Law Enforcement Follow Up Question

[PotashRLS]

As we all know our fight for our right to keep and bear arms is ongoing and continually at risk. It is becoming more apparent that very serious legislation could be coming in the next 4 years (probably sooner) which will further threaten that right. I and many believe that if "they" could come and get our guns right now "they" would. I know a lot of folks roll their eyes at that thought and consider it fear mongering. I believe complacency is also a threat to our 2nd Amendment Rights. With history set to repeat itself please ponder and/or pass on this question to our Law Enforcement Officers........................

If/when such legislation is being put in place to threaten our right to keep and bear arms and threaten our right against wrongful search and seizure, where will our Law Enforcement Officers stand when they are called upon by the powers that be to come and take our firearms. I know it is a deep question that will get a lot of "rolling of the eyes" from some, but the confiscation will have to be done by someone or some department (special public policing agency). The statement that that would never happen is not relevant because look around. It is happening all around us. Please take this thread seriously and look to get as honest of an answer as possible.

I feel that if that very sad day does come, law abiding gun owners will face a decision like no other.

Thanks for reading my Thread. I and many look forward to your answers.

[cinch314]

I am not sure that the law enforcers in my area will confiscate the weapons. They feel the way that me, my family and my friends in law enforcement feel. They feel that if you take the weapons from law abiding citizens that the crime on all accounts will sky rocket. They feel that citizens should have the right to bear arms so they can protect themselves. It's not like the criminals will give up their guns, they would just have an easier opportunity for crimes. I believe that they would prefer to target the gangs and frequent offenders of carrying the guns. They are the ones that break the law. We the citizens actually help prevent crime if a criminal knows that we are packing then they are less likely to try to commit a crime around us or to us. If it does come down to someone taking our guns, I believe it will be a special government controlled and approved group that will do it. Im not even sure that I believe that Dycorp or Blackwater will do it. Just my opinion.

[okiedog]

So will the police officers still be allowed to carry and own firearms? I may change jobs!

I see high resistance in rural areas if it ever comes to this. I think it could turn some now law abidding gun owners into criminals.

[pendog]

Wasn't there rumors that the new Gov wanted to make a special police force.......something to wonder about.

[wtnhunt]

I do not really foresee this happening this way, but for conversation sake my understanding Tracy is that it would not be local law enforcement agencies that would be coming and taking guns in the event that this type of thing ever happened, but would instead be a national level agency. And yes, Andy is correct that there was mention somewhere along the lines of a special "police force". Obama said today in his speech at Fort LeJune that he intends to increase our number of soldiers, kind of goes against what Clinton did with downsizing our military and also has to raise some questions as to why this is a consideration with the troops from Iraq all slated to be out of Iraq by late 2010.

[m gardner]

The troops coming back have training in going door to door and urban warfare. Pretty scary huh? Better hope they won't go against the constitution.
Mark

[rookieee]

It will be a cold day in "****"when anyone tries to take any of my weapons away from me or my family

[DocMort]

The troops coming back won't be used against their own country, they like myself who just got back understand the meaning of the constitution after defending it for so many months.

[RackBlaster]

If that did happen , does this sound familiar '' The red coats are coming , the red coats are coming"

[nativetexan]

It would be hard to say what would happen. We all know it can happen because it has already on a state level once after Hurricane Katrina. Should it happen on a national level, the undertaking would be so massive, and no doubt the level of casualties on both sides, that it really would not be feasible to do a door to door. What we are really facing is an all out ban, on paper. Those with registered weapons not turning them in within the time allotted will face the legal ramifications and be subject to warrants, with search and seizure following when the government had the time and resources.

There are already people in this country who are exercising their right to militia, and you could expect these militia's to grow quickly should something of this nature ever happen.

On the original question (or request), if I was a cop and the government did something of this nature, my badge would be turned in.

From a military standpoint, if I was ever called upon to turn against my own country and it's constitution, I would go AWOL. I swore to defend the constitution, not those who choose to ignore it, and surround myself with those who acknowledge the constitution. Which honestly, as active duty, it is becoming harder and harder to do each day that passes with this new administration. Watching our rights be chipped away is a serious moral dilemma for me.

[oldksnarc]

You pose a question I have been struggling with for a couple months now - ever since it became potential given the election and congress' current make-up and direction.

I have been in the military and/or law enforcement since I was 17. I have a high regard for the rule of law and believe that laws are necessary for an orderly society. Whenever two or more people live in close proximity to each other there can be no such thing as absolute freedom. Each has to leash some of their personal freedom to peacefully co-exist with the other.

However, as a conservative and a Republican, I believe those laws and limits on freedom have to be reasonable and should not be solely to control my life of the lives of others. I believe America has evolved from a Republic based on the rule of law as envisioned by our Founders and as set forth in our Constitution -- to a Democracy which is based on the rule of people and which is unconstitutional.

If you haven't seen it, this is a good representation of what I mean - http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

I have the highest respect for our military and law enforcement officers. But, I fear when the day comes I will be pitted against one or the other who will be only doing their job while I try and protect my right. I cannot see myself engaging against either. I believe most of them will not agree with the law themselves and they will only be doing what they are told to by their commanders and leaders.

However, I will not subjugate myself to what I consider to be unconstitutional laws or limits on a constitutional right. I have no problem with background checks - these help to insure those who shouldn't have guns don't have. However, this does not keep guns out of their hands - they will get them some how/some way. I believe some criminals are not intimidated by the thought of prison - it's just part of life and the cost of their lifestyle. However, mandatory minimum sentencing of those who use guns in crime should be the way to control gun crimes.

What would I do if told to seize someone's guns or arrest them for failing to have the required photo ID or failing to register their guns and they were not prohibited from owning or possessing them - i.e. otherwise a law-abiding citizen?

Law enforcement officers practice the primary judiciary authority - discretion. People are required to register their vehicles and have driver licenses to drive. But, the difference between that and gun ownership is the difference between a right and a privilege. Government has a duty and can control certain things "but the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Law enforcement officers are also the primary protectors of the Constitution and are not supposed to enforce laws they believe to be unconstitutional. Therefore, I would exercise discretion and refuse to enforce a law that appears to be unconstitutional.

The problem is that liberals enact laws against using guns in crime but too often allow the criminal to avoid the sanctions required by the law.

I was once asked the difference between a liberal and a conservative. My take on it is: a liberal wants more laws to control our lives but if you don't obey them that's OK because they want you to feel good about yourself, while a conservative wants fewer laws and control over your life but by damn you better obey the laws that are there.

What will I do when it comes to me complying with HR 45 or any other restrictions? I guess if it all comes about I will become a criminal myself for not complying with the law - which means that I can no longer be a law enforcement officer.

Then, my decision will be what do I do when someone comes to get my guns......

I'm still struggling with that one.

[Swamphunter]

where will our Law Enforcement Officers stand when they are called upon by the powers that be to come and take our firearms.

I will be retired by then. It would not be a local or a state agency to come take them, it would be the ATF, and yes LEO's would still be carrying firearms.

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

From a personal standpoint, I can't imagine a worse case scenario. Having to face a choice of actually firing on, and probably killing (7 mag vs body armor at close range - 7 mag wins) a law enforcement officer or surrendering my God given and Constitutionally protected right, what a nightmare. And compound that with the realization that I would likely end up dead or a fugitive, well I just don't know what I'd do.

[oldksnarc]

Problem is they realize most people today wouldn't fire on officers but rather will capitulate and turn over their guns. They count on this. At one point in our history we fought, killed and died for our Republic. Difference between then and now is:

then it was against a repressive yet still somewhat foreign government (albeit England wasn't considered a foreign government and most of us then were English or allied Europeans).

now it will be against a repressive government, but it's our own government made up of our own people and it will be enforced by our own people.

It would be a whole lot different if it was a foreign government or a foreign people doing it to us. Oh, wait! He is a foreigner. He's yet to produce his birth certificate, has had the governor of Hawaii seal it to inspection and has had the courts thwart lawsuits demanding it be open for inspection.

[DocMort]

There is a difference from defending the constitution and standing for it. I can promise you this that they come to my house to get my guns someone is going to get hurt.