following lawful orders [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : following lawful orders


fitz4609
06-03-2006, 13:35
This is for the National Guardsmen primarily.
Would you assist in disarming US civilians after a flood or tornado or hurricane?

KNEESINTHEBREEZ
06-04-2006, 19:05
If given the order to I would follow that order.

fitz4609
06-05-2006, 10:01
If the civilian leaders had no legal authority to order the confiscation of weapons from the citizens would it be a legal order?
Should the burden rest on the officers in charge since they have sworn to uphold the constitution?

KNEESINTHEBREEZ
06-05-2006, 23:08
Originally posted by fitz4609
If the civilian leaders had no legal authority to order the confiscation of weapons from the citizens would it be a legal order?
Should the burden rest on the officers in charge since they have sworn to uphold the constitution?

I think you answered your own question (the first one).

nothing
06-06-2006, 08:01
I took an oath to uphold and defend the Costitution. So that would be an unlawful order and I would not follow it. Most of the guys in my company feel the same way.

fitz4609
06-07-2006, 15:25
Ok Kneesinthebreeze, if newly elected Prez Hilary Clinton signed an executive order that disarmed all US citizens you would follow that order?
No problems? I can't believe that.

KNEESINTHEBREEZ
06-11-2006, 21:18
Originally posted by fitz4609
Ok Kneesinthebreeze, if newly elected Prez Hilary Clinton signed an executive order that disarmed all US citizens you would follow that order?
No problems? I can't believe that.

Well, I served under Bill Clinton and there was plenty that I had problems with. However, if a lawful order is given it is my duty to follow it.

jmshady
06-12-2006, 21:25
Originally posted by fitz4609
Ok Kneesinthebreeze, if newly elected Prez Hilary Clinton signed an executive order that disarmed all US citizens you would follow that order?
No problems? I can't believe that.

Ok, are you a judge?, are you a Politician, or are you a Soldier?

We have the different branches of Goverment for a reason. If a president passes a law without congress then congress can veto it. If congress agrees but it is unconstitutional then the supreme court can strike it down. If it passes all the branches then it is constitutional and it is my duty to uphold it and carry out my orders.

The what if game can be played for a long time with alot of different ****. Bottom line is an order is lawful if it will pass the moral test. I am not an executioner nor am I a "bully". I am a Soldier.

That is almost like saying that since a Soldier has a problem with what is going on on Iraq they should question the leadership. I would hope to God that every Soldier would have a problem with doing the job they were trained to do in war since that is the last resort. However a soldier should not question the reasons and just do their damn job. When you retire and go into politics you can argue it not while you wear the uniform.

Horned Toad
06-13-2006, 12:40
Zarqawi thought he was following some kind of moral orders also. Its one thing for a soldier to go fight on foreign soil, I would think it would be quite another to use those same tactics here in the US against the citizens they are supposed to protect. But with the very limited outcry over the taking of guns in New Orleans, its only a matter of time before the tool that kept us free in gone

jmshady
06-13-2006, 13:47
Originally posted by Horned Toad
Zarqawi thought he was following some kind of moral orders also. Its one thing for a soldier to go fight on foreign soil, I would think it would be quite another to use those same tactics here in the US against the citizens they are supposed to protect. But with the very limited outcry over the taking of guns in New Orleans, its only a matter of time before the tool that kept us free in gone

I am not saying that it would not make my stomach turn Ranger Horned Toad. I am saying that who the hell am I to question a lawful order. The courts struck down the ordinance in SF and they did the right thing. Maybe it was a bad analogy I do not know. As ong as someone is not ordering me to kill innocent civiliansor the like i do not have to agree but do have to follow the order.

fitz4609
06-14-2006, 18:36
Ok, you are not executing civilians so far so good.
Lets say the civilian govt says to destroy the radio station
and and start loading some of the disorderly types into box cars for transport to a camp.
You still OK with that?
Your a soldier and the SCOTUS will fiquire it all out later.
No decisions that you have to make? Personal decisions at that time in your presence?
Ray Nagin could lawfully make those orders. Right?

WIG19
06-15-2006, 06:06
The Code of Conduct applies to operations as well as captivity. You are obligated to obey the lawful orders of those appointed over you. You are not obligated to obey an order you know to be unlawful. Rather, you are obligated to report it. That's the theory.

None of the above gets you a pass on personal moral grounds for things like missing movement because you personally feel a conflict is "unlawful" - policy disagreements & the like - because there are other avenues for addressing those. However, absent martial law, 'nothing' pretty much said it for me. Many people stand mute for many things because they don't know the difference. It's important to educate Soldiers in all this; this business of being an American is tough and there are choices to make. I know that my civic compass is much more grounded now than it was 30+ years ago, and don't know how I would've responded then.

I know today that I would not let myself be used to conduct un-Constitutional repression of American citizens. If senior, I'd want to see some pretty hefty words from the SCOTUS embedded in the mission statement, because RoE need to define what my Soldiers do if some citizen (I don't know if he's law-abiding or not) stands at the front door of his home and politely refuses to surrender his hunting rifle. Avoiding My Lai isn't the issue; avoiding Kent State is. The situation in NOLA was simply & completely hosed.

:patriot:

Cav
06-15-2006, 11:07
O.K. lets say it like this:

As a Guard soldier you are told to disarm the local people. You follow the order, or argue it.

You say you dont want to take the weapons as its against the constitution.

Your NCO says that the Governer says is not a normal situation and people are being killed by these people running the streets with weapons. Do you follow the orders of the Governer, or what you think might be right?

The City you are working in also has a law that forbids weapons in the open on the streets, and this is what you are told you will be taking. Do you keep law and order in the city by helpng with enfocement of laws to save lifes, or what you think might be right?

Its one thing to storm an area and take guns for no reason, its another to follow lawfull orders in a time of declared disaster.

If you can not follow lawfull orders, you need to find out about Unit level justice durring time of activation.

WIG19
06-15-2006, 11:26
Originally posted by Cav
O.K. lets say it like this:

As a Guard soldier you are told to disarm the local people. You follow the order, or argue it.

You say you dont want to take the weapons as its against the constitution.

Your NCO says that the Governer says is not a normal situation and people are being killed by these people running the streets with weapons. Do you follow the orders of the Governer, or what you think might be right?

The City you are working in also has a law that forbids weapons in the open on the streets, and this is what you are told you will be taking. Do you keep law and order in the city by helpng with enfocement of laws to save lifes, or what you think might be right?

Its one thing to storm an area and take guns for no reason, its another to follow lawfull orders in a time of declared disaster.

If you can not follow lawfull orders, you need to find out about Unit level justice durring time of activation. To your credit, you're getting a bit more specific in terms of mission statement than threadstarter. ;)

jmshady
06-15-2006, 14:04
Originally posted by fitz4609
Ok, you are not executing civilians so far so good.
Lets say the civilian govt says to destroy the radio station
and and start loading some of the disorderly types into box cars for transport to a camp.
You still OK with that?
Your a soldier and the SCOTUS will fiquire it all out later.
No decisions that you have to make? Personal decisions at that time in your presence?
Ray Nagin could lawfully make those orders. Right?

Hell no, Ray Nagin cannot nor can any mayor make those policies and orders to military troops. You seem to me to be fishing here. Lay out what you are really asking and stop the what ifs.

Martial law is declared by the President only if I recall. Local and State goverment do not have that athourity. Besides if a Military unit is given the order then it has hit the fan more than likley. If you are worried about the Goverment deciding tomorrow to get rid of all guns you watch too many movies.

fitz4609
06-15-2006, 17:37
No, I'm not fishing. I am trying to find out where this generation of soldiers stands regarding disarming civilians.
About 15 years ago a Marine major conducted a poll of some 600 men. The question was along the line of; would you disarm US civilians?
The answer as reported in an issue of Soldier of Fortune magazine was and overwhelming NO.
Less than a year ago I watched the California Highway Patrol tackle an eldery woman while a squad of the Oklahoma National Guard stood and watch.
I understand there were exigent circumstances, but she was hardly running amok on the streets.
No I'm not worried about the government taking my guns away tomorrow, but in the coming years?

Cav
06-16-2006, 00:27
Originally posted by jmshady
Hell no, Ray Nagin cannot nor can any mayor make those policies and orders to military troops. You seem to me to be fishing here. Lay out what you are really asking and stop the what ifs.

Martial law is declared by the President only if I recall. Local and State goverment do not have that athourity. Besides if a Military unit is given the order then it has hit the fan more than likley. If you are worried about the Goverment deciding tomorrow to get rid of all guns you watch too many movies.

The thread starter said "LAWFUL ORDERS" he also said "GUARD" last I checked the National Guard fell under that states Govener unless you know more. The Governer calls and orders his troops. The Governer and Mayors can set there local laws when they need laws and can declair emergencies.

Look at California gun laws or your own city's for laws that are not from the federal government that you can go to jail for.

Posse Comitatus does not mean National Guard troops cant take action in the US.

td.trmntr
06-20-2006, 15:37
To: fitz4609

Have you ever served in the military? Since you are trying to pin down an answer from " the current generation of soldiers" I'm curious to know if you've ever worn a uniform. Are you possibly confusing soldiers with politicians? This is hardly the way to conduct a scientific poll. I don't like the tone of your questions. It reminds me of the late 60's when dope-head hippies hung out in airports and spit on servicemen returning from Vietnam because they wanted to protest the war. Soldiers follow their orders under the uniform code of military justice. Also, soldiers are not paid to listen to abuse thrown out by civilians. If you don't like what future administrations may or may not do about your gun rights, take it up with them. The fact that soldiers like us have bled and died for this country are the reason you have your rights in the first place.

Minuteman
06-20-2006, 16:22
This is why our Constitution requires civilian control over the military.

If the military defies the civilan orders, that is also unlawfull. Issuing unlawful orders is also a crime.

This is why it is so serious that the "police chief" in new orleans illegally declared martial law, and used that as an excuse to break more laws. He illegally declared himself a military power above civilan laws. He should have been arrested that day. He even tried to form a "tribunal" to "get" the officers who deserted.

He has yet to be arrested. That is very dangerous to our Republic for the reasons above.


:patriot:

jmshady
06-20-2006, 16:54
Originally posted by td.trmntr
To: fitz4609

Have you ever served in the military? Since you are trying to pin down an answer from " the current generation of soldiers" I'm curious to know if you've ever worn a uniform. Are you possibly confusing soldiers with politicians? This is hardly the way to conduct a scientific poll. I don't like the tone of your questions. It reminds me of the late 60's when dope-head hippies hung out in airports and spit on servicemen returning from Vietnam because they wanted to protest the war. Soldiers follow their orders under the uniform code of military justice. Also, soldiers are not paid to listen to abuse thrown out by civilians. If you don't like what future administrations may or may not do about your gun rights, take it up with them. The fact that soldiers like us have bled and died for this country are the reason you have your rights in the first place.

+1

After rereading your posts, there is something i feel needs to be addressed. I was a lowely NCO and I do not take orders from a Civilian authority. I take orders from my Chain of Command. And *******it anyone under me will carry out those orders or suffer the punishment. Your question would be one for Generals and the like. Any Soldier, you "nothing" that would not carry out the orders given needs to be beat down and discharged under a Bad Conduct discharge. Soldiers do not get to make policy just enforce it. In the case of the NG it is a bad day when they are called up as a "Police" force. Sometimes temporary conditions need to be met and that is life. No one is going to change the constitution over night so you can rest easy. If you do not like it, well you do live in a free country, you have the right to leave anytime you want. As for me I will continue to accept that those in charge will take the neccasary steps to preserve my freedom in the long run even if it means that for today things might be a little stricter.

JohnNC
06-28-2006, 05:29
Well, first off, we need to understand what is meant by "lawful order."

I have 19 years of active service, eight of them enlisted. As a commissioned officer, I have had four commands: two company commands and two Special Forces detachments. Just saying that to establish my credentials in the UCMJ department, and we are talking UCMJ. And it is the same UCMJ for all of us, Guard, Reserve, or Regular Army.

A soldier has the absolute obligation to obey any lawful order. An unlawful order is defined, in laymanīs terms, as an order that, if obeyed, would constitute a criminal act. In other words, I say, "Joe, go shoot that unarmed grandmother." If he obeys, it is clearly a murder. That is an unlawful order, and any reasonable person can see that. Joe has an absolute obligation to refuse that unlawful order.

But if I give an order that may or may not be outside my authority to give, but does not constitute a clear criminal act, Joe has to obey. I might be in the wrong, I will be held accountable, but this does NOT constitute an unlawful order.

The system is built this way to support military discipline and the chain of command, and to prevent every soldier from becoming a guardhouse lawyer. "Sir, you canīt tell me to do that. Legal precedence in US v Smedlap as well as Title whatever USC..." Maybe so, Joe, but not your call to decide. Shut up and do it.

So to answer the question above, that is a question to be decided WAY above any of our paygrades. If I received that order from competent military authority, I would be legally bound to obey it, as would we all.

I may not be as diligent in enforcing that order as I would be in obeying my other orders, I may find a way to passively resist that order (what do you expect from an SF guy) but refuse it outright? No way.

Now, donīt start flaming me as a gungrabber, please. I am a life member of the NRA and and definitely a "cold, dead fingers" guy in my private life. I am simply stating facts.

We donīt like all of our orders, we question them in private, but only in the most extreme circumstances are we allowed to disobey them. Have you guys seen that Lieutenant in the news who is refusing to deploy to Iraq because he says it is an illegal war? Well, it is the same legal principle involved. He (and in the above situation, we) donīt have the authority to make those decisions. Let the lawyers and the generals fight it out. Thatīs what they are there for.

Cav
06-28-2006, 11:06
Originally posted by jmshady
I was a lowely NCO and I do not take orders from a Civilian authority. I take orders from my Chain of Command. And *******it anyone under me will carry out those orders or suffer the punishment.


I guess you never worked in Iraq for OIF, or supported Rita/Katrina where orders came from Non Military "Civilians". Disobay them and your chain of command would use UCMJ on you. As a soldier you follow orders as long as they are not clearly criminal. If you dont agree with an order and dont follow it, then you are in violation and any action needed may be taken against you.

PS: look in a dictionary and see what makes a "Civilian".

jmshady
06-28-2006, 14:18
Originally posted by Cav
I guess you never worked in Iraq for OIF, or supported Rita/Katrina where orders came from Non Military "Civilians". Disobay them and your chain of command would use UCMJ on you. As a soldier you follow orders as long as they are not clearly criminal. If you dont agree with an order and dont follow it, then you are in violation and any action needed may be taken against you.

PS: look in a dictionary and see what makes a "Civilian".

I never once had a Civilian give me an order in Iraq. My Orders come from my Chain Of Command not a civilian. If it does not come from the appropiate military source it is not an order. I was never NG so I do not know how it works for them. Unless my Chain of command gives me an order to "work" for those civilians then they have no authority over me or my men. The Military is seperate from the civilian side for a reason.

fitz4609
06-29-2006, 19:37
Thank you John in NC for putting that in a way I could not.
Shoot unarmed Grandma = unlawful order easy
Disarm everyone on Elm street = difficult to determine at local level
My fear is that one day soon the avg Joe will not recognize burn the library, blow the radio station and disarm the civilians as fundamentally an illegal order.
And great to say sort it out later but with every civilian disarmed who will listen?
Any to the previous poster that questions my motives I can tell you that I did serve 79 to 83 RA, 83 to 89 NG, 89 to 92 USAF all honorable discharges. After Clinton's drawdowns and cut backs I went on to serve my country by going to places other health care providers would not consider. Indian reservations in east Mt, Immigration health in Ca and Federal Prisons.
I am not a Ranger, Green Beret, Seal, Spec Operator, or combat commando. Nor, do I pretend to be any of these things.
But I have served in the military and I have seen changes. I just wanted to have a little open dialouge on this issue.
By the way I have not seen any hippies in years.

JohnNC
06-30-2006, 04:55
Originally posted by fitz4609
Thank you John in NC for putting that in a way I could not.
Shoot unarmed Grandma = unlawful order easy
Disarm everyone on Elm street = difficult to determine at local level
My fear is that one day soon the avg Joe will not recognize burn the library, blow the radio station and disarm the civilians as fundamentally an illegal order.
And great to say sort it out later but with every civilian disarmed who will listen?

I can understand your concern, but I think you can rest easy on that one. Fundamentally, our guys really try hard to do what is right. He might not always be able to articulate it, but Joe knows right from wrong. Remember, we are the good guys. I canīt imagine any of our NCOīs going along with that, nor our junior officers. And I would think that if it came to such blatant Constitutional violations, our General officers would refuse to obey them.

Now, if you ordered us to sack the Clinton library, on the other hand.....;)

SW.FLA.glocker
07-06-2006, 14:51
After reading this thread I am now curious about something.

Now that the courts have deemed the actions in NOLA to be unjust and ordered the return of all seized firearms, could we not assume that it is reasonable for a soldier to know that an order to seize weapon in that same city(if it were to happen again)is an unlawful order. It seems to me that we should all know now where the courts stand if another Katrina type situation were to somehow hit NO again.

JohnNC
07-07-2006, 06:31
Well, you raise a really interesting issue. I would have to say, no, the individual soldier would not be right in disobeying. It goes back to my previous post as to what constitutes and unlawful order. Plus, remember that this Court decision came about after months of legal arguments by attorneys on both sides. Way above our level of legal expertise. Plus, it would have to be the exact same circumstances, exact same orders, etc. etc.

However, at the senior officer level, where they are interfacing with the civilian authorities, I would expect this issue to be addressed and solved before it ever got to the Joe level. If I were that senior officer, something like, "Mr. Mayor, It seems to me that there is clear legal precedent that you are asking me to exceed my legal authories, I'm going to have to respectfully decline your request and you, sir, may get bent." Or words to that effect.

But we could go on hypothetically all day.

SW.FLA.glocker
07-07-2006, 07:28
I only raised the question because it is common knowledge that several states are passing laws that now prohibit the disarming of citizens during an emergency situation. If it is COMMON knowledge then it would seem to not be unreasonable for an average Joe to know this, especialy if he is operating in his own state.

I am not claiming to know the answers here. I am just playing Devils advocate, if you will.

25May
07-19-2006, 23:47
Originally posted by SW.FLA.glocker
I only raised the question because it is common knowledge that several states are passing laws that now prohibit the disarming of citizens during an emergency situation.

You're on to a brilliant idea! What if enlisted men and officers were instructed in their training that a blanket order to disarm all American civilians IS an unlawful order, just as unlawful as "shoot that innocent grandmother"

Is it feasible that somebody in the Pentagon or Congress would introduce something to support this?

Ritchie
07-20-2006, 02:35
some say if the city has a law against guns in the street then they would follow that order.


2nd ammendment was made for a reason.

Those cities with those laws are going against the constitution.
Going against the constitution means they are against the constitution.
against the constitution means they are an enemy of the constitution.


Protect the constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.

series1811
07-24-2006, 17:48
Originally posted by fitz4609
This is for the National Guardsmen primarily.
Would you assist in disarming US civilians after a flood or tornado or hurricane?

Well, it's nice to know that they don't just come over to Coptalk.

Sgt_Gold
07-28-2006, 18:41
Not an issue anymore. HR5013 passed the US House and the Vitter amendment passed in the US Senate.

RockSix
08-02-2006, 14:28
"These are not the droids you are looking for," No report means nothing happened or occurred, this neighborhood is "clean"

fitz4609
08-02-2006, 19:10
Originally posted by series1811
Well, it's nice to know that they don't just come over to Coptalk.

Ouch, that hurt Series1811
I quess after 4 years regular Army, 6 years National Guard, 5 years as an Air Force Officer and the last 7 years working in a Federal Prison I am still one of THEM.
Some things are fundamentally right or wrong, and our soldiers disarming our citizens is wrong.
This should be taught in basic training.

SW.FLA.glocker
08-02-2006, 19:19
:laughabove: +1

AngerManagement
10-21-2006, 13:15
Originally posted by JohnNC
I can understand your concern, but I think you can rest easy on that one. Fundamentally, our guys really try hard to do what is right. He might not always be able to articulate it, but Joe knows right from wrong. Remember, we are the good guys. I canīt imagine any of our NCOīs going along with that, nor our junior officers. And I would think that if it came to such blatant Constitutional violations, our General officers would refuse to obey them.

I wish I had your confidence, but history tells me different(Bonus Army marchers, Kent State, now this). The military is for fighting wars not acting as peace officers.

Vincep
10-21-2006, 21:33
Originally posted by jmshady
If you are worried about the Goverment deciding tomorrow to get rid of all guns you watch too many movies.

Speaking of movies, watch this clip(along with the others on the site). If it can happen in New Orlines, it can happen anywhere and everywhere in the United States.


http://www.givethemback.com/pages/disarmed


http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=605316

jmshady
10-21-2006, 23:26
Originally posted by Vincep
Speaking of movies, watch this clip(along with the others on the site). If it can happen in New Orlines, it can happen anywhere and everywhere in the United States.


http://www.givethemback.com/pages/disarmed


http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=605316

Watched it all, and I still stand by my comment. The federal court system issued an order to return the weapons. So I see it as a red tape bs situation. The mayor and police chief did not have the right to take the weapons. And I still say it is not up to the foot Soldier to make a decision on wether that is a lawful order or not. And I never saw a NG Soldier taking a weapon. Bottom line, as a soldier unless you are th JAG advisor you follow these orders as long as it does not violate the Geneava Convention and laws of war.

As far as the woman that came up holding the weapon. You do not do that with Police present. If you were argueing with someone and they pulled out a gun no matter how it is done would you not react in some way?

SW.FLA.glocker
10-22-2006, 00:11
Originally posted by jmshady
Watched it all, and I still stand by my comment. The federal court system issued an order to return the weapons. So I see it as a red tape bs situation. The mayor and police chief did not have the right to take the weapons. And I still say it is not up to the foot Soldier to make a decision on wether that is a lawful order or not. And I never saw a NG Soldier taking a weapon. Bottom line, as a soldier unless you are th JAG advisor you follow these orders as long as it does not violate the Geneava Convention and laws of war.

As far as the woman that came up holding the weapon. You do not do that with Police present. If you were argueing with someone and they pulled out a gun no matter how it is done would you not react in some way?

I suggest you try and find the entire video. The woman WAS TOLD BY THE POLICE TO SHOW THEM THE WEAPON. She did just that, and held the weapon upside down in the palm of her hand. She spent quite a bit of time talking to them with the pistol in her hand and they were clearly not threatened by it.

It has been a while since I have seen the entire event but I am pretty sure that in this particular instance they were not there to disarm her but rather to force her to evacuate. The disarming became secondary to removing her. Of course the order by the Chief of Police was in affect at the time so they may have had dual motivations.

Mnukedude
10-22-2006, 10:47
Originally posted by JohnNC
Well, you raise a really interesting issue. I would have to say, no, the individual soldier would not be right in disobeying. It goes back to my previous post as to what constitutes and unlawful order. Plus, remember that this Court decision came about after months of legal arguments by attorneys on both sides. Way above our level of legal expertise. Plus, it would have to be the exact same circumstances, exact same orders, etc. etc.

However, at the senior officer level, where they are interfacing with the civilian authorities, I would expect this issue to be addressed and solved before it ever got to the Joe level. If I were that senior officer, something like, "Mr. Mayor, It seems to me that there is clear legal precedent that you are asking me to exceed my legal authories, I'm going to have to respectfully decline your request and you, sir, may get bent." Or words to that effect.

But we could go on hypothetically all day.

A practical problem I see in executing the order to take the LAW ABIDING citizen's weapons and sort it out later is the red tape situation someone else referred to. Although the courts have ordered the city of New Orleans to return the illegally seized property, they have not done so, and will not do so. It is in order to prevent this that they have established unreasonable (under the circumstances) documentary requirements for the weapons' return. In effect, the court's decision that the seizure was illegal has been made void, by the personal decision of the NOLA leadership.

The decision to take the weapons then, like shooting the grandma, is irrevocable. The harm that some of these civilians may have suffered by thugs later as a result of being disarmed may also be irrevocable.

IMHO, NOLA must be forced if not to return the weapons immediately, be ordered for so long as they wish to use red tape to retain them, to assure that the citizen's property be properly cared for so that it does not deteriorate in the damp closet they are no doubt gleefully watching them rust in. I say make them hire a gunsmith to provide each weapon his personal attention with regular cleaning and repair of any deterioration like rust or wood rot. Furthermore, the weapons should be stored in an actual climate controlled arms room, not a trailer or closet somewhere. At some point the expense of keeping these weapoons illegally wil either annoy the NOLA leadership into giving them back, or outrage the citizenry for wasting money on this project until they are forced to hand them back.

callahan318
10-26-2006, 12:13
-This is for the National Guardsmen primarily. Would you assist in disarming US civillians after a flood or tornado or hurricane?

Simply put, I would follow orders unless given an unlawful one. Concerning Katrina- in my opinion that was unlawful. I do not believe that the police had ANY rights to do so. I believe what is more telling is that not only were these people not criminals, but they were law abiding citizens. Soldiers are taught to obey orders, but they are taught to think as well. This is one of those times when they should have thought, and high level commanders should have asked questions.

Personally, I would not **** on the 2nd ammendment. I took an oath to uphold the constitution of the United States of America, and that it exactly what I intend to do. I think the thinks that happened down there were wrong and the people got shafted.

PS- Know you rights and responsibilities! I cannot stress this enough. I am studying to be an attorney, and this has got to be one of the most important things we are taught.

Furthermore, I understand where EVERYONE is comming from. It is an issue of legal, moral, and ethical responsibilities. Making the right call is not easy.

Bren
10-26-2006, 20:59
Originally posted by callahan318 Simply put, I would follow orders unless given an unlawful one. Concerning Katrina- in my opinion that was unlawful. I do not believe that the police had ANY rights to do so. I believe what is more telling is that not only were these people not criminals, but they were law abiding citizens. Soldiers are taught to obey orders, but they are taught to think as well. This is one of those times when they should have thought, and high level commanders should have asked questions.[/B]
OK, who gets to decide if it's a lawful order? The individual soldier? Every soldier individually decides not to follow orders based on his own interpretation of the constitution and relevant statutes? Katrina for instance - the state had a statute that authorized the gun confiscation; the governor made the required disaster declaration; the courts have (a) not determined that the second amendment would ever prohibit that confiscation and for sure (b) not decided that the gun confiscation during a declared disaster was not a compelling governmental interest that would justify taking guns even if the second amendment had been determined to be a fundamental, individual constitutional right. Plenty of people want to say soldiers shouldn't have followed the "illegal" order, but none of them even have a legal explanation about why it was "illegal."

Now imagine every soldier in the Army deciding that his wild guess at the real meaning law that the supreme court hasn't even sorted out yet is a good enough reason to disobey an order.

Vincep
10-26-2006, 21:22
All i can say, by reading some of the above posts ,is that we live in a police state where the constitution and second amendment mean nothing. The best thing Law Abiding Americans can do is to hide your guns in as many different locations as you can. That way, the knuckleheads following orders can't get them all. I know several people personally who had guns, ammunition ,mags seized because of the actions of others and none of them got ALL their stuff back. This is because things disapeared(were stolen)while in police custody.

Bren
11-04-2006, 19:25
Originally posted by Vincep
All i can say, by reading some of the above posts ,is that we live in a police state where the constitution and second amendment mean nothing.
Just because the second amendment may not mean what you think it means doesn't mean it means nothing. You seem to assume that (a) the second amendment is a fundamental individual right and (b) if it is the government can't do anything to infringe on gun possession. I believe you are right, as far as what the constitution should be, but the existance of everything from the NFA to the GCA of 1968 should tell you that it has not yet been viewed that way as a matter of law and, even if it is recognized as a fundamental individual right, that doesn't mean the government can't ever take guns, just like the fundamental rights to free speech or religion or interstate travel, etc., can be infringed where the govenrment has a sufficiently compelling interest. At what point does this become an issue for the average PFC to decide on his own when he's given an order? Will we require a particular GT score or a high school diploma for the soldiers that get to decide that on their own? A country full of judges and lawyers haven't quite worked it out and, even if they do, it isn't going to work out as a 100% inviolable right, like you seem to think, since we don't have 100% inviolable rights in this country. Sounds to me like your view is that soldiers should disobey lawful orders they disagree with personally, rather than unlawful orders.

Vincep
11-04-2006, 21:23
Like i said, the best thing for law abiding people to do is to take measures to help prevent their guns from getting taken in the first place. Never keep them all in one location and take measures to hide at least some of them. That way, whatever interpretation is applied to the second amendment, you'll have the means to defend yourself and your loved ones.

Don't keep all your eggs in one basket.