In fact, the singling out of a specific exception for habeas corpus under specific emergency conditions indicates that there is no power to make any other exceptions to Constitutionally guaranteed rights on the grounds of “emergency”. See the closing section of the Master’s discussion of “the exception proves the rule”.
And if that doesn’t work, mind terribly if I haunt you?
“Woooooo! You got me killed with your dime-store pop psychology! Woooooo!”
Is the temporary order lawful (see below for the “unlawful” answer)? Then the only difference is I wouldn’t damage the guns, in hopes that I may pursue remedies in the court system to recover them at a later date.
Thankfully a “Katrina” situation is less likely here, as last year Kansas passed a law making it illegal to seize firearms in that situation:
NONETHELESS, if I go home tonight and a uniformed police officer comes to my door with no cause and no warning and no legal backing, and says “give me your guns NOW, missy”, I will stand aside and let the police take them, and then file a lawsuit to get them back.
All that sound reasonable?
This is absurd, even by the standard of your main line of argument. Obviously, the doctrine that the recipient of an order may not judge its legality leads irrevocably to the conclusion that “just following orders” is, in fact, a valid defense for any act whatsoever.
Another careless assumption I just realized is the stipulation that the “police” are, in fact, police. This assumption breaks down often enough under ordinary circumstances (which is why it is unwise to pull over in a secluded area); under the cirumstances being discussed, it would grow weaker still.
What I think is funny, is that the “anti-gun” people are up in arms with even this scenario.
Reasons for personal gun ownership:
Well regulated militia. BS apparently.
Defense against gubment. More BS.
Defense against aliens, either from the border or space. Pure fantasy.
Home defense under normal conditions. Macho crap.
When the revolution comes. Still more macho dream land BS.
Defending your home and family during a major disaster with overwhelmed public services, disfunctional infrastructure, and looting and general lawlessness surrounding you.
Nope, you don’t need it now either, surrender your gun.
Damn, if you don’t even need a gun then, I guess never need one.
What constitutes a defense for the cops is a separate issue from what makes it ok to kill them. Even if they’re enforcing an illegal order, that doesn’t mean it’s legal to kill them. Killing the cops under this scenario is murder, full stop. It is not self-defense. It’s not the shooter’s job to be judge, jury and executioner.
Of course, no one in this thread would actually do it. You’d have to be a deranged nutcase.
Yes, but I would not expect those firearms back in the least.
No, when there are multiple armed officers (or NG soldiers) at your door, it is never the time to fight. Let them do what they’re going to do and feel free to comment candidly on their orders, actions and personal integrity.
**If you’re smart, however, you’ll have already lost your irreplaceable or controversial firearms in a tragic boating accident before any sort of confiscation. **
Much is made of the argument that the 2nd Amendment is in our Constitution to allow citizens to fight back against a tyrannical government. If this were to happen nowadays, there would be times for revolutionaries to be combatants but much more often, it would be necessary for revolutionaries to be unarmed civilians.
“Vermin?”
I think you’ve seen too many Death Wish movies. It doesn’t work that way in real life. Especially when the bad guys all have guns too.
Anything short of murdering cops is reasonable to me. Refusing to turn over the guns and asking to be arrested instead is also reasonable. I’m just saying fight the law, not the innocent LE personnel enforcing it.
And once again, the voice of reason is posted on the SMDB.
Thanks, friend Una
Why don’t you knock off claiming you know what anybody else will do?
What if it weren’t the police but a band of looters trying to disarm you? Clearly resisting with force would be self-defense in that case. So, from where exactly do the police officers derive their protection?
And consider that this isn’t an ordinary situation where the only harm to you is being deprived of your guns: it’s a chaotic, lawless situation in which (in some cases) even the police are joining the ranks of the looters. Being able to defend yourself from a roving pack of lawless thugs might just mean the difference between life and death. Suppose they weren’t just confiscating your guns but your food and water also. Would it still be murder to resist?
Saying that you should just let them do as they please and then take it up through the appropriate legal channels is all well and good while civilization still stands, and indeed I agree that you’d have to be completely insane to do anything else under normal circumstances. But in the aftermath of a catastrophe, when society breaks down and even the police abandon the law? I’m not so sure.
I’d turn on the Bat signal at that point.
It won’t work.
You’ll get the George Clooney version.
Or at least I hope the Cynic gets the Clooney version.
Both of these quotes seem to say you need your guns for self-defense. But of course engaging the police in a shootout has a much higher chance of killing you than facing a post-Katrina New Orleans sans firearms, so the self-defense argument is entirely spurious. I mean, it’s obvious that if you really care about maximizing your chances of survival, you won’t try to shoot the cops; this whole line of reasoning is just a red herring.
So if it’s not about self-defense, what is it about? It seems like these gun arguments bring out the machismo in people. I seriously doubt that we would see this kind of swaggering in a thread about the police going around confiscating copies of the Tin Drum or something like that. I mean, seriously. “Any jack-booted thug who comes for my Günter Grass is going to eat hot lead!” Things would clearly be different if there were an on-going, serious and nation-wide suppression of free-speech, but a local event, where you knew that the effort would be limited in time and later you would be able to buy another copy of whatever books were taken? That’s what New Orleans was: everybody sane knew that they would be able to get more guns later, or go somewhere else where guns were available. If you think killing people is necessary in this situation, your violence threshold is way too low.
I am a gun owner, and probably more liberal than the average gun owner here at the SDMB. My point of view is that suicide by cop is a foolish option in this set of circumstances.
I have heard from the gun lobby and the second amendment crown the phrase: “I’ll give up my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead hand!”
Defending your second amendment rights by pointing your weapon at a group of armed law enforcement officers coming to confiscate your firearms, whatever the legality of the confiscation order, certainly has the likelihood of the “cold, dead hand” scenario coming to pass.
Dude,
You might need them LATER.
You bluff, hoping against hope that THE COPS will come to their senses before they force your hand.
Then of course NOBODY ever stands up for their rights (to their own detriment) so that OTHERS may benifit.
I know I sure as hell wouldn’t stand for attack dogs, tear gas, and water hoses so some other guy would be allowed to sit in front of the bus…much less so he or she can protect their family and property from criminals in trying times.
Shocking as it may seem, some people have a moral compass that actually includes the bigger picture sometimes, rather than thier own precious hide.
If you try shooting it out with the cops, there isn’t going to be any later.
And “moral compass?” Please people with a moral compass don’t murder cops.