I would obey all lawful order from civil authorities.
I find that completely baffling. Why would a new law have to be enacted for this? Was there a law that said that it was okay to confiscate guns during emergencies before? And also, it seems this law doesn’t help those from getting their guns confiscating during non-emergencies.
Soooo…Dubya actually got something right? No Way!
The roulette wheel, it spins and doesn’t care as to it’s benefactor…it just comes up your number sometimes…
Theoretically, State of Emergency allows for them to waive the rights of certain amendments… or so I thought.
The fourth and second amendments can be suspended, no?
What a pretty way to say nothing. Unless you’ve got a judge in your back pocket, what you are basically saying is that you will obey all laws that you feel are legal. Do you consider the possibility that those who come to your door may have a better understanding of current law than you do?
Will you disobey peacefully, or attack those whom you oppose(bringing this back to the actual topic at hand)?
How did you get anything remotely violent from “I would obey all lawful order from civil authorities.”?
I merely asked how he would disobey an unlawful order, and who gets to decide whether the order is lawful or not?
I would think the police would attempt to use non-lethal measures to restrain one in order to take the weapons. Most likely the pepper-spray/handcuffing/restraining by force sorts of methods in order to take the guns. I doubt if you said you refuse to hand over the guns, they’re going to shoot you first and then just take them.
More likely they’ll call for back up and then attempt to restrain you if they MUST take the guns.
So it’s going to come down to the citizen to fire the first shot to prevent themselves from being restrained (or perhaps to raise the gun up and point it at one of the officers).
And if you do so, then it becomes a matter of “Would the Police officer be willing to shoot/kill one of their fellow citizen for attempting to kill them or their partner?” which I think would be an easier question to answer than the first Q.
If you are committing (or attempting to commit) an unlawful act of violence against somebody else, you have no right of “self defense” if they resist with force. The kind of action we’re talking about necessarily involves being willing to use force against people to disarm them, up to and including killing them if they resist. Whether or not they’d attempt to use non-lethal methods first doesn’t change that fact. The only way that police officers could initiate such a confrontation without willingness to kill their victims in the process is if they specifically planned to retreat as soon as any resistance was offered that might necessitate escalation to lethal force.
That’s frightening if true. Never heard of burning the constitution temporarily for emergency issues.
Your response does not compute.
It seems that some believe that owning a large number of firearms=constitutional scholar.
Just out of curiosity
Lets say that some govt weenie gets a brain storm, Katrina redux hits and same or similar situation hits a major city and instead of that bright idea
He or she invokes the second amendment , specifically that part about a well regulated militia. All able bodied persons with weapons are required to report to designated areas and be deputized or something.
What then
Declan
So in the OP, when the gun collectors came around, they were in the right. You have to right to defend yourselves unless they attempt to commit an unlawful act of violence. Taking your guns away at the time would be the orders that the Police Officers would have been given. They’d just be following their duty.
So murdering the Cops because you disagree with Governmental Policy doesn’t seem all that Kosher to me. Also, if the Government enacts a “State of Emergency” it seems that they can suspend civil liberties and such (which allowed them to go around breaking the 2nd amendment)- so in such a state, it WOULDN’T be against your Right to Bear Arms, because now you’re in a state of new policies and rules.
However, yeah the Bush policy seems to change that. But that’s not the OP’s conditions.
But even if we were to change it to a NEW State of Emergency that is occurring AFTER this Bush Change, then why would the Cops then be ordered to collect your weaponry if it were illegal under the new policy? I may be a bit naive in thinking that Cops will not be forced to simply break the new laws to collect guns- or at least then at that point be forcibly doing so. They’d probably try to collect the guns, and if you refused, then they’d have no justification for pursing it further.
So it all seems to be a moot point NOW as I can’t imagine that condition of the Cops illegally trying to collect weapons (perhaps like a group of people would try to do so, and there you’d have all the rights to refuse them entry and all).
I’d think that under the SoE of Katrina, you’d be in the wrong for attempting to murder a Cop that was following his (lawful under the conditions) duty irregardless of your opinions of which law is greater than the other because at the time the policy wasn’t there, and the SoE would allow the government to suspend civil liberties for the greater good as it saw fit.
Just my two cents.
I can certainly see that during the aftermath of a natural disaster, with looting and panic widespread, is probably the one time when having a gun to defend yourself would be a very smart idea.
If I had a gun, and the police came to take it away, I’d probably just lie and say I didn’t have one.
Question. When the government isn’t protecting/can’t protect you from roving gangs of criminals, but is trying to take your primary means of self defense wouldn’t using force be an act of self defense? As unpalatable as that sounds…
24 (the show) goes into this, albeit in a bigger way than a regular citizen ever could.
Looks like this is just more gun owners’ paranoid persecution fantasy bullshit:
Of course, these are folks who fantasize about civilization breaking down, when they’re going to have their moment to shine! Wolverines!
I’d do so happily. In fact before professional constabularies became common beginning in the 19th century, that’s how the law was enforced- by calling armed citizens to form a posse comitatus*. I don’t think that citizens only have a right to arms while serving the government, but I do think that the right to keep and bear arms also imposes the duty to bear arms in the common defense.
*in the original sense of the phrase, as referenced for example in Hamilton’s Federalist #29 on the subject of the militia. Unfortunately, the phrase is now widely used to two other contexts: the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 federal law forbidding the use of federal military forces for civilian law enforcement; and the self-styled name of a notorious right-wing anti-government group.