Katrina Weapon Confiscations - What really happened? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Katrina Weapon Confiscations - What really happened?


Aceman
07-27-2011, 07:48
I'd like to know this. Honestly, during a Katrina SHTF - easily imaginable 200 Yards from Tampa Bay - I can't imagine that my guns would be confiscated. But I can imagine scenarios where they would be as well.

Me on my property being completely non-threatening (other than holding a weapon); No way.

Me brandishing out on the street in a public area; No surprise there.

Me on my property shooting a warning shot (or three); Perhaps.

So what really happened. As much as I am a "not worth dying for" sort of person, I don't know that if you came to my home if I'd be giving up guns in that situation.

As an LEO under orders - would you carry it out? I think I would have to SERIOUSLY question that order. It seems dangerous, foolish, and bound to cause more problems than it would solve.

So what really went down there - no 'hearsay' or speculation please....

AK_Stick
07-27-2011, 10:23
No one really knows. It was a cluster **** from the start.


The only "good" thing I can see is the public back lash that happened afterwards. I don't foresee something like that happening again unless there's a much different circumstances.

quake
07-27-2011, 10:24
There were some home-shot videos at the time; don't know if they'd still be on youtube or anywhere available.

B.Reid
07-27-2011, 10:24
:wow:

FryCook
07-27-2011, 12:03
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8trl69kzo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L9WuUuEhGE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNad32Sqdnc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tbp1hERZjI&feature=related

UtahBen
07-27-2011, 12:21
Listen to these episodes of Gun Talk. Get the book,"Great New Orlean's Gun Grab".

http://guntalk.libsyn.com/index.php?search=new+orleans&Submit=Search

engineer151515
07-27-2011, 13:43
No one really knows. It was a cluster **** from the start.


The only "good" thing I can see is the public back lash that happened afterwards. I don't foresee something like that happening again unless there's a much different circumstances.

The "orders" were certainly confusing.

The results are on record.


My outline:

NOLA city government had a concern, post disaster, that firearms in abandoned houses were easy pickings for criminal elements. Many homes were abandoned due to damage and evacuation order. Into this environment, national guard troops arrived from nationwide - from states with varying restrictions on guns - which seemed to influence the rational of the decisions made by different groups. You also had an overwhelmed and possibly confused Chief of Police standing up in front of a microphone and stating that nobody will have guns, only LEO will have firearms.

This resulted in:

A house-to-house search for firearms. Some occupied homes, where the home-owners objected, experienced detainment (via handcuffs) while the premise was being searched. One 58 year old grandmother, Patricia Konie - was take-down tackled on camera after producing her firearm (in a non-threatening manner) at the request of California LEO. The take-down was shocking (even the you-tube version is edited. I remember the original broadcast) Konie was injured and force-ably removed from her home. The last I heard, her lawsuit was in legal-limbo and she no longer resided in NOLA.

There were also car searches of people evacuating the city. People were asked if there were any firearms (even packaged and stored). Confiscated items destroyed on the spot. One family reported loosing some treasured heirloom firearms this way in spite of pleading with the officers. They were smashed at curbside.

Add to this confusing mix - Blackwater was called in to help patrol the streets. They were armed - I do not know if they had just semi-auto or full auto weapons. There were reports of sporadic sniping events and at least one shoot-out with casualties on a bridge.


At the end of this, no records were kept. Collected firearms were "stored" (with the City denying their existence) until the NRA filed a lawsuit against the City of New Orleans where-as people who could prove ownership could at least attempt to recover their firearms. The percentage of recovered firearms was very low. Essentially, you had to try to find it, prove you owned it, and pass a background check. (Exact details varied as the lawsuit progressed and City / NRA arguments went back and forth with respect to court order compliance). Many firearms were destroyed by improper storage (severe rust) and some finer examples just "disappeared".


This is just scratching the surface of the story (by memory - so don't skewer me on the details). You should be able to find much more info on the event.
This book is a reference
http://www.amazon.com/Great-New-Orleans-Gun-Grab/dp/0970981333/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1311796422&sr=8-2

cowboy1964
07-27-2011, 13:51
I believe the standard line is "I lost all of mine in a recent boating accident".

1 old 0311
07-27-2011, 13:56
See you REALLY didn't see those videos. The Posse Comitatis act of 1887 PROHIBITS using Federal troops, or those under Fed direction, of any police duties.
So you really didn't see the National Guard WORKING WITH POLICE TO CONFISCATE weapons. The Feds wouldn't ignore laws would they?:whistling::whistling:

Bilbo Bagins
07-27-2011, 14:37
No one really knows. It was a cluster **** from the start.


The only "good" thing I can see is the public back lash that happened afterwards. I don't foresee something like that happening again unless there's a much different circumstances.


+1

After what happened during Katrina, The house passed the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act (The Vitter Admendment) making gun grabbing during a disaster illegal.

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

The problem was there was too many Chiefs, and way too many out of state Indians, during a major SHTF event.

AK_Stick
07-27-2011, 14:49
The "orders" were certainly confusing.

The results are on record.




Yes and no.


We know some of what happened. There are lots of things that went on, that aren't public knowledge, things that were covered up, swept under the rug, or simply never reported.


Like I said, we'll never know the whole story of what went on.

There was good, there was bad.

Javelin
07-27-2011, 15:16
Government raped citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights. That is illegal on so many levels. Thank God that no one was hurt. Had this happened to someone that is Pro 2-A, trained, and equipped it could have been grizzly.

jdavionic
07-27-2011, 16:19
I believe that we've had some on this forum who were involved. So tagged for interest.

squirreld
07-27-2011, 17:02
Listen to these episodes of Gun Talk. Get the book,"Great New Orlean's Gun Grab".

http://guntalk.libsyn.com/index.php?search=new+orleans&Submit=Search

We have many of those books for sale still. Unfortunately, we pulled the link off our website,
www.buckeyefirearms.org

PM me if your interested and we can do a paypal.

emt1581
07-27-2011, 17:07
As far as the "casualty" on the bridge, IIRC it was a MENTALLY HANDICAPPED guy and his brother just trying to cross that bridge to get to safety. Police told them to turn back and they refused. The MH brother was shot and killed. Again, this is what I remember from seeing the story in a news special a year or so later.

Now as to what happened and such...

Police confiscated guns. The citizens did not put up much of a fight. That old lady in her kitchen kinda proved the point of the citizens being in the right and the police being in the wrong. No LE were shot or killed. From what I understand there was ALREADY a law in place the forbade the gun confiscations but it happened anyway.

We've talked about this dozens of times here. It either ends up in a flame war or everyone gets real quiet. So I'll go ahead and ask it...

Would you really have resisted? Would you shoot police officers (even though they were breaking the law in trying to take your guns)? Do you think the fact that LE was breaking the law would matter or save you from the needle IF you survived?

What this really comes down to is...are you prepared to die for what you believe is right? There are those that say get out of dodge ahead of time or ASAP but sometimes that just isn't possible (this point usually turns into a pissing match as well).

I actually asked in Cop Talk or somewhere else what a citizen should do and it turned out that, although a cop might be doing something illegal, you still cannot legally shoot them in self-defense. Instead you are to hand over your guns and comply, then pray the case doesn't get buried in civil court later on...

Now if our founding fathers had done that, I'm pretty sure we'd all be subjects and speaking in funny accents.

-Emt1581

ArmoryDoc
07-27-2011, 17:42
"...you gotta know when to hold'em. Know when to fold'em. Know when to walk away, know when to run..."

Each scenario is individual in nature. Each has to reconcile when and where the line is drawn and when enough's enough. Lines are being drawn every day. On both sides. It was interesting to watch it unfold and see the actions of both during the aftermath. What would I have done ?

Well, they are the government and after all, they are here to help. ;)

kirgi08
07-27-2011, 18:35
I wasn't there,but I believe my reaction ta "forced" home searches would have a bad ending.'08.

UneasyRider
07-27-2011, 19:06
I wasn't there,but I believe my reaction ta "forced" home searches would have a bad ending.'08.

We don't open the door for anyone in that situation (and most others) no matter who it is. If somebody forces entry into my house they better have a warrant.

kirgi08
07-27-2011, 19:35
We don't open the door for anyone in that situation (and most others) no matter who it is. If somebody forces entry into my house they better have a warrant.

That's what I mean,you couldn't breach my homes door without a vehicle assistance.That being said it would more than likely get real ugly real fast.I just can't fathom the way the "law" was thrown out the window during this event.Although in this situation/a MASSIVE hurricane inbound we would've bailed 72 hrs before land fall.I grew up in southern FLA and I've seen my share of storms.

.Gub on both the state/fed level fumbled the whole event.They shoulda evaced a lot sooner and the way the wasted/ignored the resources they had available was criminal.I could go on,the point being is that .gov agencies had the means ta change the outcome and were too scared of lawsuits and took the position of cowardice,instead of nutting up and trying ta save lives.'08.

RMTactical
07-27-2011, 22:40
We don't open the door for anyone in that situation (and most others) no matter who it is. If somebody forces entry into my house they better have a warrant.

That may be the best answer.

Syclone538
07-27-2011, 22:56
...
There were reports of sporadic sniping events and at least one shoot-out with casualties on a bridge.
...

Danziger Bridge defendant told to file informal report on police shooting
Published: Friday, July 22, 2011, 11:25 PM
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2011/07/danziger_bridge.html?ST=1

emt1581
07-28-2011, 05:16
That may be the best answer.

What happens when the opposing force rams the door open or rips it from the frame?

-Emt1581

engineer151515
07-28-2011, 09:05
Danziger Bridge defendant told to file informal report on police shooting
Published: Friday, July 22, 2011, 11:25 PM
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2011/07/danziger_bridge.html?ST=1



I did not realize the trial was in progress.

For the group.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2011/07/danziger_bridge_shootings_defe.html


Read the testimony. I find it surprising. The officer did not distinguish a specific threat before he started firing.

He also did not check on the wounded civilians after the shooting stopped.

http://www.nola.com/news/wide/index.ssf?What-Happened-On-The-Danziger-Bridge.pdf?825

Syclone538
07-28-2011, 09:10
Yeah, I haven't kept up with it at all, just by coincidence I ran across that link a few days ago, but I can't remember where I found it.

cowboy1964
07-28-2011, 14:43
I wasn't there,but I believe my reaction ta "forced" home searches would have a bad ending.'08.

For whom?

kirgi08
07-28-2011, 16:11
The "searchers" ta begin with and the "searchees" would be next.'08.























"

1 old 0311
07-28-2011, 16:14
+1

After what happened during Katrina, The house passed the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act (The Vitter Admendment) making gun grabbing during a disaster illegal.

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

The problem was there was too many Chiefs, and way too many out of state Indians, during a major SHTF event.

There are local State and Federal laws stating in a bankruptcy bond holders get paid FIRST. Hussein ignored them ALL and paid unions.

There are local State and federal laws about Straw Purchases. Hussein's people ignored those.

There are local State and Federal laws about felons purchasing firearms. Hussein's people ignored those.

There are laws protecting you from being locked up without trial. 120,000 Jap/Americans can tell you how that went.

ANY LAW is just a "EXECUTIVE ORDER" away from the trash can.

HexHead
07-28-2011, 16:26
I would treat any out of state cop the same as I would a Blue Helmeted UN Frenchman.

Aceman
07-28-2011, 18:48
Very interesting stuff.

I can't even remember why i asked this. But man - even if martial law is declared....if I'm in my home, minding my business, wow...

I'm all about helping the LEO any way i can. But wow....I'd have to draw the line somewhere.

And as mentioned - dang, how could you carry out that order.

If I defended my rights and it resulted in officers killed, I'm thinking Supreme Court is where that case will end up.

I would put my faith in them. They are notorius for making decisions based doing the right thing and eff Congress/Dems/Repubs/Pres.

I just can't see ANY thing that makes the confiscation ok.

engineer151515
07-28-2011, 18:57
I would like to add that some LEO refused to confiscate firearms.

They deserve to be commended but will probably never be recognized for making a personal stand against the order.

quake
07-28-2011, 19:23
I would treat any out of state cop the same as I would a Blue Helmeted UN Frenchman.
Slap him and refuse to let him change his diaper...?

TangoFoxtrot
07-29-2011, 02:14
I'll tell you right now if the authorities ever came knocking on our doors for a gun grab where I live...somebody is gonna get whacked! Anyone who lets the governoring body take away their protection ( provided you are not threatening anyone or breaking the law) is a damn fool. That is what keeps us for being overun by our own government. I still blame the local government, Geo. W. Bush and FEMA for that slow response during Katrina. This country is quick to get help to other countries in that situiation but lets its own "taxpaying" citizens wait for help.....Thats just ....BS!...and the powers to be let it happen.

Aceman
07-29-2011, 14:36
I'll tell you right now if the authorities ever came knocking on our doors for a gun grab where I live...somebody is gonna get whacked! Anyone who lets the governoring body take away their protection ( provided you are not threatening anyone or breaking the law) is a damn fool. That is what keeps us for being overun by our own government. I still blame the local government, Geo. W. Bush and FEMA for that slow response during Katrina. This country is quick to get help to other countries in that situiation but lets its own "taxpaying" citizens wait for help.....Thats just ....BS!...and the powers to be let it happen.

As much as I am a non-Bush fan (President, The band, Excessive Pubes, whatever...):

The OFFICIAL rule is the state MUST request assistance. If I was the shell shocked dumb@$$ idiot deer-in-the-headlights governor, I'd be leaving the country of embarrassment and shame that I sat there and did jack in the face of Mother Nature with a sledgehammer.

As long as we are discussing the "rules" in this thread.

But yes - no excuse for not sounding the "get ready" bell LONG before the request was sent in spite of said governor.

Will-21
07-29-2011, 15:56
I think this pretty much sums it up:

http://i774.photobucket.com/albums/yy29/yeahryt/Opinionated%20Politics/GovtTyrany.jpg

AK_Stick
07-30-2011, 01:36
If I defended my rights and it resulted in officers killed, I'm thinking Supreme Court is where that case will end up. .



Right or wrong, I don't think you'll be ending up in the SC, I think the grave is much more likely.

kirgi08
07-30-2011, 01:58
So be it.'08.

Stevekozak
07-30-2011, 06:24
Yes and no.


We know some of what happened. There are lots of things that went on, that aren't public knowledge, things that were covered up, swept under the rug, or simply never reported.


Like I said, we'll never know the whole story of what went on.

There was good, there was bad.
I don't remember any good?

jlavallee
07-30-2011, 20:43
I actually asked in Cop Talk or somewhere else what a citizen should do and it turned out that, although a cop might be doing something illegal, you still cannot legally shoot them in self-defense. Instead you are to hand over your guns and comply, then pray the case doesn't get buried in civil court later on...

Now if our founding fathers had done that, I'm pretty sure we'd all be subjects and speaking in funny accents.

-Emt1581

Amen brother! From my cold dead hands.

certifiedfunds
07-30-2011, 20:46
The POS who made that statement finally resigned amid scandal and numerous federal probes, one of which is the Danziger Bridge case.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2010/04/warren_riley_exits_troubled_ne.html

He was also the idiot who was photographed with Nagin pointing an AR at him.

I can't find a link to the story but I believe there was also a scandal b/c Reily was actually honeymooning out of town during the Katrina aftermath.

AK_Stick
07-31-2011, 02:33
I don't remember any good?


I seem to remember a whole lot of aid, search and rescue, and relief efforts. Seems all of those were good things........

TreverSlyFox
07-31-2011, 02:50
I would like to add that some LEO refused to confiscate firearms.

They deserve to be commended but will probably never be recognized for making a personal stand against the order.


I have YET to see any report of any Officers refusing the order.

What I did see was a cross section of Officers from departments around the country that DID confiscate weapons as ordered and didn't bat an eye at doing it. Maybe a couple did refuse, but the overwhelming majority didn't give it a seconds thought.

I think New Orleans and Katrina gave us a very good example of the current Law Enforcement mentality in this country. They have the same mistaken belief that "I was just following orders." gives them a free pass, as if it will give them a defense like the Nazis thought at the Nuremberg trials.

Will-21
07-31-2011, 07:20
I have YET to see any report of any Officers refusing the order.

What I did see was a cross section of Officers from departments around the country that DID confiscate weapons as ordered and didn't bat an eye at doing it. Maybe a couple did refuse, but the overwhelming majority didn't give it a seconds thought.

I think New Orleans and Katrina gave us a very good example of the current Law Enforcement mentality in this country. They have the same mistaken belief that "I was just following orders." gives them a free pass, as if it will give them a defense like the Nazis thought at the Nuremberg trials.

....every news story & video clip available then and now shows these LEO putting on their "soldier wanna be" gear and breaking into houses and beating up old ladies!

Put your money where your mouth is: what story or what video is there showing even 1 LEO saying "NO....we won't do that, it's unconstitutional!"

Here is SSG May stating he would not confiscate firearms:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLaKsbM0x3g&feature=related

Since when does the local Mayor and his flunkie police chief have the authority to "suspend" the Constitution?

engineer151515
07-31-2011, 09:55
I have YET to see any report of any Officers refusing the order.


I know of them

Spoke personally.

Don't expect a news report on them.

Stevekozak
07-31-2011, 10:12
I seem to remember a whole lot of aid, search and rescue, and relief efforts. Seems all of those were good things........
I was referenceing the gun confiscating aspect of the Katrina situation. I did not realize you were talking about the whole situation in general. Of course there was a lot of good done by good ppl. The heavy handed taking away of the constitutional rights of American citizens had no shining moments. :wavey:

emt1581
07-31-2011, 10:50
I was referenceing the gun confiscating aspect of the Katrina situation. I did not realize you were talking about the whole situation in general. Of course there was a lot of good done by good ppl. The heavy handed taking away of the constitutional rights of American citizens had no shining moments. :wavey:

I was going to say the same as AK. The military did offer a LOT in the way of rescue efforts.

There was just so much that indicated the logistics just weren't there on the government's side. Examples of this would be the massive lots of FEMA trailers that weren't utilized, ice trucks going on wild goose chases and not getting where they were needed, soldiers standing around without orders/missions for days on end, etc.

In regard to gun confiscations...again, think of the logistics of resisting. It's a death sentence for you unless no one on the opposing side can call for backup AND you nail all of them. Otherwise you will instantly become enemy number one and they dedicate much attention and equipment to "stopping" you.

On the side of the government I guess I do not understand the logic of disarming people when the SHTF. I will be worried about surviving, not going on a shooting rampage. And if I had such a desire, why would I pack up my family and belongings or be sitting tight in my house rather than getting to it already?? Kind of like everyday life. The CCWer is NOT the enemy of the public/LE...it's the nut that begins to open fire on everyone.

-Emt1581

Maine1
07-31-2011, 12:25
Do not expect the SC do do a damn thing. This is the same body that said a black man is worth 3/5 of a white man. They also are "confused" about what the FF "really meant' with the 2nd Am, as it is actually very clear to any one who reads the writings of the Founders. Their "confusion" is willful, as they do not like the idea of people beiong "allowed" to own weapons individually.
YET...they can extrapolate a right to an abortion from the 4th amendment..??

Honestly, i think when cops 'just follow" orders, you do not have a choice as a nation. Gun confiscation is like Crystallnaght-sp?, things will get far worse afterwards.
People who seize your guns while you are not a threat DO NOT have your best interests in mind. I cannot envision ANYTHING good coming from being disarmed.

UneasyRider
07-31-2011, 12:38
Good thread. I really appreciate what the military did in post Katrina rescue operations but I am ticked off at the people who stayed behind without preps making themselves a royal pain in the butt for others who had to risk their lives and spend lots of money to get them out when they could have gotten on a bus or walked out of N.O.

ScrappyDoo
07-31-2011, 13:45
As the son of a high ranking high profile police officer I was raised with more respect for the law and the uniform and of course the men and women who wear it than most anyone else.

I am also a NJ resident and a gun owner and therefore I have the worst gun rights in the country, not much I can do.

I constantly see people on this forum type things like "I'd NEVER let some government 'trample on my constitutional rights' - [that one always makes me chuckle]" and sometimes i've read how "I'd never let them take my guns!"...

this is , to me, akin to "I ain't lettin that **** give ME no ticket , I wasnt speedin, HE CANT DO THAT I KNOW MY RIGHTS I KNOW THE LAW" - yeah make sure u tell him that! And yell it at him witht that attitude, definitely, u let him know! bottom line, reality check- 99% of the time you'll lose, the officer will win, that's just how it is.

Same as gun confiscation: I believe someone said, the bottom line is: give them up or be prepared to defend them; that is to say, shoot at the cops that want to take them. There is 99.9% I'd never do that, we'd have to be at TEOTWAWKI for that to be an option. So despite tough talk from whoever about not giving up your guns, If the government wants them they're gonna take them! its as simple as that, and you're powerless to do anything about it.

if SHTF and they want them, they're getting them unless you shoot the guys that are there to trake them. In which case they return with more people and kill you. Its just that simple. Do I like it, does anyone? No and I doubt anyone does. it's just the truth.

Your "rights get trampled on" whenever necessary, the more and quickier this is realized the easier it is to adapt to life and live AROUND that fact.

emt1581
07-31-2011, 13:48
As the son of a high ranking high profile police officer I was raised with more respect for the law and the uniform and of course the men and women who wear it than most anyone else.

I am also a NJ resident and a gun owner and therefore I have the worst gun rights in the country, not much I can do.

I constantly see people on this forum type things like "I'd NEVER let some government 'trample on my constitutional rights' - [that one always makes me chuckle]" and sometimes i've read how "I'd never let them take my guns!"...

this is , to me, akin to "I ain't lettin that **** give ME no ticket , I wasnt speedin, HE CANT DO THAT I KNOW MY RIGHTS I KNOW THE LAW" - yeah make sure u tell him that! And yell it at him witht that attitude, definitely, u let him know! bottom line, reality check- 99% of the time you'll lose, the officer will win, that's just how it is.

Same as gun confiscation: I believe someone said, the bottom line is: give them up or be prepared to defend them; that is to say, shoot at the cops that want to take them. There is 99.9% I'd never do that, we'd have to be at TEOTWAWKI for that to be an option. So despite tough talk from whoever about not giving up your guns, If the government wants them they're gonna take them! its as simple as that, and you're powerless to do anything about it.

if SHTF and they want them, they're getting them unless you shoot the guys that are there to trake them. In which case they return with more people and kill you. Its just that simple. Do I like it, does anyone? No and I doubt anyone does. it's just the truth.

Your "rights get trampled on" whenever necessary, the more and quickier this is realized the easier it is to adapt to life and live AROUND that fact.

While you state the unfortunate reality of the situation... how do you explain us not having funny accents and being subjects today?

-Emt1581

inzone
07-31-2011, 13:54
that's why you have backup plans......if you can't bug out with all your weapons before they arrive with the swat team...then you can have many of them hidden and some cached or some at a remote location/family/friend/etc...

ScrappyDoo
07-31-2011, 13:56
While you state the unfortunate reality of the situation... how do you explain us not having funny accents and being subjects today?

-Emt1581

I have no wish to argue with you, but using the American Revolution in reference to this as part of that argument is basically the same thing as saying, lets discuss calibers, I support xxx caliber, and if you don't think its good enough let me shoot you with it Hah ha ha then we'll see how bad it is!

Anything is possible, and sure, if it was so absolutely terribly bad that the American Revolution II was happening, I'd certainly revisit my feelings toward the government. We'll see when that happens, tho.

emt1581
07-31-2011, 14:12
I have no wish to argue with you, but using the American Revolution in reference to this as part of that argument is basically the same thing as saying, lets discuss calibers, I support xxx caliber, and if you don't think its good enough let me shoot you with it Hah ha ha then we'll see how bad it is!

Anything is possible, and sure, if it was so absolutely terribly bad that the American Revolution II was happening, I'd certainly revisit my feelings toward the government. We'll see when that happens, tho.

I do not understand your relation of the revolution to a caliber preference.

What you seem to be saying is that we are powerless against the government and should just submit to their demands. My point was, if our founding fathers had done that, we would have never broken away from England.

But that is if the numbers are there. If not, you become a target who gets unlimited manpower and resources aimed at your demise.

So if enough people have the "from my cold dead hands" attitude, AND ACT ON IT, I'd put my money on them rather than the gov/LE in that situation.

Problem is, I think our society has become soft and whipped. Otherwise welfare and the entitlement class would not exist...and that's just one example.

-Emt1581

ScrappyDoo
07-31-2011, 14:26
It's cool man... I shouldn't have posted to begin with. I stopped using this particular forum over a year ago because I realized I disagreed with almost everyone. The thing is, i AM very in to preparing and survival and I do thing something bad is gonna happen. but that's where my agreement basically seems to end, and I really have no want to debate people online, so I shouldn't have posted something that calls for debate. My own fault sorry.

Stevekozak
07-31-2011, 14:42
What you seem to be saying is that we are powerless against the government and should just submit to their demands.

Problem is, I think our society has become soft and whipped. Otherwise welfare and the entitlement class would not exist...and that's just one example.

-Emt1581

It's cool man... I shouldn't have posted to begin with. I stopped using this particular forum over a year ago because I realized I disagreed with almost everyone. The thing is, i AM very in to preparing and survival and I do thing something bad is gonna happen. but that's where my agreement basically seems to end, and I really have no want to debate people online, so I shouldn't have posted something that calls for debate. My own fault sorry.

This cracked me up! Scrappy just put into action what EMT stated was the problem! He doesn't like it, so he just gave up.

I find myself agreeing with EMT at the oddest times!! I think he is right on this one.:wavey:

ScrappyDoo
07-31-2011, 15:23
"gave up" means i don't want to be rude, the only thing I can do to get my point across is to say rude things, and that just makes the problem worse.

I think part of the problem is, a lot of people here think that they're in the majority with their opinions... on a lot of stuff. If the 2008 election didn't explain this, A lot of people in this country feel a particular way... Now I don't really like most of those ways either, but a "majority" do...

And just to get my point across here-- the guns got taken away in Katrina, right? And there was Already a law against it and they made an extra law, but the guns got taken away, right? Plan on it happening again if necessary.

emt1581
07-31-2011, 17:43
"gave up" means i don't want to be rude, the only thing I can do to get my point across is to say rude things, and that just makes the problem worse.

I think part of the problem is, a lot of people here think that they're in the majority with their opinions... on a lot of stuff. If the 2008 election didn't explain this, A lot of people in this country feel a particular way... Now I don't really like most of those ways either, but a "majority" do...

And just to get my point across here-- the guns got taken away in Katrina, right? And there was Already a law against it and they made an extra law, but the guns got taken away, right? Plan on it happening again if necessary.

That's where I'm confused...why was it "necessary" in the first place?

It looked more like a knee jerk reaction from politicians who had their head up their butt and didn't know what else to do so they did/ordered what came natural to them instead of doing some real good. My money says that's where the mayor/chief's efforts ended. You think they had the slightest clue how and where to send the rescue choppers?? Hell no!! That was all military! At that point Nagen was just prepping himself for the next photo op and news conference...talking about chocolate cities and such.

In regard to the 2008 election, my personal belief is that the people fell for Obama's claims of "Change" and were so thirsty for it they were ready to drink the sand. Let's see what happens the next time around.

Either way the American people better wise up and start taking responsibility for themselves or they'll find they are asking the government permission to take a leak and will end up crossing their legs in obedience when told no.

-Emt1581

Stevekozak
07-31-2011, 18:53
Either way the American people better wise up and start taking responsibility for themselves or they'll find they are asking the government permission to take a leak and will end up crossing their legs in obedience when told no.

-Emt1581


Dang, look at that! I am agreeing with EMT twice in one day!! :wavey:

racerford
07-31-2011, 19:33
.....I actually asked in Cop Talk or somewhere else what a citizen should do and it turned out that, although a cop might be doing something illegal, you still cannot legally shoot them in self-defense. Instead you are to hand over your guns and comply, then pray the case doesn't get buried in civil court later on...

Now if our founding fathers had done that, I'm pretty sure we'd all be subjects and speaking in funny accents.

-Emt1581

Cops are not lawyers or judges (generally speaking there could be a few). Each has different laws. IIRC, a citizen can use deadly force against an officer, that is committing illegal act involving deadly force. However, you may not live to see the officer convicted. If you live, you will need a good lawyer and very solid evidence of the officers illegal deadly force act.

certifiedfunds
07-31-2011, 19:58
Either way the American people better wise up and start taking responsibility for themselves or they'll find they are asking the government permission to take a leak and will end up crossing their legs in obedience when told no.

-Emt1581

Sorry to break it to everyone but urination and defecation are already regulated by the EPA.

emt1581
07-31-2011, 20:13
Cops are not lawyers or judges (generally speaking there could be a few). Each has different laws. IIRC, a citizen can use deadly force against an officer, that is committing illegal act involving deadly force. However, you may not live to see the officer convicted. If you live, you will need a good lawyer and very solid evidence of the officers illegal deadly force act.

But look at the situation at hand. This seems to be THE example. ILLEGAL order is given to confiscate guns. Officer follows the illegal order. Homeowner tells the cops to go pound sand instead of handing them over, then shuts the door. Cops break the door down and, seeing the homeowner with a gun in his hands just start shooting. The homeowner shoots the officer(s).

Even though the police were following an illegal order, and then entered the home without probable cause or a warrant just before opening fire on a citizen that posed no direct threat to him/them....that citizen was fired upon illegally. Seems like a justifiable shoot on the part of the citizen by what you're saying.

IMO, once that unit's back-up arrives, without some sort of escape tunnel or genius plan, you're toast and will be lucky to have the chance to go to court over the issue.

As as side-note I'd just like to say that this thread does not seek to bash all cops. They do a damn tough job and rarely are thanked for it. What we are talking about here is a very specific situation and circumstance that took place and needs to be discussed and prepared for so it doesn't happen again.

-Emt1581

racerford
08-01-2011, 00:19
The situation as describe you would likely be introuble. I have copied the text of the self defense law in Texas You basically cannot resist and the officer has to use more than necessary force. To win you would ned lots of witnesses and proably video, and that may not be enough. Of course if there are other officers around, who may not see everything that you do, or that you do, may use deadly force to protect their fellow officer. So you may not live to go to trial on you lawful use of self defense.

Best bet is to have multiple weapons, and only have one out and turn it over. It is a losing battle in the moment. You can not survive if you are dead. This is not the "die a martyr" sub-board.

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.

kirgi08
08-01-2011, 07:08
Sorry to break it to everyone but urination and defecation are already regulated by the EPA.

:animlol:

UneasyRider
08-01-2011, 10:52
But look at the situation at hand. This seems to be THE example. ILLEGAL order is given to confiscate guns. Officer follows the illegal order. Homeowner tells the cops to go pound sand instead of handing them over, then shuts the door. Cops break the door down and, seeing the homeowner with a gun in his hands just start shooting. The homeowner shoots the officer(s).

Even though the police were following an illegal order, and then entered the home without probable cause or a warrant just before opening fire on a citizen that posed no direct threat to him/them....that citizen was fired upon illegally. Seems like a justifiable shoot on the part of the citizen by what you're saying.



-Emt1581

Never open the door. Do you have a warrant? No? Get off of my land.

Maine1
08-01-2011, 12:02
this is a real no win situation: in an emergency, you really need to be armed. History is full of examples of those that were killed or starved to death AFTER voluntarily giving up their weapons.
YET, resist, and even if you beat the confiscation squad, there is no way that any court will allow you to walk on this after a trial. No amount of justification is enough in the eyes of the law, to let a peon shoot an official legitimately.

I also do not buy the "just give them one gun and hide the others" idea. Officers will know what you have, or are likley to have by other indicators in your house, 4473's rat neighbors/freinds/relatives, ect. Having an extra set or three of your basic guns is a great idea, but i am not sure if it is the real solution here, it just puts off the inevitable.

In America, its quite disturbing that we have this discussion this often. it was not a possibility past generations would have taken seriously.

ScrappyDoo
08-01-2011, 12:59
See I know I am lucky because I've got some smarts and a great education, and to no fault of others they may or may not have that. BUT There is no excuse for ignorance- lack of knowledge is one thing, but lack of facts and wisdom is something else, particularly when you ignorantly arrogantly promulgate incorrect things. You're liable to cause yourself legal and or medical troubles, or worse SoMEONE ELSE will listen to that and get themselves into issue.

The Police ABSOLUTELY can and WILL do MANY things to you , up to and including coming into your house and/or searching it "without a warrant" ! Are you kidding me?? I mean haven't you at LEAST watched COPS where "in plain view" is clearly used and abused, they "see" things "openly" that then gives them the right to conduct their search which you or I would not really be so easy to have noticed "openly" because they weren't so openly displayed??? Net result: bad guy goes to jail .

They can TOTALLY "see things" when you've opened the door to tell them what they can and can't do. Make sure you try it next time. Oh by the way, they're also well within their rights to search around if they're arresting you. They could have an Arrest warrant for you, and when they're there to arrest you they need to search around for their safety. (AkA a Protective Sweep). Of particular importance is the fact that - THEY DON'T NEED TO ARRIVE WITH AN ARREST WARRANT. they can show up to your house to ask if you've seen the lost little doggie or kitten from the next neighborhood. Oh you have an attitude? You just assaulted the officer when you slammed that door on him or her, now you're under arrest. Now you're getting searched. Your place is getting searched. Evidence is getting siezed. All because you knew the law and you told him what's up. Net result : you're going to jail.

I didn't even include the rights of police to use "exigent circumstances" which when properly "utilized" and let that mean properly explained to their supervisor and then the judge after the fact, basically lets them do whatever they "need to do" want to do to bust your ass and search and sieze your stuff.

And make no further mistake, 4th Amendment protecting "unreasonable" search and seizure is basically more helpful to law enforcement than those tough-guy citizens who "know their rights" because properly documented situation and circumstance of the officers is almost always granted, agreed, and protected by judges.


And I haven't even MENTIONED "probable cause" yet- thats a whole NEW Can of worms.

I say all this because if you all believe we're so close to SHTF and it's gonna SHTF and we're in such big trouble, then now more than ever you NEED to understand the way it really works.... Or despite your text and intentions / "what you know" - you'll be the first in jail or casualty of crossing the law enforcement officers / government.

emt1581
08-01-2011, 15:29
See I know I am lucky because I've got some smarts and a great education, and to no fault of others they may or may not have that. BUT There is no excuse for ignorance- lack of knowledge is one thing, but lack of facts and wisdom is something else, particularly when you ignorantly arrogantly promulgate incorrect things. You're liable to cause yourself legal and or medical troubles, or worse SoMEONE ELSE will listen to that and get themselves into issue.

The Police ABSOLUTELY can and WILL do MANY things to you , up to and including coming into your house and/or searching it "without a warrant" ! Are you kidding me?? I mean haven't you at LEAST watched COPS where "in plain view" is clearly used and abused, they "see" things "openly" that then gives them the right to conduct their search which you or I would not really be so easy to have noticed "openly" because they weren't so openly displayed??? Net result: bad guy goes to jail .

They can TOTALLY "see things" when you've opened the door to tell them what they can and can't do. Make sure you try it next time. Oh by the way, they're also well within their rights to search around if they're arresting you. They could have an Arrest warrant for you, and when they're there to arrest you they need to search around for their safety. (AkA a Protective Sweep). Of particular importance is the fact that - THEY DON'T NEED TO ARRIVE WITH AN ARREST WARRANT. they can show up to your house to ask if you've seen the lost little doggie or kitten from the next neighborhood. Oh you have an attitude? You just assaulted the officer when you slammed that door on him or her, now you're under arrest. Now you're getting searched. Your place is getting searched. Evidence is getting siezed. All because you knew the law and you told him what's up. Net result : you're going to jail.

I didn't even include the rights of police to use "exigent circumstances" which when properly "utilized" and let that mean properly explained to their supervisor and then the judge after the fact, basically lets them do whatever they "need to do" want to do to bust your ass and search and sieze your stuff.

And make no further mistake, 4th Amendment protecting "unreasonable" search and seizure is basically more helpful to law enforcement than those tough-guy citizens who "know their rights" because properly documented situation and circumstance of the officers is almost always granted, agreed, and protected by judges.


And I haven't even MENTIONED "probable cause" yet- thats a whole NEW Can of worms.

I say all this because if you all believe we're so close to SHTF and it's gonna SHTF and we're in such big trouble, then now more than ever you NEED to understand the way it really works.... Or despite your text and intentions / "what you know" - you'll be the first in jail or casualty of crossing the law enforcement officers / government.

That was a nice visit back to my undergrad crim. just. courses... so how is it again we became citizens instead of subjects? More importantly how do we retain our weapons to defend ourselves from rapists, murderers, looters, etc. during times of crisis when an ILLEGAL order is given to confiscate them WHILE following the law? Hell you can even answer how to do it illegally so long as you don't play the "be somewhere else" card...

-Emt1581

UneasyRider
08-01-2011, 18:19
That was a nice visit back to my undergrad crim. just. courses... so how is it again we became citizens instead of subjects? More importantly how do we retain our weapons to defend ourselves from rapists, murderers, looters, etc. during times of crisis when an ILLEGAL order is given to confiscate them WHILE following the law? Hell you can even answer how to do it illegally so long as you don't play the "be somewhere else" card...

-Emt1581

Never open the door!

emt1581
08-01-2011, 18:21
Never open the door!

That MIGHT work for girl scouts and salesman... :whistling:

-Emt1581

certifiedfunds
08-01-2011, 18:35
That MIGHT work for girl scouts and salesman... :whistling:

-Emt1581

Clearly you haven't seen Despicable Me

They'll use cookie robots

emt1581
08-01-2011, 18:37
Clearly you haven't seen Despicable Me

They'll use cookie robots

No, no I haven't.

Now back to the issue of keeping our guns safe from police/soldiers who are breaking the law by following an illegal order to confiscate our guns... :whistling:

-Emt1581

panzer1
08-01-2011, 19:31
As far as the "casualty" on the bridge, IIRC it was a MENTALLY HANDICAPPED guy and his brother just trying to cross that bridge to get to safety. Police told them to turn back and they refused. The MH brother was shot and killed. Again, this is what I remember from seeing the story in a news special a year or so later.

Now as to what happened and such...

Police confiscated guns. The citizens did not put up much of a fight. That old lady in her kitchen kinda proved the point of the citizens being in the right and the police being in the wrong. No LE were shot or killed. From what I understand there was ALREADY a law in place the forbade the gun confiscations but it happened anyway.

We've talked about this dozens of times here. It either ends up in a flame war or everyone gets real quiet. So I'll go ahead and ask it...

Would you really have resisted? Would you shoot police officers (even though they were breaking the law in trying to take your guns)? Do you think the fact that LE was breaking the law would matter or save you from the needle IF you survived?

What this really comes down to is...are you prepared to die for what you believe is right? There are those that say get out of dodge ahead of time or ASAP but sometimes that just isn't possible (this point usually turns into a pissing match as well).

I actually asked in Cop Talk or somewhere else what a citizen should do and it turned out that, although a cop might be doing something illegal, you still cannot legally shoot them in self-defense. Instead you are to hand over your guns and comply, then pray the case doesn't get buried in civil court later on...

Now if our founding fathers had done that, I'm pretty sure we'd all be subjects and speaking in funny accents.

-Emt1581Well GOD forbid but I can not see myself just giving up my guns so my wife could be raped or killed by some dirt bag looter & i am helpless to do anything to save her or myself. So I guess I would have to do what I have to do & hope that I live though it. I guess it would be kill or be killed!!! I think you would be better off going down fighting then not fighting at all.

panzer1
08-01-2011, 19:33
"...you gotta know when to hold'em. Know when to fold'em. Know when to walk away, know when to run..."

Each scenario is individual in nature. Each has to reconcile when and where the line is drawn and when enough's enough. Lines are being drawn every day. On both sides. It was interesting to watch it unfold and see the actions of both during the aftermath. What would I have done ?

Well, they are the government and after all, they are here to help. ;)You are joking are you not??

cowboywannabe
08-01-2011, 19:43
new or leans is run by the same clowns that ran it before.....

panzer1
08-01-2011, 20:24
Never open the door!They just kicked it in if no one opened up.

certifiedfunds
08-01-2011, 20:54
new or leans is run by the same clowns that ran it before.....

Worse perhaps. We now have the royal family in complete control of the uber-corrupt democratic machine

What we DO have is one kick ass Federal prosecutor tho

UneasyRider
08-01-2011, 21:01
They just kicked it in if no one opened up.

No warrant? Kick in my door? I hope you like surprises, I'll be waiting in the back of the house.

RatDrall
08-02-2011, 05:22
No warrant? Kick in my door? I hope you like surprises, I'll be waiting in the back of the house.

It's really not that simple when the courts, and a jury of your peers, might have you locked away for life because we have become a country of groups, where some groups have more rights than others based on their job or whatever.

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html


In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

emt1581
08-02-2011, 05:47
In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

Not sure what he was smoking, but I'd love to hear his views on warrants.

I also think his terminology was off. We CAN do a whole lot to block entry if we want...at least initially.

With all the back and forthing and interesting tidbits, no one has been able to offer sound reasoning yet with regards to keeping our weapons while confiscators carry out ILLEGAL orders...again without playing the "be somewhere else" card...

-Emt1581

wildcat455
08-02-2011, 07:41
EMT1581,

If you have some insight on how to accomplish this, I would be interested in hearing it, as you seem to have more legal knowledge than I. If you don't want to post it, please feel free to PM. Confidentiality assured.

Thanks.

UneasyRider
08-02-2011, 09:36
It's really not that simple when the courts, and a jury of your peers, might have you locked away for life because we have become a country of groups, where some groups have more rights than others based on their job or whatever.

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

[/COLOR][/LEFT]

I'm no fool, you shoot a cop around here and they will kill you. I'm just sayin' that I really believe in the constitution and don't plan on living unless it's as a free man, anything else and you can keep it.

cyrsequipment
08-02-2011, 10:37
I've never understood the "logic" of forcibly resisting the police.

You would not survive, period.

You may be right, the police may be illegally trying to confiscate your guns, but you'll still be dead.

The best plan is to lay low, don't draw attention to yourself and wait it out.

Dexters
08-02-2011, 10:40
That was a nice visit back to my undergrad crim. just. courses... so how is it again we became citizens instead of subjects? More importantly how do we retain our weapons to defend ourselves from rapists, murderers, looters, etc. during times of crisis when an ILLEGAL order is given to confiscate them WHILE following the law? Hell you can even answer how to do it illegally so long as you don't play the "be somewhere else" card...

-Emt1581

The difference between the American Revolution and the taking of guns now revolves around:

- The AR was generally supported by the populace. Gun owners have been marginalized/demonized by the general population and dispersed in society - so they do not have support.

- AR British looked up as oppressors - now police viewed as help by the general public

I agree with others that say that although there is a written law against confiscation of guns by lawful owners; in time of an emergency I can see confiscation happening. First the person enforcing the law has to know about them - will they? and will they refuse to do it? - I doubt it. Second, they take the gun and say fight it in court. What happens if those enforcing the law are wrong? - nothing and you will be lucky to get your guns back. You will not will a court case on your front door step.

My understanding is that gun stores must keep records of who buys guns from them but there is no central data base. So, authorities must get the info from a gun store or go house to house. If this is not correct please let me know.



-

Catshooter
08-02-2011, 15:01
Uneasy,

I'd go a bit easy on throwing around that "I'm a free man" stuff. This is America, 2011. It's not a free country and hasn't been for many years. A semi-free country, yes. But not free. The list of things you can't do here is huge.

More on topic.

Obviously if you want to keep your property in the face of forced confiscation one has several choises.

Don't be there when they kick your door in.

Don't have what they are looking for available for them to find.

Fight.

Since my space communicator's battery has died Scottie won't beam me up anymore so I know of no other options. Sorry.


Cat

ScrappyDoo
08-02-2011, 16:07
Catshooter and a few others, I thank you because finally some logic, common sense, and reality got thrown around up in here.

I mean I am seriously not trying to be mean here but it's almost close to mental illness if you *really believe* you can rely on 'no warrant? get out/get off while I slam the door in your face!' and seriously, comparing this to the american revolution is basically admitting ignorance, lack of education, or again mental illness cause, it was a while ago, when you know, they hadn't harnessed electricity yet or uh , formed the government that made the laws you're taking about selectively accepting or dismissing according to your whims or {misguided} interpretation of it.

And let me finish with this: It has been proven time and again in this nation that Ignorance is not accepted as an excuse; however, I don't like it but I damn sure have to live with it. Just because *you* don't know what the laws are and what the police/government/etc. can and cannot do doesn't' mean THEY Don't know and again, if its NECESSARY they're gonna do what they have to do regardless. You can cry thomas paine and american revolution and get off my property with no warrant till you're blue in the face -but the ACLU ain't gonna help someone who's plumb wrong. And realize, THIS is the type of thing that can potentially make normal law abiding gun owners look bad. I really don't want them coming for MY guns because YOU dare them to "come and take them" with a misguided attempt at legal molon labe.

emt1581
08-02-2011, 16:17
EMT1581,

If you have some insight on how to accomplish this, I would be interested in hearing it, as you seem to have more legal knowledge than I. If you don't want to post it, please feel free to PM. Confidentiality assured.

Thanks.

I'm just as curious as I've never heard of a sound solution to the issue.

However if those sworn to uphold the law no longer do...why do we credit them with being a law enforcer instead of dealing with them accordingly?

If we are passive enough as a culture to just accept our inability to defend ourselves from tyranny... what did the founders fight and die for and what good is having a constitution or rights??

The fact that we as S&Pers cannot figure out a solution AND as so eager to accept defeat does not sit well with me. Maybe it is reality but that reality needs to change. NOW is the time to do it, not during the next SHTF when JBT's come a knockin...

As for my personal opinion, I'll preface it by saying it would make sense in a perfect world, but then again in a perfect world the original problem wouldn't exist. Here goes though...

I'm thinking if confiscators knew...without a doubt...they would not be supported by the courts in their efforts and that the use of deadly force was specifically granted to use against anyone attempting to ILLEGALLY confiscate firearms during times of crisis...they would hopefully think twice instead of blindly following orders.

Personally, if I knew I would lose in court and would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law PLUS I would be subject to death...unless I'm defending my family...I wouldn't do whatever the offense in question was! If my job was in question, my boss can go pound sand! I'll happily file a wrongful termination suit when we saddle up afterwards. That's another thing that bothers me, how eager the confiscators were to comply. No griping, no questioning...nothing!

But there is no such dictation. There is a "you can't do that" in place. This obviously has the same effect as "gun-free zones" or "drug-free school zones" otherwise LE/Mil/etc. wouldn't even consider doing such a thing let along blindly obey such orders.

A major problem with such a law would be how the defense attorney's would wipe their rear ends with it every time a career criminal, POS, scumbag shot an officer. This would come into play and be used in some perverted way as justification.

Again, this is a very specific situation but it has the potential to turn this country on it's head and make the current economic situation look like a tropical vacation!

-Emt1581

emt1581
08-02-2011, 16:21
Catshooter and a few others, I thank you because finally some logic, common sense, and reality got thrown around up in here.

I mean I am seriously not trying to be mean here but it's almost close to mental illness if you *really believe* you can rely on 'no warrant? get out/get off while I slam the door in your face!' and seriously, comparing this to the american revolution is basically admitting ignorance, lack of education, or again mental illness cause, it was a while ago, when you know, they hadn't harnessed electricity yet or uh , formed the government that made the laws you're taking about selectively accepting or dismissing according to your whims or {misguided} interpretation of it.

And let me finish with this: It has been proven time and again in this nation that Ignorance is not accepted as an excuse; however, I don't like it but I damn sure have to live with it. Just because *you* don't know what the laws are and what the police/government/etc. can and cannot do doesn't' mean THEY Don't know and again, if its NECESSARY they're gonna do what they have to do regardless. You can cry thomas paine and american revolution and get off my property with no warrant till you're blue in the face -but the ACLU ain't gonna help someone who's plumb wrong. And realize, THIS is the type of thing that can potentially make normal law abiding gun owners look bad. I really don't want them coming for MY guns because YOU dare them to "come and take them" with a misguided attempt at legal molon labe.

...and yet you still didn't answer the question...

"More importantly how do we retain our weapons to defend ourselves from rapists, murderers, looters, etc. during times of crisis when an ILLEGAL order is given to confiscate them WHILE following the law? Hell you can even answer how to do it illegally so long as you don't play the "be somewhere else" card... "

Spewing insults and claims of ignorance does not make you correct. While you might be frustrated and disagree, at least share your thoughts of how to solve the problem with us.

-Emt1581

glock21xxx
08-02-2011, 16:34
What happens when the opposing force rams the door open or rips it from the frame?

-Emt1581

Even in the case of a State of Emergency, wouldn't this be unlawful entry? Or Warrantless Search and Seizure?

ScrappyDoo
08-02-2011, 17:06
...and yet you still didn't answer the question...

"More importantly how do we retain our weapons to defend ourselves from rapists, murderers, looters, etc. during times of crisis when an ILLEGAL order is given to confiscate them WHILE following the law? Hell you can even answer how to do it illegally so long as you don't play the "be somewhere else" card... "

Spewing insults and claims of ignorance does not make you correct. While you might be frustrated and disagree, at least share your thoughts of how to solve the problem with us.

-Emt1581


Seriously I can't even communicate with you, you're just on a whole different level man. I've tried ignoring you and you just keep spitting the same stuff and people are all saying you're wrong, but you keep saying the same stuff. I mean you sound like the damn crazy kid from Arizona, what's nxt are you gonna say" how can you deny mathematics???" next?? You want me to help you figure out how to beat the police and government? Make a decision because at first you were saying they COULDN"T accomplish what they wanted to accomplish, now they CAN but it's illegal so I have to answer how to stop it? No thanks man, You go on scheming and I'm going to keep on having the utmost respect for the law and government and if and when they need to flex their muscles, they can use YOU as the example, and me and mine will talk about your case in the news over dinner.

And seriously, I don't know how to put this, what I said IS CORRECT, if you don't agree with it you're not only misguided you're PLAIN WRONG. I'm sorry if you Don't like the way the world works, the way our laws and government etc function. I'm really sorry it's not "the way it should be. " you're REALLY not helping yourself by believing that, you need to start formulating your plans for the future based on the actual truth not what you think it is or should be. I say that with no disrespect intended , it's actually concern because it seems like you either don't know or just don't want to accept the power of the government and law enforcement.

emt1581
08-02-2011, 17:11
Seriously I can't even communicate with you, you're just on a whole different level man. I've tried ignoring you and you just keep spitting the same stuff and people are all saying you're wrong, but you keep saying the same stuff. I mean you sound like the damn crazy kid from Arizona, what's nxt are you gonna say" how can you deny mathematics???" next?? You want me to help you figure out how to beat the police and government? Make a decision because at first you were saying they COULDN"T accomplish what they wanted to accomplish, now they CAN but it's illegal so I have to answer how to stop it? No thanks man, You go on scheming and I'm going to keep on having the utmost respect for the law and government and if and when they need to flex their muscles, they can use YOU as the example, and me and mine will talk about your case in the news over dinner.

And seriously, I don't know how to put this, what I said IS CORRECT, if you don't agree with it you're not only misguided you're PLAIN WRONG. I'm sorry if you Don't like the way the world works, the way our laws and government etc function. I'm really sorry it's not "the way it should be. " you're REALLY not helping yourself by believing that, you need to start formulating your plans for the future based on the actual truth not what you think it is or should be. I say that with no disrespect intended , it's actually concern because it seems like you either don't know or just don't want to accept the power of the government and law enforcement.


Third or forth time now...

"More importantly how do we retain our weapons to defend ourselves from rapists, murderers, looters, etc. during times of crisis when an ILLEGAL order is given to confiscate them WHILE following the law? Hell you can even answer how to do it illegally so long as you don't play the "be somewhere else" card..."

Once again, back off with the insults. For someone that seems to worship the law, you do not follow rules to well, at least not the TOS for GT.

-Emt1581

jdavionic
08-02-2011, 17:28
I always find these threads interesting and concerning for a variety of reasons. It started out with quite a different spin, remember? "What really happened?" Now it has evolved into 'what would you do?'

Personally, I think keeping a very low profile is a good start. I think having a plan for a variety of 'what if' scenarios is the answer. If you're making your plan after the situation, you're likely either too late or will make a less-than-optimal decision.

In the case of illegal confiscations, I have no desire to endanger a misguided LEO. If they are illegally confiscating weapons, I might give them a weapon to confiscate. The rest of the details have been discussed in many other threads. I would not resist. I would take quite a different tact and dazzle them with my cordial cooperation.

IF you choose to take a "stand" with LEOs that are acting outside the law, how do you think you will prevail? Perhaps you, your wife, and your children are going to take on your local LE? I think we've seen at least one example that jumps immediately to mind of how that went for folks in recent times. Not well.

emt1581
08-02-2011, 17:30
The difference between the American Revolution and the taking of guns now revolves around:

- The AR was generally supported by the populace. Gun owners have been marginalized/demonized by the general population and dispersed in society - so they do not have support.

- AR British looked up as oppressors - now police viewed as help by the general public

I agree with others that say that although there is a written law against confiscation of guns by lawful owners; in time of an emergency I can see confiscation happening. First the person enforcing the law has to know about them - will they? and will they refuse to do it? - I doubt it. Second, they take the gun and say fight it in court. What happens if those enforcing the law are wrong?

During a SHTF, you name the forcible felony and it could happen as a result of being disarmed

AND

- nothing and you will be lucky to get your guns back. You will not will a court case on your front door step.

My understanding is that gun stores must keep records of who buys guns from them but there is no central data base. So, authorities must get the info from a gun store or go house to house. If this is not correct please let me know.

Not sure on that one.



-

You raise good points about the AR vs. today. However with the AR vs. confiscation, not so much....still a decent comparison.

My history is a little foggy but I think, initially the AR was not even remotely supported by the majority.

Gun owners are demonized by anti-gunners and guns are demonized by far more than that.

How are confiscators NOT oppressors? But yes, except for this VERY SPECIFIC situation...the POLICE are there to help.

As far as there being a law against it, but it still happening... what is the point of the law other than the feel good examples I gave before that are nothing more than illusions?

When asking it the "enforcer" will "know about" prohibiting laws...I bet if their butt was on the line they would. Otherwise the power trip and/or criminal mentality takes over...no consequences...sure I'll do it, why not??

-Emt1581

emt1581
08-02-2011, 17:35
I always find these threads interesting and concerning for a variety of reasons. It started out with quite a different spin, remember? "What really happened?" Now it has evolved into 'what would you do?'

Personally, I think keeping a very low profile is a good start. I think having a plan for a variety of 'what if' scenarios is the answer. If you're making your plan after the situation, you're likely either too late or will make a less-than-optimal decision.

In the case of illegal confiscations, I have no desire to endanger a misguided LEO. If they are illegally confiscating weapons, I might give them a weapon to confiscate. The rest of the details have been discussed in many other threads. I would not resist. I would take quite a different tact and dazzle them with my cordial cooperation.

IF you choose to take a "stand" with LEOs that are acting outside the law, how do you think you will prevail? Perhaps you, your wife, and your children are going to take on your local LE? I think we've seen at least one example that jumps immediately to mind of how that went for folks in recent times. Not well.

I'm certainly not arguing your OPINION here jdavonic. However, what is the point of a law banning a given practice if LE/Soldiers defy it and in doing so endanger the public??

Also with that dazzling cordiality, what do you do if the single weapon is not enough and they search your home anyway? I've actually already planned for such a situation (not really with confiscation in mind but it serves the same purpose) but if you have not and all your guns end up being taken...when you probably need them the most...how do you defend yourself?

Thanks

-Emt1581

jdavionic
08-02-2011, 17:42
I'm certainly not arguing your OPINION here jdavonic. However, what is the point of a law banning a given practice if LE/Soldiers defy it and in doing so endanger the public??

Generally LE/Soldiers don't "defy" the laws. I believe the people giving the orders are suspect. While I appreciate the frustration and concerns, IMHO...'you live today to fight tomorrow' and fighting LE/Soldiers in a confiscation scenario will likely result in 'fight today, die today'.

Also with that dazzling cordiality, what do you do if the single weapon is not enough and they search your home anyway? I've actually already planned for such a situation (not really with confiscation in mind but it serves the same purpose) but if you have not and all your guns end up being taken...when you probably need them the most...how do you defend yourself?
Again, just my opinion...but I think you need to be monitor and be aware of your surroundings. You need to have plans before a disaster. If you have both, the other issues can be addressed.

emt1581
08-02-2011, 18:09
Generally LE/Soldiers don't "defy" the laws. I believe the people giving the orders are suspect. While I appreciate the frustration and concerns, IMHO...'you live today to fight tomorrow' and fighting LE/Soldiers in a confiscation scenario will likely result in 'fight today, die today'.


Again, just my opinion...but I think you need to be monitor and be aware of your surroundings. You need to have plans before a disaster. If you have both, the other issues can be addressed.

As I said, LE and soldiers do a damn good job and risk their lives every day! This is just a VERY specific situation we are talking about here. And in following such an order they would be defying the law.


It's the nature of the "live" that subjects you to death. If you "live today" by giving in and giving up your guns...what happens when those who wish to do you harm come a calling? Is that not the same thing as death...or worse?

And yes, fight today probably means die today.

-Emt1581

jdavionic
08-02-2011, 18:12
It's the nature of the "live" that subjects you to death. If you "live today" by giving in and giving up your guns...what happens when those who wish to do you harm come a calling? Is that not the same thing as death...or worse?

And yes, fight today probably means die today.

-Emt1581

Where did I say that I would give up all of my guns :supergrin:

emt1581
08-02-2011, 19:02
Where did I say that I would give up all of my guns :supergrin:

Ah.. 2 shay sir. ;)

-Emt1581

as400guy1
08-02-2011, 21:17
I have a question.
What was the response by the authorities AFTER-WARDS?
Did anyone admit their mistake?
Any apologies?

Truckee
08-02-2011, 22:30
.......I shouldn't chime... awww, whatever

I'm on the "power/JBT" side of this thing. On this side, lawful citizens are safe from me. If on the other side of that door? What I would do is to hopefully be able to talk them down and away when they're knocking. If unable to shoo them.... I just don't know. I do know that I've not as much to lose as most here.

Scrappy, I understand what you're saying, and you're points are valid when steeped in the reality of this "thang." However, EMT making the AR comparison is logical in the narrow scope. A majority of our populace feared the British Army, the most 'powerful' military in the world in that time. The majority said as you are saying, we cannot prevail against that kind of might. Many willfully succumbed to confiscations, intrusions, unlawful entry and habitation of their abodes etc. They did so in the name of "I am a loyal supporter of the government, and I cannot prevail even if I felt otherwise." Yet, a point came when enough became enough... and someone, a group, stood up.

What occurred in NOLA, although wasn't predictable in my mind at the time, is in hindsight a "that figures." Fine folks in NOLA but, the majority turned out to be not so upstanding. A majority entitlement society of people who were unprepared in mostly all ways to fend in the face of disaster. They turned to what they knew, and thought entitled to take and do... the police as well as the thugs that is.

The NOLA neighborhoods that banned together and formed armed security were relatively unmolested by the government or by the thugs. What's that saying for strength in numbers and the government's unwillingness to confront organized citizens? There were no standoffs or shots fired between these people and the police. The police in NOLA were no better than the thugs, that is each only preyed on the weak. EMT has eluded to this end.

Under the right conditions and circumstances, one man can be a martyr. The masses can be motivated and incited to rebel. I suppose EMT et al have to make their choice as to if they are that one, and hope the conditions are ripe to evolve a resistance.

What happened in NOLA may just not occur in say... Charleston. The mindsets on both sides of the fence are different from NOLA. Also, awareness of the ills of NOLA are fresh on both sides of this issue. The police and politicians are less likely to foolishly act. The citizens are hopefully less likely to foolishly stand-by and be loyal subjects if the police do unlawfully act.

During the aftermath of NOLA, I find it interesting that the courts did, in fact, support the Constitution and back the tenets of "WeThe" when it came down to it. Although the specifics and accountablility were not aggressively addressed as many would have liked, the courts did stand Constitutionally firm in most cases.


"The majority is never right. Never, I tell you! That's one of these lies in society that no free and intelligent man can help rebelling against. Who are the people that make up the biggest proportion of the population -- the intelligent ones or the fools? I think we can agree it's the fools, no matter where you go in this world, it's the fools that form the overwhelming majority."
Ibsen, Henrik

RatDrall
08-03-2011, 05:54
However if those sworn to uphold the law no longer do...why do we credit them with being a law enforcer instead of dealing with them accordingly?


Because they might kill you, imprison your family, etc. If you do survive the first round, when things calm down a jury of your peers will imprison you for fighting back against Officer Friendly.

More importantly how do we retain our weapons to defend ourselves from rapists, murderers, looters, etc. during times of crisis when an ILLEGAL order is given to confiscate them WHILE following the law?

You learn to fight without weapons. Seriously, people have been doing it since the first caveman. A pointy stick or a machete, and a blind corner, tips the odds dramatically in your favor against an intruder even if he's armed with a firearm.

Don't be 100% dependant on things that can be taken away. Learn to fight with what God gave you...

cyrsequipment
08-03-2011, 06:15
"More importantly how do we retain our weapons to defend ourselves from rapists, murderers, looters, etc. during times of crisis when an ILLEGAL order is given to confiscate them WHILE following the law? Hell you can even answer how to do it illegally so long as you don't play the "be somewhere else" card..."

-Emt1581

In the scenarios that you have discussed, you don't.

If they are coming for your stuff, you already made some sort of error.

1. You made yourself known (most likely walking around visibly armed, or talking like you have been through this thread)

2. Didn't hide your stuff.


You've already made one error, don't make a bigger one and try to fight the police, you will not win.

I've worked in LE for almost my entire career, people are not going to stop the police. I am not that good, and I know enough about this stuf to know that there is not an indivicual or family or county that is capable to resisting an all out assault from LEOs. You won't survive.

I can tell you that most LEOs in this country (local, county, state, federal) are not against armed citizens. BUT they are against people that openly threaten officers, citizens or government officials. They are also going to follow orders, if you (or anyone else) makes an arse of themselves, or starts making threats like have been made in this thread, you will be looked at.

I do not condone illegal acts by Law Enforcement, but if you turn this into an "us against them" situation (and we are talking about at least a partial breakdown of society in this thread), you are putting some brave men and women in a position where they will be forced to defend themselves.

In the scenarios that have been discussed, the best thing to do is keep a low profile and ride it out.

You ain't Rambo.

emt1581
08-03-2011, 13:42
Because they might kill you, imprison your family, etc.

How does this differ from tyranny?



If you do survive the first round, when things calm down a jury of your peers will imprison you for fighting back against Officer Friendly.


How would there be a case once it was proved that the confiscators followed an illegal order? Kinda like a drug dealer calling the cops for theft of his product no?

Shot in the dark but I'm guessing, while there may be a law against the confiscation, a citizens rights are not specifically listed to oppose the action.


You learn to fight without weapons. Seriously, people have been doing it since the first caveman. A pointy stick or a machete, and a blind corner, tips the odds dramatically in your favor against an intruder even if he's armed with a firearm.

Don't be 100% dependant on things that can be taken away. Learn to fight with what God gave you...

Let's role play. I'm a bad guy and I just watched the cops leave your home with all your guns and you are not left "without weapons". How do you stop me once I break in and start shooting?

-Emt1581

emt1581
08-03-2011, 13:44
Deleted

-Emt1581

wjv
08-03-2011, 13:51
So maybe the first step in a natural disaster is to hide all of your guns and ammo, just leaving out 1-2 for the goon squad to find and confiscate.

If they say that their records show that you own more guns, just tell them that you have been un-employed for 6 months and sold all the other guns so you could pay your mortgage/rent. .

Markasaurus
08-03-2011, 15:06
+1

After what happened during Katrina, The house passed the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act (The Vitter Admendment) making gun grabbing during a disaster illegal.

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

The problem was there was too many Chiefs, and way too many out of state Indians, during a major SHTF event.

That is a very good link, the question is what the results will ultimately be during the next disaster of this kind.
During Katrina martial law was not even declared - there will BE a next time, and if martial law is ordered, everything Congress upholds, including the second amendment, is instantly moot.
serious - probably better off to Hide em. A large PVC pipe and a lot of grease, and a sure-fire place to bury em. guns, what guns? Do YOU see any guns?

The only way they could find them is with metal detectors, and not beyond the realm of possibility! I work in automotive and the brake rotor machine generates pounds and pounds of ferrous metal dust that i have to throw away. Get the picture? 5 pounds of iron flakes and a good rain will make the metal detector guy just think your area has too much iron in the soil. If it doesn't, he'll have absolutely no idea where to dig.

emt1581
08-03-2011, 16:04
That is a very good link, the question is what the results will ultimately be during the next disaster of this kind.
During Katrina martial law was not even declared - there will BE a next time, and if martial law is ordered, everything Congress upholds, including the second amendment, is instantly moot.
serious - probably better off to Hide em. A large PVC pipe and a lot of grease, and a sure-fire place to bury em. guns, what guns? Do YOU see any guns?

The only way they could find them is with metal detectors, and not beyond the realm of possibility! I work in automotive and the brake rotor machine generates pounds and pounds of ferrous metal dust that i have to throw away. Get the picture? 5 pounds of iron flakes and a good rain will make the metal detector guy just think your area has too much iron in the soil. If it doesn't, he'll have absolutely no idea where to dig.

Awesome idea in theory but wouldn't it ruin the soil and kill all the grass?

Plus would it really compare to a huge hunk of metal like a slide/barrel/receiver?

I just have a hard time believing LE/Mil equipment can be fooled so easily.

Thanks

-Emt1581

glock_40_calibe
08-03-2011, 17:05
See you REALLY didn't see those videos. The Posse Comitatis act of 1887 PROHIBITS using Federal troops, or those under Fed direction, of any police duties.
So you really didn't see the National Guard WORKING WITH POLICE TO CONFISCATE weapons. The Feds wouldn't ignore laws would they?:whistling::whistling:

This may have been brought up already, if so please forgive me. National Guard troops belong to the STATES, not the Feds, unless directed by presidential order. That is why it was the National Guard, not the Reserves or active duty types in their official capacity in NOLA. The State is quite authorized to mobilize their National Guard troops to assist with natural disasters and civil disturbances. Prohibitions on what Federal troops can do cannot be applied to the National Guard unless they have been ordered by the president. Now, which units where sent to NOLA by presidential order? Several states sent troops of their own volition, or at the request of LA, but I have yet hear of any that were ordered by the feds.

AK_Stick
08-03-2011, 20:39
This may have been brought up already, if so please forgive me. National Guard troops belong to the STATES, not the Feds, unless directed by presidential order. That is why it was the National Guard, not the Reserves or active duty types in their official capacity in NOLA. The State is quite authorized to mobilize their National Guard troops to assist with natural disasters and civil disturbances. Prohibitions on what Federal troops can do cannot be applied to the National Guard unless they have been ordered by the president. Now, which units where sent to NOLA by presidential order? Several states sent troops of their own volition, or at the request of LA, but I have yet hear of any that were ordered by the feds.



Don't confuse their arguments with facts, it spoils the fun.

RatDrall
08-04-2011, 06:08
How does this differ from tyranny?


It doesn't, that's the point. You are advocating violently resisting LE, and the point is that they have TOO MUCH POWER and no matter what you do, you will not win. Accept it, and stay out of their way while you fight to change things legally.

would there be a case once it was proved that the confiscators followed an illegal order? Kinda like a drug dealer calling the cops for theft of his product no?

See the Indiana case, where their Supreme Courth **** all over the 4th Amendment to the Consitution. You might have a case, but will be sharing a pod with the officers who violated your rights becaus the State will see you as just as bad a criminal for fighting back.

certifiedfunds
08-04-2011, 07:08
The only way they could find them is with metal detectors, and not beyond the realm of possibility! I work in automotive and the brake rotor machine generates pounds and pounds of ferrous metal dust that i have to throw away. Get the picture? 5 pounds of iron flakes and a good rain will make the metal detector guy just think your area has too much iron in the soil. If it doesn't, he'll have absolutely no idea where to dig.

Unless you perpetrate some serious crime that brings investigators to your home with a full bag of tools to collect evidence I can't envision any circumstance that would have agents searching your soil for guns.

Imagine for a moment the manpower that would be required to do a wholesale search of even a single state in that manner.

There is a fine line between contingency planning and full out paranoia. (I'm not calling you paranoid)

emt1581
08-04-2011, 16:45
Unless you perpetrate some serious crime that brings investigators to your home with a full bag of tools to collect evidence I can't envision any circumstance that would have agents searching your soil for guns.

Imagine for a moment the manpower that would be required to do a wholesale search of even a single state in that manner.

There is a fine line between contingency planning and full out paranoia. (I'm not calling you paranoid)

This is what I was thinking to sans the paranoia comment...just because you're paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you.

-Emt1581

glock_40_calibe
08-04-2011, 17:58
Don't confuse their arguments with facts, it spoils the fun.

You are right. I keep forgetting that small detail.

happyguy
08-07-2011, 13:06
Get to know your neighbors.

Try to get some on board with you to provide the neighborhood with security post SHTF if governmental LE is unable to.

You will have a much better chance of convincing gun-grabbing bureaucrats that they should ply their trade elsewhere if you have sufficient manpower and firepower and your neighborhood looks "secure".

One guy with an AR, no big deal. A dozen men with long guns...might have second thoughts.

Peace through superior firepower.

Regards,
Happyguy :)