A lot of what you get out of the local law enforcement, if given an unconstitutional order, will be determined by their personal viewpoints and their geographic location. If you follow the threads in other sub-forums, you may have seen one posted by a GT LEO. He posted about speaking with a cop from another jurisdiction where the carry laws changed, for the better. The cop from that jurisdiction thought felony car stops were necessary because of the "liklihood" the occupants of the vehicle would be armed. It was generally agreed that cop needed a refresher in officer safety; all contacts have the possibility of being armed, whether legal, or not.
Yes, some LEO's would follow unconstitutionl orders. Some are bad cops already. It sucks, but no category of people is pefect. We're trying to weed out the bad ones, presently.
In my area, I know most of the guys very well. If such orders come, we will all have been victim to an unfortunate boating accident. Cops in places where guns are seen as "evil" may not react that way; many may not even own a personally owned weapon. Everyone at my agency has more than one personlly owned firearm. Most of us have a couple
Don't think, for a moment, that discretion is not practiced regulalry in regard to laws that individual officers do not agree with. For example, I know a few LEO's who believe requiring seat belts for adults (espcially, riding alone) is not a decision to be made by the government. If they happen to let every adult go, ustopped and uncited, no one knows but the LEO. No different than the earlier citing of how many Katrina affected LEO's disregarded the order to disarm citizens. You have no way of knowing how many don't follow the unlawful orders, yet you keep repeating about those who have.
I have written all of my representatives, and some who aren't technically mine, personal letters. I have offered ride-a-longs to law makers, in attempt to show them what has been successful and unsuccessful. To date, only one has said she would go, but hasn't made it out, yet.
I take people shooting, who would otherwise not have the opportunity. I have been with many people when they "fired their first shot". Many of the men I work with can say the same.
I know, if orders come down from the Federal Government, or wherever, to confiscate firearms from otherwise law-abiding citizens, my Sheriff will oppose them. My coworkers will oppose them. If they cannot be officially opposed, searches will turn up nothing. Known "offenders" will be bypassed. Like the example given, this is already occurring. I hardly write any citations sans custodial arrest. Why? The fines and court costs, combined, have become too expensive. The punishment doesn't fit the crime.
You may be thinking, they'll just find soemone who will. Not on a local level, they won't. They can't. It takes a lot of time and money to train a new recruit. Even then, you don't know what you're getting until after you get it.
I may keep my job, even in the face of disagreeable orders to know that someone who would "oppress" can't do it in my stead. You say it's chasing a pension. I ask why you'd rather have me replaced with what you fear.