Would you help round up guns?

[Paletiger13]

I hope some of you LEO's would truely hold the Constitution in regards. Im just sayin'. I like you guys and all, but my guns are in the right place. Anyone heard of the "North American Treaty"? Youtube it. Its scary as hell and LEOs should be on our side if anything. Talk about homeland security, above mentioned is very scary.

[Guest GMCS(SW)]

I didn't spend 20 years defending the Constitution to rip it up now. Not only No but H_LL NO!!

[Guest bang-flash]

i think the proper name is the north american union. with the amerigo as the currency as choice.

i truly hope we never come to the day when the us military is used against its own citizens. but the writing is on the wall. detention camps, fema, homeland security. it bothers me tremendously that our government has steadily taken our rights, as granted by the constitution and the b.o.r., but most of the populace is oblivious as to just how bad it really is. i just hope that those that took an oath to uphold the constitution do so with their own free will. and not follow the orders of some neo-fascist leader to consolidate the elist powers.

[Guest cstandi]

My commission would disappear pretty damned quick if they asked me to do that.

[Guest HogMan]

Yea right, I hope do.:censored::censored:I sure hope that answers your question.

[The Rabbi]

I just love threads like this. Gives the keyboard kommandos something to sound off about.

Let's start with the impossibility of it happening. It ain't gonna. OK? Is that clear? I'll bet money to anyone on this board on that.

Second, let's get the LE perspective. I notice no LE's have responded. Law enforcement does not tend to recruit from the ranks of philosophy majors. They aren't into deep consideration of the morals or ethics of a particular law. That's OK by me, incidentally.

Law enforcement officers are sworn to uphold the law. If a bill is passed by the legislature and signed by the executive (or otherwise not stopped) then it's the law of the land. Anyone seeking to violate the law of the land is a domestic enemy. So the military types better rethink their oath.

LE's generally take the mindset that they are there to enforce the law. It's actual legality is not really a concern. There were no LEs I am aware of who even questioned the order to confiscate in New Orleans, much less refused it. There might have been one but there was no resistance at all. And there were no LE's who enforced the order who suffered sanctions of any kind, despite the fact that the order was a clear violation of Louisiana's state constitution and an over-reach of authority by the mayor. LEs just don't sit around and decide whether a particular law is legal or not, that is a court's job to decide. So don't count on your local Officer Friendly to let you off.

Gun owners are a pretty law-abiding sort. That's a good thing. But it is nothing short of amazing to see people going beyond what the law actually requires. Witness the idiotic document for use between two private parties available elsewhere on this site. The document has no legal authority whatsoever. No law mandates its use. Anyone lying on it is not subject to any sanctions at all. It confers no protection on either the buyer or seller. And yet some people here insist on it.

Or the people who will not do a face to face private sale between people from contiguous states. Despite the fact that there is virtually no way for law enforcement to discover it and to my knowledge no one has been prosecuted for it.

Or the people who insist on complying with the minimum parts requirements on foreign-made parts kits, despite the fact that the law in unenforceable and, again to my knowledge, no one has ever been prosecuted for it.

So now these same people are going to become paragons of civil disobedience and armed resistance? Gimmeabreak!

No, when there is a knock at the door and Mr. JBT is there with a warrant to search for guns, everyone here is going to look at his wife/kids and the possibility of either certain death or time in the slammer and tell the good officer whatever he wants to know. I know that doesn't make good internet reading and is less exciting than a Rambo-style blaze of glory. But that's the reality.

I personally have no problem with martyrdom, but it's sure not going to be over a gun.

[Guest Mugster]

+1

Police have family to support too, most of them. They'll do what they are told or lose their house and go hungry. If you think otherwise you're living in a dreamworld. A few idealists might quit. Probably not many.

[Paletiger13]

That hurt.lol Im not giving what I paid taxes on period.

You think if the US Government would allow imported rifles and pistols into the United States, that it would boost the economy? Of course attach a tax to it so they could get their piece of the pie. Anyone wanna start a petition?

[Guest cstandi]

Well my oath is to defend the constitution, when they start violating the bill of so blatantly I would seriously consider resigning.

[Im Neero]

I don't know about you Rabbi, but as long as the tooth fairy and cookie monster are still around, no one is gonna take away my rights.

[Guest jackdog]

Law enforcement officers are sworn to uphold the law. If a bill is passed by the legislature and signed by the executive (or otherwise not stopped) then it's the law of the land. Anyone seeking to violate the law of the land is a domestic enemy. So the military types better rethink their oath.

Rabbi I doubt that you ever took the oath, but I did. the oath you refer to is to uphold the constitution of the United states not the elected officials. Should this elected government break their oath to the constitution and violate that same constitution then they by defintion become the domestic enemies that are part of my oath.

[Paletiger13]

Yeah, it was North American Union. Scary though.

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi I doubt that you ever took the oath, but I did. the oath you refer to is to uphold the constitution of the United states not the elected officials. Should this elected government break their oath to the constitution and violate that same constitution then they by defintion become the domestic enemies that are part of my oath.

And who determines what the Constitution means? You? I think not.

[Guest ETS_Inc]

Rabbi I doubt that you ever took the oath, but I did. the oath you refer to is to uphold the constitution of the United states not the elected officials. Should this elected government break their oath to the constitution and violate that same constitution then they by defintion become the domestic enemies that are part of my oath.

"I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support or defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Not only did we swear to uphold to defend the Constitution, we also swore to obey the orders of those appointed above us. If the Legislative branch passes a law outlawing weapons, the Judicial branch finds that the law is Constitutional, and the Executive branch orders the military to round up weapons, guess what? It's a lawful order, which military personnel would be duty-bound to obey.

Now, do I believe that such a law would be passed? No, at least not on a large scale. I can see limited attempts to do it, such as post-Katrina New Orleans, but I highly doubt there'd ever be an attempt to do it on a national level. Politicians might be as crooked as a a Sidewinders trail, but the majority of them do support the Constitution and know that attempting to round0-up guns would be the death-knell of their political careers, if not the country as a whole.

[DaveTN]

Well… since the question was posed to inflame; let me throw a little gas on the fire.

<O:p</O:p

LEO’s follow lawful orders or they are fired. Military men follow lawful orders or they can go to prison. Neither is a place for anyone that can’t tell a lawful order from an unlawful order; and it’s not a place for someone that can’t make a decision or wants to have a vote after they determine the order is lawful.

<O:p</O:p

If you do not have a job where you would ever be in the position to disarm someone I guess the proper response would be to start flag waving, rambling something about the Constitution, or start claiming that you would never commit such a dastardly deed.

<O:p</O:p

Going door to door collecting guns will never happen. Disarming citizens would be illegal; it would be a crime. It would be a crime because it is specifically addressed by the Tennessee State Constitution, by state law, and by the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution. But sorry… there is no 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment issue here.

I have been both Military and a LEO. If given a lawful order I would obey it without question.

[The Rabbi]

It was just as illegal in NOLA and that didnt stop the JBTs from carrying it out.

But you confirm my point that probably few to no LEs would hesitate if given the order. It's their job.

Ours is making sure it never comes to that.

[Im Neero]

From Catch 22 by Joseph Heller

"Catch-22," Doc Daneeka answered patiently, when Hungry Joe had flown Yossarian back to Pianosa, "says you've always got to do what your commanding officer tells you to."

"But Twenty-seventh Air Force says I can go home with forty missions."

"But they don't say you have to go home. And regulations do say you have to obey every order. That's the catch. Even if the colonel were disobeying a Twenty-seventh Air Force order by making you fly more missions, you'd still have to fly them, or you'd be guilty of disobeying an order of his. And then Twenty-seventh Air Force Headquarters would really jump on you."

:sigh:

It's sad because it's true.

[K191145]

It was just as illegal in NOLA and that didnt stop the JBTs from carrying it out.

But you confirm my point that probably few to no LEs would hesitate if given the order. It's their job.

Ours is making sure it never comes to that.

I had thought about that then I also thought about N.O. being a liberal city with a history of crooked LEOs. Also I believe there were volunteer cops from different states like California that were confiscating guns.

Never heard anything about gun confiscations in the rural areas and in Mississippi, I don't believe the rural folk would have tolerated it so easily as the city folk did.

[sigmtnman]

Well… since the question was posed to inflame; let me throw a little gas on the fire.

That was not my intention. My intention was to get a feel as to what folks felt they would do.

It happened in NOLA and it could happen again anywhere.

[K191145]

That was not my intention. My intention was to get a feel as to what folks felt they would do.

It happened in NOLA and it could happen again anywhere.

I know a few rural country cops and I don't think they would do it. I think it's location.

[molonlabetn]

Urban areas would be screwed, undoubtedly... But the rural areas would be impossible to comb for firearms in a forced confiscation.

[Guest canynracer]

ummmm....nobody lives here.....

[Im Neero]

ROFLMAO!

Best smiley ever!

[Mike.357]

so if we have a law now that specifically states guns cannot be rounded up in times of emergency how would Johnny Law get to do this? wouldn't any command to do that be in direct violation of the laws they are sworn to uphold?

[sigmtnman]

so if we have a law now that specifically states guns cannot be rounded up in times of emergency how would Johnny Law get to do this? wouldn't any command to do that be in direct violation of the laws they are sworn to uphold?

I believe the war for states rights made it clear, that is not the case with state laws. The federal government does not have to pay any attention to them.