26-2012, 01:59
I'm thinking this would happen in the south and mid-west a LOT more than in the west and north-east. Here, the people would probably cower and form mobs in SUPPORT of the confiscators...after all we have to cooperate to keep the peace...
...

To solve the problem, it would take A LOT of resistance, a lot more then I think there would be.

I'm choosing my words carefully, because we are pushing on the terms of service.

...
However, looking a bit into our history...did the founding fathers really say to hand over the weapons and settle it out in court??

Didn't they stand up to their law enforcers and government back in the day?

Were they hypocrites or could it be that the idea came later or possibly MUCH later in our nation's history??

-Emt1581

Some did and some didn't. Our founding fathers were a bunch of people that often disagreed with each other.

barbedwiresmile
02-26-2012, 07:01
The (resurrected) thread title asked, "What does the law tell...". However, the real question is "What will the law tell...", as it should be abundantly clear that "the law" is a highly malleable thing that has and will change to accommodate the best interests of primary stakeholders in the modern, total state. Hint: that's not you. (well, it may be a few of you...)

Besides, regardless of the nature of the enforcement activity, your resistance will create a separate and singular event: "resisting arrest", that will then be dealt with on its own merits and, of course, in strict observance of "officer safety". Further, with the direction of DHS, your focus on gun ownership and your talk of "rights" puts you in a suspect category ("domestic" or "homegrown" "terrorist") and may in itself create probable cause. Finally, the judicial system does not favor your position when your somewhat naive view of individual "rights" juts up against the interest of the state. In other words, you have no "rights" - rather, you have privileges, to be granted, adjusted, or taken away by the state.

The only hope a mundane private citizen has, as mentioned on page one, is to do everything possible to avoid being in the situation on the first place. Usually that means being far away from a population center and proactively avoiding all contact with costumed agents of the state.

certifiedfunds
02-26-2012, 08:31
The (resurrected) thread title asked, "What does the law tell...". However, the real question is "What will the law tell...", as it should be abundantly clear that "the law" is a highly malleable thing that has and will change to accommodate the best interests of primary stakeholders in the modern, total state. Hint: that's not you. (well, it may be a few of you...)

Besides, regardless of the nature of the enforcement activity, your resistance will create a separate and singular event: "resisting arrest", that will then be dealt with on its own merits and, of course, in strict observance of "officer safety". Further, with the direction of DHS, your focus on gun ownership and your talk of "rights" puts you in a suspect category ("domestic" or "homegrown" "terrorist") and may in itself create probable cause. Finally, the judicial system does not favor your position when your somewhat naive view of individual "rights" juts up against the interest of the state. In other words, you have no "rights" - rather, you have privileges, to be granted, adjusted, or taken away by the state.

The only hope a mundane private citizen has, as mentioned on page one, is to do everything possible to avoid being in the situation on the first place. Usually that means being far away from a population center and proactively avoiding all contact with costumed agents of the state.

Interesting to see how this is received.

UneasyRider
02-26-2012, 09:03
Interesting to see how this is received.

I think that he is right on target.

shotgunred
02-26-2012, 09:44
Absolutely the only way to win that scenario is to avoid being in it in the first place.

rauldduke1979
02-26-2012, 15:09
When they knock on your door do they come in and do a search (without consent) or do they just ask if you have guns? Do they have a list of addresses with guns? I guess I'm confused about this process. I too will not ever give mine up. I'll hide them, lie, and do whatever it takes to keep them.

In most states there is no "list" of who owns what.

If they knock on your door and say "we're here to take your guns"

1st. Quietly rig a recording device to record the event. A small digital recorder will get the job done.

2nd. While QUIETLY recording everything, happily hand them the s***est POS gun you own. That old Mosin? Some old bolt action .22? You get the picture.

3rd. Be nice. Thank them for taking your (POS) gun and shake their hand.

They'll be so happy to have cooperation they probably take your POS gun and go away happy. In the scenario being described, they'll be very busy and have a lot of boxes to check on their clipboard. Remember, every single government employee, from the president down to your local cops, is just checking stuff off a clipboard. Help them get their stuff checked off and they'll leave you alone.

4th. Sue until your municipality must declare bankruptcy. Sue the city and every officer personally. Put everybody in the poor house.