Confiscation by WHO?

[mikegideon]

Looks like it may be up to the bedwetters themselves. It could be downright entertaining. Lots of soiled panties :)

 

http://www.americancopmagazine.com/will-you-do-it/

[G27ATT]

Oh that crazy little Omar and the ones who feed him. Entertaining at least. Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2

[Guest bkelm18]

Damn. Little Omar got owned.

[mikegideon]

Little Omar deserved every bit of it.

[BryanP]

Little Omar deserved every bit of it.

 

He got what he was looking for - attention.  He's just another troll.

[Moped]

Little Omar and James Wilford that responded later are good examples of why good people don't trust LEOs.  I sure hope they are a Minority within the LE community.  Actually, I hope neither is a real officer!  Statements like they both made, are extremely scary!!!

[Guest TnRebel]

Omar needs to read the " Dick Act of 1902 "

[mikegideon]

Omar needs to read the " Dick Act of 1902 "

Omar probably sent that from his mom's basement. If he is real, I figure he's in for rough times.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There will always be "Omars" and they will be the first to fall over. Instead of LEO's, I'd say most of the "Omars"

work for the Feds, but not in the Military. Most of the local cops I have ever met don't seem to fit his category.

May be a few out there who wanted to be a cop for the "power", but I haven't met any, thankfully.

[m16ty]

Both sides talk a good game. I think there's a lot more cops that will do it than will admit publicly and I think there's a lot more people that will turn their guns in than will admit it. Another thing to think about is that if a cop refuses, about all he stands to loose is his job. If the military is called upon to do this and refuses, they can face a court martial.

 

Look a Katrina. Did you hear of any LE refusing to confisate guns? As far as I know all that was given that order followed it.

[RichardR]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="m16ty" data-cid="868257" data-time="1356416935"><p>
Both sides talk a good game. I think there's a lot more cops that will do it than will admit publicly and I think there's a lot more people that will turn their guns in than will admit it. Another thing to think about is that if a cop refuses, about all he stands to loose is his job. If the military is called upon to do this and refuses, they can face a court martial.<br />
<br />
Look a Katrina. Did you hear of any LE refusing to confisate guns? As far as I know all that was given that order followed it.</p></blockquote>

Agreed.

But let's hope & pray that the day never comes in which we find out for certain.

[daddyo]

Problem is, we don't know who's an "Omar", and who's not. I have to admit that I have become distrustful of law enforcement. I know there's a lot of good ones out there, but even they can become misguided and not fully understand a citizen's individual, constitutional rights.

 

I know some LEOs, and I have never asked them the question posed here. I would like to think that they would not go against the Constitution, but if it comes right down to it, I'm not really sure.

Edited December 25, 2012 by DaddyO

[Dolomite_supafly]

NOLA PD has no problem breaking the law by confiscating guns or looting. They are a very, very corrupt department and that is becuse they start their officers out at such a ridiculously lower wage.

 

Coming from a LE background I can say that the MAJORITY of officers would seize guns if ordered to do so and given a justification for doing so. Very few officers would risk, at least initially, their job by refusing an order providing they the order was approved by a superior. Even the good officers would go along with it in the begining. That is until the officers start getting hurt or killed then they would start refusing but not out of some moral obligation or the Constitution. They would not take the moral high ground until it was convenient or popular.

 

If it comes down to firearms being outlawed I do not see any group going door to door. That would be too dangerous, to overt and to overwhelming for the public to stand for it. I see them getting a search warrant on a case by case basis and serving them. This would make the officer feel as though we are the ones breaking the law and give them the feeling that they are doing the right thing. This would give them the piece of mind to serve a search warrant and seize weapons. And after a few dozen people, and their families, have been arrested people are going to be begging to turn their guns in to prevent a search warrant being served on them. They will offer a reward to those willing to turn in their neighbors for having a firearm., even if done annonymously.

 

And all of this will be done as low key as possible and incrementally. You will see it on the news, "a man was arrested today for having illegal firearms". And people will think it was great that LE got another criminal, that is until their name comes up on the list of warrants to be issued.

 

Dolomite

Edited December 25, 2012 by Dolomite_supafly

[Worriedman]

NOLA PD has no problem breaking the law by confiscating guns or looting. They are a very, very corrupt department and that is becuse they start their officers out at such a ridiculously lower wage.

 

Coming from a LE background I can say that the MAJORITY of officers would seize guns if ordered to do so and given a justification for doing so. Very few officers would risk, at least initially, their job by refusing an order providing they the order was approved by a superior. Even the good officers would go along with it in the begining. That is until the officers start getting hurt or killed then they would start refusing but not out of some moral obligation or the Constitution. They would not take the moral high ground until it was convenient or popular.

 

If it comes down to firearms being outlawed I do not see any group going door to door. That would be too dangerous, to overt and to overwhelming for the public to stand for it. I see them getting a search warrant on a case by case basis and serving them. This would make the officer feel as though we are the ones breaking the law and give them the feeling that they are doing the right thing. This would give them the piece of mind to serve a search warrant and seize weapons. And after a few dozen people, and their families, have been arrested people are going to be begging to turn their guns in to prevent a search warrant being served on them. They will offer a reward to those willing to turn in their neighbors for having a firearm., even if done annonymously.

 

And all of this will be done as low key as possible and incrementally. You will see it on the news, "a man was arrested today for having illegal firearms". And people will think it was great that LE got another criminal, that is until their name comes up on the list of warrants to be issued.

 

Dolomite

I think you are dead right on this Dolomite.

[NRA]

I would resign and think most others would do the same.

[NRA]

Both sides talk a good game. I think there's a lot more cops that will do it than will admit publicly and I think there's a lot more people that will turn their guns in than will admit it. Another thing to think about is that if a cop refuses, about all he stands to loose is his job. If the military is called upon to do this and refuses, they can face a court martial.

 

Look a Katrina. Did you hear of any LE refusing to confisate guns? As far as I know all that was given that order followed it.

Good point I think it would be the Military

[Guest 6.8 AR]

NOLA PD has no problem breaking the law by confiscating guns or looting. They are a very, very corrupt department and that is becuse they start their officers out at such a ridiculously lower wage.

 

Coming from a LE background I can say that the MAJORITY of officers would seize guns if ordered to do so and given a justification for doing so. Very few officers would risk, at least initially, their job by refusing an order providing they the order was approved by a superior. Even the good officers would go along with it in the begining. That is until the officers start getting hurt or killed then they would start refusing but not out of some moral obligation or the Constitution. They would not take the moral high ground until it was convenient or popular.

 

If it comes down to firearms being outlawed I do not see any group going door to door. That would be too dangerous, to overt and to overwhelming for the public to stand for it. I see them getting a search warrant on a case by case basis and serving them. This would make the officer feel as though we are the ones breaking the law and give them the feeling that they are doing the right thing. This would give them the piece of mind to serve a search warrant and seize weapons. And after a few dozen people, and their families, have been arrested people are going to be begging to turn their guns in to prevent a search warrant being served on them. They will offer a reward to those willing to turn in their neighbors for having a firearm., even if done annonymously.

 

And all of this will be done as low key as possible and incrementally. You will see it on the news, "a man was arrested today for having illegal firearms". And people will think it was great that LE got another criminal, that is until their name comes up on the list of warrants to be issued.

 

Dolomite

Gordon, Don't you think that after getting several warrants, which would be unlawful, and serving them on peaceful,

otherwise law abiding people, their morale would start to crumble, knowing they would be doing something wrong? I

would hate to think they would, especially if they had to expend the resources for such a small gain, or reason. Sure,

there would be some, but I bet it wouldn't last long. Even the dumbest cop would figure it out pretty fast, especially

if someone got hurt, either side. I wouldn't want to see anyone get hurt, but that is the reason for having the gun in

the first place:protection.

Have we caved that much in society to allow a Constitutional amendment to be run roughshod over us?

[Dolomite_supafly]

Gordon, Don't you think that after getting several warrants, which would be unlawful, and serving them on peaceful,

otherwise law abiding people, their morale would start to crumble, knowing they would be doing something wrong? I

would hate to think they would, especially if they had to expend the resources for such a small gain, or reason. Sure,

there would be some, but I bet it wouldn't last long. Even the dumbest cop would figure it out pretty fast, especially

if someone got hurt, either side. I wouldn't want to see anyone get hurt, but that is the reason for having the gun in

the first place:protection.

Have we caved that much in society to allow a Constitutional amendment to be run roughshod over us?

 

Even if you know  with100% certainty the warrant or arrest is illegal you cannot legally use a firearm against a LE officer to resist or prevent the arrest. As a matter of fact you cannot legally resist any arrest, even an illegal or unlawful one. That has been proven time and time again in court cases. There are even cases where the officers are at the wrong address and the homeowner shoots them. In those cases the homeowner is almost always charged with a crime but if the officer returns fire and kills the homeowner the officer is rarely held responsible criminally. And in most cases the jurisdication pays the civil penalties and passes it onto the taxpayers. If you believe you were arrested illegally you will have to appeal to the courts, after the fact, for a redress. There is one state that passed a law that allows a citizens to resist unlawful detention but only one state in 50.

 

It is not the officer that determines whether a warrant is valid. An officer submits his justification then a judge or commissioner determines whether there is enough evidence to support a warrant or not. And in a lot of cases the officer serving the warrant is not the officer or administrative personnel that had applied for the warrant. There are sections within most depertments where the officer's only job is to serve warrants. And in most cases those officers have no prior knowledge of the warrant or any investigation. But because the the officer does have a warrant in hand they are assuming the warrant is legal and honestly how would they know whether it is or not with no prior knowledge. And that is not a hit on the officer but a hit against the administration that approved a warrant. In the eyes of almost every LE a warrant makes what they are doing both legal and justified. This isn't to say officers are all bad, because they are not. Just saying the administration that allows this to happen is bad.

 

 

I am just saying that if an officer is handed a warrant signed by a judge they would follow the judge's order. Now if they were ordered to go door to door to confiscate weapons I do not believe a lot of officers would do that because that is too much too soon. But doing it under the guise of a legally signed warrant they would.

 

As far as the cost I believe the feds would step in with additional funding like they do now for gang related violence and to combat drugs. It would just be used for firearms.

 

But in the end if an officer was handed a warrant to search a residence for firearms they would.

 

Dolomite

[Moped]

NOLA PD has no problem breaking the law by confiscating guns or looting. They are a very, very corrupt department and that is becuse they start their officers out at such a ridiculously lower wage.

 

Coming from a LE background I can say that the MAJORITY of officers would seize guns if ordered to do so and given a justification for doing so. Very few officers would risk, at least initially, their job by refusing an order providing they the order was approved by a superior. Even the good officers would go along with it in the begining. That is until the officers start getting hurt or killed then they would start refusing but not out of some moral obligation or the Constitution. They would not take the moral high ground until it was convenient or popular.

 

If it comes down to firearms being outlawed I do not see any group going door to door. That would be too dangerous, to overt and to overwhelming for the public to stand for it. I see them getting a search warrant on a case by case basis and serving them. This would make the officer feel as though we are the ones breaking the law and give them the feeling that they are doing the right thing. This would give them the piece of mind to serve a search warrant and seize weapons. And after a few dozen people, and their families, have been arrested people are going to be begging to turn their guns in to prevent a search warrant being served on them. They will offer a reward to those willing to turn in their neighbors for having a firearm., even if done annonymously.

 

And all of this will be done as low key as possible and incrementally. You will see it on the news, "a man was arrested today for having illegal firearms". And people will think it was great that LE got another criminal, that is until their name comes up on the list of warrants to be issued.

 

Dolomite

This is what worries and scares me.  When or if this happens, this is what it will be like.  The Evil doers will hid behind the law and send good men and women after good men and women.  In the end, is there really a way out of all this?  It seems at some point we will all be "criminals" in the eyes of the Government.  If not this time, then the next time gun control comes up, or the next time. 

Edited December 25, 2012 by Moped

[Guest The Dude]

NOLA PD has no problem breaking the law by confiscating guns or looting. They are a very, very corrupt department and that is becuse they start their officers out at such a ridiculously lower wage.

 

Coming from a LE background I can say that the MAJORITY of officers would seize guns if ordered to do so and given a justification for doing so. Very few officers would risk, at least initially, their job by refusing an order providing they the order was approved by a superior. Even the good officers would go along with it in the begining. That is until the officers start getting hurt or killed then they would start refusing but not out of some moral obligation or the Constitution. They would not take the moral high ground until it was convenient or popular.

 

If it comes down to firearms being outlawed I do not see any group going door to door. That would be too dangerous, to overt and to overwhelming for the public to stand for it. I see them getting a search warrant on a case by case basis and serving them. This would make the officer feel as though we are the ones breaking the law and give them the feeling that they are doing the right thing. This would give them the piece of mind to serve a search warrant and seize weapons. And after a few dozen people, and their families, have been arrested people are going to be begging to turn their guns in to prevent a search warrant being served on them. They will offer a reward to those willing to turn in their neighbors for having a firearm., even if done annonymously.

 

And all of this will be done as low key as possible and incrementally. You will see it on the news, "a man was arrested today for having illegal firearms". And people will think it was great that LE got another criminal, that is until their name comes up on the list of warrants to be issued.

 

Dolomite

I dont know Dolomite. I dont feel it would last very long before you'd start seeing news casts of people fighting back. The British thought they had a legal right to disarm us as well. They learned first hand what that got them. They would attempt to keep it low key though. But I dont feel it would be very low key for very long. If this is the approach they choose to take, it will by all means, be a nasty one, and will get ugly.

[mcurrier]

[quote name="Moped" post="868448" timestamp="1356457703"]This is what worries and scares me.  When or if this happens, this is what it will be like.  The Evil doers will hid behind the law and send good men and women after good men and women.  In the end, is there really a way out of all this?  It seems at some point we will all be "criminals" in the eyes of the Government.  If not this time, then the next time gun control comes up, or the next time. [/quote]As I've said in the past, whether it be military, police or whoever, it will be by compartmentalization that they will keep those who are sent out to do the actual dirty work in the dark while thinking that they are following orders and doing their part against a larger and perhaps unspecified threat as told to them by their higher ranking 'superiors'.

[mcurrier]

[quote name="The Dude" post="868461" timestamp="1356459255"]I dont know Dolomite. I dont feel it would last very long before you'd start seeing news casts of people fighting back. The British thought they had a legal right to disarm us as well. They learned first hand what that got them. They would attempt to keep it low key though. But I dont feel it would be very low key for very long. If this is the approach they choose to take, it will by all means, be a nasty one, and will get ugly.[/quote]Media blackouts and internet disruptions, not to mention so-called 'news' anchors/reporters reading pre-wriiten scripts, will pretty much takecare of that. I mean, that stuff works in China, Egypt, Iran, etc., to keep the populace in the dark doesn't it ? Short term anyhow. That, all they'd need if things went according to plan. I've always liked monkey wrenches myself though.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And when we get to all that kind of stuff, things will have gotten so bad people will be at that proverbial tipping point.

 

 

Gordon. There are cases where the warrants were served on the wrong address and a cop or so got killed. The defendant(s) were found not guilty, or just not charged. Now, in a police state that might always become the case, but I think cops have more sense than to just continue "doing their job" when it comes to something like gun confiscation. I'm confident some will take place, but I'll be glad to wager it won't happen by too many local PD's. They live in the same community as we, and I think that will make them think about it a little more.

 

If it gets to that point, we will have that dictatorship I mentioned here, or some other thread, and cops would most likely be civilians, once again, and looking out for their own families and walk away from all the crap coming down from the exalted ones in DC.

 

"Even if you know  with100% certainty the warrant or arrest is illegal you cannot legally use a firearm against a LE officer to resist or prevent the arrest." Maybe if you are served properly. Not in every case.

 

If you are awakened in the middle of the night by someone crashing in your front door, it doesn't matter whether it is a cop or criminal, if you don't know. That's the presumption in those no-knock warrants and if anyone thinks those are okay, they are nuts. The downside to that is that it will be determined afterwards, in a courtroom, with or without you or I, due to the results of the

incident.

 

There is more to just that than just that blanket statement. You have to know you are being served, to begin with. A police authority, of any kind had better get it right when they do things like that. The no-knock warrant is a ticking time bomb, waiting to go off.

 

This, coming from someone who respects law enforcement highly.

Edited December 25, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Dolomite_supafly]

Again, I am talking about if firearms are outlawed, not if they random come calling to take guns. If they outlaw firearms and a warrant is issued for having one it is a legal warrant.

 

An officer will uphold the law even if his personal feelings tell him otherwise. They do it all the time. Don't belive me? Ask any officers you know if they believe marijuana should be illegal. The vast majority I have asked have said it shouldn't be. Yet those same officers continue to arrest people for possessing marijuana. I do not believe firearms would be any different.

 

Dolomite

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You won't see the outlawing of something in the Bill of Rights without first going into a Constitutional Convention. Does

that not register? Any cop who went after guns in that case would be making himself into one of the largest hypocrites

and a traitor, at that, that I do think he would consider the opposite of your statement as ruling, this time. Don't they

take their oath seriously? I think so. And I don't want to see a Constitutional Convention any time soon.

 

Mary Jane is not covered in the Constitution. It probably should have been, though. Self protection is a bit different

than drug usage.