Sitting here a couple of days after the historic Presidential Election of 2008, and listening to the first reports of the President-Elect’s initial appointment of his right hand men – virtually all cronies of the Chi-town “Machine” ilk – I remarked to my significant other, “Sounds like he’s gonna create Chicago-on-the-Potomac.” Significant Other, a Chicagoan born and bred, looked at me in shock and said, “OMG, you’re channeling John Kass! He just used that exact same description!”

Kass, my favorite Chicago Tribune columnist, is a voice of practical reason and therefore a good channel to dial into. Chicago, you’ll remember, banned private ownership of handguns within the city limits, and also sales of any firearms, many years ago. Obama is on record as vehemently opposing private citizens’ rights to carry concealed handguns in public, and according to NRA, supports a 500% tax on all ordinary firearms and ammunition. So, you’ll understand the concern of our reader Long Island Mike, who wrote the following after reading my blog entry “Oh, Bummer”:

Mas
I respect you tremendously as a man who has a foot in the LE world and is an American. So I have a question for you. Now understand that I am building a scenario here of an extreme situation. If the worst of the worst happens and Mr. O, Ms. P and Mr. R all turn against the gun owners and the Feds pass a really tough AWB. Then they appoint a Supreme Court justice that tips the scales on Heller 180 degrees. What will the reaction of LE be if they start even a limited confiscation?

Mike, your question is a legitimate one. A few very experienced voices in the fight for gun owners’ civil rights believe that Obama and company may tread lightly on the gun issue, for fear of squandering the huge political capital he’s now bringing to his party, on what is essentially a culture war against firearms owners. However, the President-Elect’s history in this area – and that of the Chicago Machine culture that he seems to be so strongly building on during his administration’s formative days after the victory – makes me more than a little pessimistic.

To answer your question, I think a sweeping national confiscation of property that was lawfully purchased and responsibly owned would probably die in its nest before it could spread its wings. Even before our nation’s police were given the order to confiscate in that hypothetical situation, the execution of that order would be restrained by the courts. I’ve long believed that the Fourth Amendment is a stronger barrier to confiscation than the Second. Even if Obama appoints as US Attorney General a vehemently anti-gun personality such as Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich or, God help us, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, I suspect that the same Supreme Court of the United States that recently gave us the landmark Heller decision would follow the law, which means, our side would win.

Yes, anti-gun Supreme Court nominees will be put forward by an Obama White House, but let’s remember that most of the aging Justices due to be replaced are among the four who dissented in Heller, not from the five who concurred in the armed citizenry’s victorious Heller majority. (The new President’s ability to appoint Federal judges at a lower but still lofty level is something more important to worry about right now, IMHO.)

At the ground level, I see two strong barriers to enforcement of an unconstitutional confiscation order. At the executive level, CLEOs (Chief Law Enforcement Officers) do not like being sued. They will run such an order by their city attorney/county attorney/state attorney general before ordering enforcement. And I suspect those wise lawyers will, for the most part, say, “Don’t do it yet! Look how the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association humiliated the New Orleans Police Department with court decisions after the Hurricane Katrina situation, and forced the confiscated guns to be given back! The precedents are against you and your officers…and, Chief, you are personally in the line of vicarious liability from such lawsuits! Wait until it’s sorted out by the higher court(s)!”

The other barrier at the ground level, I predict, would come from the street cops themselves, through their unions and fraternal organizations. “We all remember what happened in Waco and Ruby Ridge, and how the lawmen who did what they were ordered to do got dumped on. And now, you want us to do that, to the power of ten? Gonna ask our own brother and sister officers to take souvenir military rifles from their own parents and grandparents, and shoot them if they don’t turn them over? Naw…we, the police labor organizations, are filing suit to keep our officers from being ordered to carry out what appears to be an illegal, unconstitutional order.”

Long answer to a short question, Long Island Mike, but that’s what I believe would really happen in that scenario.

1 COMMENT

  1. I would like to point out one other thing about a nationwide order to confiscate firearms. Every police officer I know would first refuse the order. If they were told to do it or lose their jobs, they would resign. As one blogger I read who is a rural Texas deputy, his county would be withour law enforcement, since the the Sherriff and every person under him would resign.

  2. I wouldn’t be so sure that there aren’t cops gnashing at the bit to do exactly this. I live just outside of Detroit and even in a “shall issue” state like MI the buggers at the county sheriff’s office fight tooth and nail against granting a permit and drag out the procedure by every day they’re legally able to do so. I have no doubt they would go about the task of confiscation with smiles spreading across their faces.

  3. “I live just outside of Detroit and even in a “shall issue” state like MI the buggers at the county sheriff’s office fight tooth and nail against granting a permit and drag out the procedure by every day they’re legally able to do so. I have no doubt they would go about the task of confiscation with smiles spreading across their faces.”

    I guess that the difference between places like Texas, Montana, and Michigan.

  4. Mas I sure hope you are right on this. I trust your judgement but the following is what has been bouncing around my head since the Katrina incident.

    Unlike the military where there is a clear effort to train soliders in the rules of war (for good or bad), the “legality of orders” is something every one of them has been exposed to. In fact in the sandbox I can’t even count the number of cases now where “rules of engagement” and “the legality of actions” has come up. So the military is profoundly aware of it. I would say especially the officers if not every grunt.

    With LE I don’t know if the vast majority of departments drill into recruits and veterans alike, that an order that is illegal carries an OBLIGATION to be disobeyed. And has in place a command structure that supports that. What I saw in Katrina were local and remote departments from all over the country, coming to NOLA and simply executing and not thinking. That makes me real nervous.

    Like I said, I appreciate the info and pray to the lord your right.

  5. Mas,

    I really hope you’re right but I have to wonder about Obama’s “civilian national security force,” the one that would be “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the traditional military. This sounds a lot like the Roman Praetorian Guard or Nazi SA Brown Shirts, each composed of ideologues hand-picked for their blind loyalty and willingness to turn their backs on the rule of law.

  6. I’ve got 17 years behind a badge of one sort or another and there are plenty of cops who would delight in taking guns from the citizens.Even in here in Alabama. It’s scary and disheartening.

  7. Hi Mas, first off I love your writings, but in this case I really think you may be off a little. Do you know of any instances of LE officers refusing to confiscate guns in New Orleans? I haven’t heard of any. There were multiple agencies both local, county, state and federal involved in that confiscation and none refused. In fact, the picture of the officers takeling that 80 year old grandmother keep coming to mind. They didn’t seem to diferentiate from law abiding gun owners protecting their property from gang bangers looting. In fact, they seem to have targeted the law abiding because they don’t shoot police officers. We never heard about any “from my cold dead hands” going on. Everyone peacfully gave up their guns.

    I am really scared about the future of this country now. I have never hopped so hard that I am wrong in my life.

  8. Mr. Obama should be real careful. He could cause a lot of innocent lives to be lost.

    I’m over sixty years old and have no intention of handing my firearms over to anyone!

  9. If Mr. Obama spends *any* time at all persuing gun owners for their guns than that’s just amazingly stupid given the economic mess we are in (caused largely by the decline of cheap oil, but that’s another story. See my recent post over at Dave Duffy’s blog for more on that.)

    On the other hand, the election of Obama would be just what it takes to elminate virtually the *only* significant personal right that the Bush administration managed to leave alone.

    Sometimes I think that The Powers That Be or the American people themselves purposely alternate us between presidents of the seemingly different parties just so they can use one party to take some rights, then switch to the other party to complete the sweep. We’ll see if President-Elect Obama reverses any of the things Bush took (Patriot Acts I and II, Presidential Directive 51, Military Commission Act, etc) let alone see what he attempts to do with gun rights.

    There are SO many important things to work on instead of the wrong things like taking guns.

    Stephen B.
    Walpole, MA

  10. I’ve been heartbroken since the election.

    I think things are going to get very very bad. If it gets as bad as I think it will, I will renounce my citizenship and leave. Until then, I will fight and support the Constitution, badge or no badge.

    Biker

  11. Forgive me for being a bit more cynical. Time and time again we hear “I don’t think it will happen”, “People will not tolerate it”, “The police will not follow unconstitutional orders”. Well guess what? It has happened, they have tolerated it and unconstitutional orders were obeyed and carried out! If it happened once even on a small scale, what’s to prevent it from happening again, on a larger scale?

    Yeah, the NRA went after the New Orleans Police Department after the Hurricane Katrina situation, and forced the confiscated guns to be given back. Great, but let’s say the agenda is to disarm the populous like in Katrina only nationwide. After they illegally take your guns (in clear violation of your inalienable second amendment rights) why would they give them back even if you tried to sue?

    They obviously didn’t respect the rule of law to begin with; now that you are even less of a threat do you really think you will get justice? On a side note, ask those people from New Orleans in what condition they got their guns back. If they were not out right rendered useless by the Officer taking it, I bet you it was not stored in climate controlled environment or handled as not to damage it.

    Oh, but the police would never execute an unlawful order. MMMKAY… Try telling a police officer that he is violating your rights; see how far that gets you. I have hours of raw news footage of reporters and peaceful protester’s right to free speech being violated.

    I was held (A fully accredited journalist of 25 years) for 10 hours during the NRPC in New York City. I was doing MY job, not a threat to anyone and was initially charged with suspicion of “terroristic activity”. I had my state, federal and city press credentials clearly visible and a camera with logos of my station on it, there was no mistaking me as anything but a journalist.

    Police have been if anything emboldened by laws like the patriot act (you can always be labeled a terror suspect or enemy combatant) and if they can say I’m just following orders or doing my job, responsibility is lifted from the officer and the order will be carried out.

    Here is another recent case of gun confiscation with out due process. It’s getting worse rather then better; sorry you are way off on this one.

    ~Brogan

    Use the First, Lose the Second
    http://gunsmagazine.com/DGR1208.html

    http://www.nypost.com/seven/07212008/news/regionalnews/gun_seizure_lawsuit_120836.htm

    Here are a few links to videos on this subject:

    Carolyn McCarthy: what is a barrel shroud?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

    National Guard Confiscating Guns in New Orleans
    http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=sm5PC7z79-8

    Gun Confiscation – clip from Washington, You’re Fired
    http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=pejhz81fLsc

  12. I read in reliable blogs that in Denmark, even if in Denmark alone, the police turn a blind eye to firearm ownership laws.

  13. Thgis does bring things to a head, What are you as an american willing to do to protect your being an american, what is it going to take to for the patriots of this country wether its a biker, a farm boy or suburban vet to band together and stand up against our current form of government. of coursew being american one would wonder whats in it for me or how much money can one make out of it

  15. With regards to the situation in Denmark, james wilson, do you mean that police ignore any restrictions on civilian ownership of firearms, or that they don’t recognize one’s legal right to own legal firearms?

    Sadly, threads like this make me think of the book, “Unintended Consequences” again, just like during the Clinton years.

  17. If the decision to confiscate guns would come through, it wouldd be in a state of emergency whether it be caused by natural disaster, terrorism, or civil unrest caused by the economic meltdown. They always do things with a “good” reason just like in new orleans. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The government confiscated guns in new orleans the name of keeping peace and police did carry out the orders with the help of the military thereby violating posse comitatus. In addition, FEMA has the right to confiscate anything they wish during an emergency therefore they can confiscate guns, cars, food, communications, businesses, etc… wtih the help of the military. Didn’t we just activate multiple military units for homeland security to be used for/against civilians as needed? Bottom line, when it comes, it will be during chaos and people won’t have an opporunity to resist it.

  18. I think that is important to point out to my American neighbors that the idea of confiscation, registration, and banning are not as unlikely events as they’d like to think. It has happened and is still happening here in Canada. Between 1992-1994 the liberal government set up a system of registration and there where some confiscations at this time. I won’t go into to many details on our system because it is a confusing mess, even if you are familiar with it. First, the license, which requires at least one pre requisite safety course, and is issued following an approved background. You must have a valid licence to possess and acquire firearms and ammunition. There are 3 classes of the licence, designating which firearms you can possess.
    1-Non Restricted-this is basically any hunting rifle or shotgun.
    2-Restricted- this is for handguns with a barrel length of 4.2 or greater, and which are not .25 or .32 caliber. Also “assault rifles” such as the AR-15, M-1 Carbine or any semi auto long gun with a barrel shorter then 18.5 inches long.
    3-Prohibited- this is all the fun stuff, FN-FAL’s, AK-47’s, anything full auto, or converted from full auto, short barreled handguns, .25’s, .32’s and so on.

    All firearms must be registered with the government. Anything classified as a restricted firearm can only be shot at a range that has been approved by a government inspector, don’t even think of hunting with it or CCW. All semi auto center fires long guns are limited to a magazine capacity limited to 5 rounds. With the 8 round enbloc of the M1 Garand being excluded. We recently won a small victory by being allowed to use the 10 round AR15 pistol marked mags in any gun that will accept this AR mags. And all pistols are limited to 10 rnds max. And to transport restricted firearms to the approved range, we have to a permit from the provincial firearms officer, that only allows transport in a direct route from home to your range, no where else, no deviations. Stop for milk on the way home and your breaking the law. Those who own prohibs are not even allowed to shoot them anymore, with the exception of the prohib handguns. The only way to have a prohib status is if you owned the guns before 1994. You can pass them onto a direct descendant when you die. When he dies or choose to dispose of them they must be turned in a destroyed. Think of it as “confiscation by attrition.”

    As dumb as the laws are, there is still a very active shooting community in this country. But there is also a lot of in fighting. For example, a lot of hunters think” it doesn’t matter if handguns are banned, it doesn’t affect me” but it does. Right now we have a conservative government in parliament, but it won’t always be so. The liberals have made campaign promises of banning both handguns and all semi auto firearms. That doesn’t mean just “assault rifles” but those unconcerned hunters 10/22’s, Auto-5’s and 7400’s. Whether they will try confiscation or more “confiscation by attrition” is uncertain. I would hope that if they did try to outright confiscation, that the rest of the populace would realize it for the gross abuse of power and in justice that it is. So in closing, support the NRA and defend the Second Amendment, for they are a buffer between you and the anti’s we unfortunately do not have.

  19. I think the real question is what percentage of the population would calmly hand over their property and rights if the worst did happen? I certainly love my rights and guns as much as the next man but I wonder if I would be willing to go to prison (or worse) for attempting to prevent the police from confiscating my collection.
    Would it be better to do nothing and allow the police to do as they have been ordered? Does it serve anyone’s purpose to violently resist such an action. It would most likely cause the death of yourself and peace officers who are just trying to complete the job they have been ordered to do. Plus it would give more ammunition to our enemies in congress showing “just how crazy and dangerous gun owners really are.”
    Hell it might be better if your guns were to come up “stolen” a couple weeks before any such law is passed, but I would never advocate any illegal activity.
    If it ever gets that far it seems like we’ll be in a no win situation, Mas.

  20. Jim from Detroit Says: “but I would never advocate any illegal activity.”

    I would.

    There’s a time to decide whether or not you’re going to abide by a law you consider unjust (if you reject religion, on what basis can you reject a law?). The time to decide that is now, not when they’re knocking on the door to register your guns.

    Just because it’s the law, doesn’t make it just. You’re already a criminal at the airport (why else do you need to subject youself to a security screening contrary to the 4th Amendment?); you’ll soon be a criminal in your own home, and you won’t have done anything.

    YOU are the ONLY BARRIER that you can count on to keep your Unalienable Rights in tact.

    Decide today whom you will serve: The “law” or the one who gave you your Unalienable Rights.

  21. James Wilson – I’m originally from Denmark and I can assure you that the police are NOT turning a blind eye to illegal gun ownership.

    In fact, the parliament is currently passing legislation to punish illegal ownership of weapons even harder, mostly due to the fact that there’s been a surge in shooting incidents in the capital. These incidents are mostly (for the time being) threat displays and have only claimed and so far only a handful of people have been wounded, but the police are taking it very seriously. The underworld is gearing up for a new war, similar to the biker wars of the mid 90s.

    I have also done a lot of research into the small arms legislation of other European countries. This is mostly because I want to move somewhere where people don’t consider me a psycho for wanting to own firearms (New Hampshire or Vermont sound like awfully nice places). After the UK, Denmark has THE strictest and most prohibitive gun laws of any European country and the police take this VERY seriously.

    No semi-automatic long guns are allowed whatsoever. The only exception here is semi-auto shotguns and even then you’re limited to ONE round in the chamber and ONE more round in the “clip”.

    Private ownership of handguns is non-existent and wholly prohibited. As with semi auto long guns, there is one exception to this rule: .22 caliber handguns.

    So, this means you’re basically left with bolt actions, single shots and air guns and even then you need a permit, usually a hunting permit in the case of long guns.

    In Spain, where I currently live, they are a bit more lenient. Here there are mostly only restrictions on the type of ammo you can buy. Anything the government deems as “military” is prohibited, meaning .223 Remington, 7.62x39mm, .308 Winchester, 5.45x39mm and anything .50, be it Action Express, BMG or even the .500 S&W Magnum.

    Oddly enough, they do allow soft-point variations of some of these. Even more oddly, this ban does not comprise the .30-06 Springfield or 7.92mm Mauser, for instance. The only restriction on the guns themselves is that semi auto long guns are limited to 5 rounds per clip.

    There are no restrictions on handguns or long guns where the action has to be cycled manually. The allows for some truly odd specimens, such as “bolt-action” AK-47s. As opposed to America there are no restrictions on barrel length.

    I hope you will excuse me for the long post, but I though you might be interested in this little “snapshot” of European arms legislation. Personally, I am planning to move to either Switzerland or America sometime soon…

  22. I as a federal cop would not participate in aggressive confiscation. That is my choice and mine alone. Others in my agency would if ordered while others still would volunteer to do it. I know that I would not be happy if such comes to pass and am hoping it never occurs.

    I have my doubts that in the long run this country will retain the 2nd ammendment. The muddy slippery slope is all around us and the recent election added some more rain to the mud.

  23. …”Decide today whom you will serve: The “law” or the one who gave you your Unalienable Rights.”
    —
    Amen!

    Many people believe that it is the government who gives an individual their rights. That is why there is such an effort by the left to remove God from every facet of our lives using the guise of separation between Church and State. Why such a fear of God? It is God who gives us our rights and THAT is what the left fears. It is this major difference in our American Constitution which sets us apart from other nations and their constitutions.

    Once you give up your guns, there is NOTHING that can’t be done to you, your family or this nation.

    Bill T.

  24. People have this vision of friends and neighbors banning together to fight unconstitutional gun confiscation but as many have pointed out, the residents of New Orleans were helpless when armed men shopwed up at their doors one house at at time. What are we to do when they come to our homes in the night and there is nobody there but your wife and kids? How many will fight back? If you do fight back you will be portrayed on your local evening news as a psycho gun nut who shot at police. Mas, How do we prepare for this??
    Mike,

  25. Mike, we prepare for it NOW, and shooting it out is not the plan.

    We prepare for it by joining groups like the National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and our state level gun owners’ civil rights groups.

    These are the organizations with the legal standing and the financial war chests to win us huge victories such as the Heller decision in the US Supreme Court last summer. In the worst case scenario under discussion(unconstitutional confiscation), court orders that stay the grabbing hands are our best bet.

  27. “In the worst case scenario under discussion (unconstitutional confiscation), court orders that stay the grabbing hands are our best bet.”

    In a America where the rule of law is followed I would agree with that statement, unfortunately that is not the America we are dealing with now.

    lets look at the state of our country as it is now. 9/11/2001 was exploited to pass laws that usurp many of our god given rights as stated in the constitution. The patriot act, military commissions act, habeas corpus repealed, illegal FISA wire taps, sneak and peek searches are all clearly unconstitutional yet are in place and enforced and in more and more cases, abused.

    Not only national laws, but international laws are also being either ignored or through spin and legalese are justified. The Geneva Conventions ignored, “enhanced” interrogations, prisons like Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib where prisoners have no rights and are held indefinitely. Is that following the rule of law?

    The government does not give a dam about your rights! Vice President Dick Cheney has given you a honest opinion on what the government thinks about the American people. ABC’s Martha Raddatz Informed VP Cheney during a Good Morning America interview that two-thirds of Americans now think the war was not worth fighting, Cheney smugly said: “So?”… Did you feel that slap in the face?

    A country that is willing violate your rights to beguine with is not interested in court orders or legal battles. People must start thinking about what they would do in a situation where the rule of law doesn’t apply to the guys in charge. What recourse do you have when they come for your guns, your self or your loved ones. We must stop thinking that “It can’t happen here” and realize that it can and has…

    ~Brogan

  28. It seems South and Central America are in deep economic troubles, it is unreal. Today on NPR they were talking about how in Guatemala the citizens are “Fed Up, Ordinary Guatemalans Turn To Vigilantism” against the gangs in their cities. Poverty, Unemployment, Depressions, lack of security, and lack of accountability, and lack of faith, all will lead to absolute chaos.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98614371

  30. Bob, I’m familiar with the Milgram experiment, but I think it’s a stretch to extrapolate from it your blanket conclusion, “The police will obey.”

    The Milgram experience showed us that immature college students can be led into “the banality of evil” by authority figures. Apples to oranges.

    The police organizations that would stand up against a national confiscation order are politically powerful, and deeply experienced in both criminal and civil liability law. As I’ve noted earlier, I believe they would oppose it.

    If the students used as lab rats in the Milgram Experiment had been cops attending night school programs, they would have had the experiment shut down within 48 hours.

    Yours for cordial debate,
    Mas

  31. The Milgram experiment was a result to try and answer why Nazi soldiers in death camps did what they did even though they knew it was morally wrong to do so. The most common answers given by soldiers were “I was just following orders”. I would say that military personnel are on a comparable level with police as police are getting similar equipment and training and have a similar command structure.

    When ordered to confiscate guns during hurricane Katrina both National Guard units and police did so. Both claming “I’m just following orders”. The real life results of orders given during Katrina and were carried out mirror the results of both the Milgram experiment and what the Nazi soldiers did, in that orders that were known to be illegal and immoral and were still carried out using the same excuse.

    How many cops and National Guard personal refused to follow those orders and or came forward to the press to expose the illegal activity? Not many, if any. Here are a few videos that show what happened.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8trl69kzo
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ncq_Nu3dRSI
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhvV2uz10eA
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pejhz81fLsc

    One also has the replications of the Milgram experiment as further strong evidence that the results would be the same. Charles Sheridan and Richard King hypothesized that some of Milgram’s subjects may have suspected that the victim was faking, so they repeated the experiment with a real victim: a puppy. They found that 20 out of the 26 participants complied to the end. The six who did not were all male (54% of males were obedient); all 13 of the women obeyed to the end, although many were highly disturbed and some openly wept.

    Recent variations on Milgram’s experiment suggest an interpretation requiring neither obedience nor authority, but suggest that participants suffer learned helplessness, where they feel powerless to control the outcome, and so abdicate their personal responsibility.

    The evidence overwhelmingly shows that illegal and or immoral orders will be carried out. You said “I think it’s a stretch to extrapolate from it your blanket conclusion, “The police will obey. The Milgram experience showed us that immature college students can be led into “the banality of evil” by authority figures. Apples to oranges.”

    Sorry do dispute your feelings on this but I’m looking at what has happened in the experiments, in New Orleans and the Nazi death camps (never mind what’s going on in China and numerous doctorial countries even now) .

    One can’t dispute something that has already happened, on multiple occasions, by both trained and untrained people from different backgrounds and origins, in very similar situations.

  32. Brogan, I agree with you that the Learned Helplessness syndrome is a key ingredient in the outcomes of both the Milgram experiment and the Nazi experience.

    For those unfamiliar with the term, Learned Helplessness is basically a belief, reasonable under the circumstances, that there is no recourse but to take the action in question. Those immature college students we discussed in the Milgram matter did not realize that they had other options. The death camp operators under the Nazis — and those prisoners who were complicit, i.e., the ones who pulled the gold fillings from the teeth of the dead — did so because in fact they had no other recourse. Either of the latter could expect to be summarily executed if they did not follow those orders.

    American police are in another boat entirely. In the situation under discussion here — would American police obey an order from the Obama government to go house to house and confiscate firearms? — police labor groups and fraternal organizations know that they can file suits, request injunctions, and otherwise go to court to keep their members from being ordered to enforce illegal orders. Thus, the key ingredient of Learned Helplessness would not be present. Police have learned that, when ordered to perform illegal acts, they are NOT helpless.

    Katrina was a different situation entirely. Amidst mass looting and widespread reports of violence, the police in New Orleans were dealing with an unusual emergency, an exigent circumstance. When people were evacuated from homes, the cops could not leave functional firearms behind, unguarded, when they KNEW those guns would be accessible to roving bands of looters. They had to be secured somewhere. With tempers running high, they could not be expected to allow agitated people boarding evacuations buses or entering temporary mass shelters to be armed with lethal weapons.

    Neither of those situations would be present if the Obama-Pelosi group ramrodded legislation that criminalized private citizen ownership of firearms and resulted in an unconstitutional confiscation order, hence my earlier “apples and oranges” comment.

  33. Yes we are talking about “would American police obey an order from the Obama government to go house to house and confiscate firearms?” I used the example of the Nazi death camp guards as an example (they also started with gun confiscation), as I did with the National Guard and the police because they all share a similar command structure and training, thus all having a similar mind set and situation on following orders given.

    I disagree that the American police are in another boat entirely. Police face the possibility of loosing their jobs, disciplinary actions and criticism of fellow officers if they refuse to follow orders. How many officers believe that it would make little or no difference if they disobeyed illegal orders, that even if they didn’t carry out those orders, the next guy will so they might as well and just do it to avoid any detriment to them selves?

    In a sense it is a form of learned helplessness. OK not helplessness but a biased decision based on what’s better for ones self and not for some nameless guy they don’t know. Dammed if ya do and dammed if ya don’t so I’ll do the thing that causes me fewer hassles.

    Katrina was NOT entirely different situation. You stated: “Amidst mass looting and widespread reports of violence, the police in New Orleans were dealing with an unusual emergency, an exigent circumstance. When people were evacuated from homes, the cops could not leave functional firearms behind, unguarded, when they KNEW those guns would be accessible to roving bands of looters. They had to be secured somewhere. With tempers running high, they could not be expected to allow agitated people boarding evacuations buses or entering temporary mass shelters to be armed with lethal weapons.”

    That explains what the police did in the hardest hit areas that were underwater and an immediate threat of violence that needed to be controlled. OK, I see the necessity in that situation.

    The problem is that it didn’t excuse the gun confiscation of those high and dry with lots of food and were there protecting their homes from looters. It was a blanket order to confiscate all weapons. There was no discrimination made between those in the situation you described and those who were legitimately protecting life and home. Guns were illegally taken; when needed most, leaving people unable to defend them selves. After they took the guns they left leaving them with out guns or police protection. The orders were illegal and carried out.

    There is overwhelming evidence that police and National Guard units will follow illegal orders, either out right or under the guise of national security (or maybe even martial law), just following orders or numerous other excuses used to justify their actions. If the responsibility can be lifted from the individual there are no reasons not to follow orders Illegal or not.

  34. Thanks for your response, Brogan.

    Let’s pick up with the last sentence of your response, above. The fact is that the responsibility is most certainly NOT lifted from the individual (for obeying an illegal order) in American law enforcement. Cops learn at the Academy in the beginning that “I only followed orders” is no excuse, and that they are forbidden from doing illegal things, period. This is hammered into them more by their unions, and more by the constant civil liability seminars that are part of continuing police education.

    Those two words — CIVIL LIABILITY — are key. Cops know that they are individually responsible for any bad acts, civilly as well as criminally. Neither the Nazis nor the college kids in the experiment you cited, had that. The cops know they have recourse to their unions and the courts…the Nazis and the college kids didn’t have that, either.

    I would ask you to elaborate on your statement that there is “overwhelming evidence that police and National Guard units will follow illegal orders”. As to Katrina, I don’t know of any cases where cops OR Guardsmen entered homes in safe zones for the sole purpose of confiscating weapons. Do you? If so, please amplify on that here.

    Thanks,
    Mas

  35. “As to Katrina, I don’t know of any cases where cops OR Guardsmen entered homes in safe zones for the sole purpose of confiscating weapons. Do you? If so, please amplify on that here.”

    I’ll be glad to. I guess you didn’t watch any of the videos that links I have posted. The first one was an ABC World News story aired September 8, 2005. They specifically report and show the police and National Guard entering high and dry wealthy areas, hand cuffing the residence and confiscating their guns. Here is the link again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8trl69kzo

    Here is another story released December 15, 2005 by U.S. Newswire .A New Orleans woman is recovering from surgery this week from injuries resulting from when she was roughed-up by authorities who forced her to leave her home a week after Hurricane Katrina. Patricia Konie, 58, has filed a Federal lawsuit over the injuries and other violations of civil rights.

    Konie was greeting a reporter and photographer from a San Francisco TV station and a journalist from the London Times when police unexpectedly entered her home. When she refused to leave as ordered, they confiscated a firearm used for defense and according to Konie, “slammed” her to the ground, both displacing and fracturing her left shoulder. “My client was severely injured in a needless removal from her home,” stated attorney Ashton O’Dwyer. “Patricia Konie had food, plenty of water, and a roof over her head. The police who illegally entered her home and imposed their will on a frail, middle-aged female”. Here’s the link to that:
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1540993/posts

    This incident among others was also caught on camera and is a part in NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation after Katrina and can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

    Further accounts are listed in “The Great New Orleans Gun Grab” by Gordon Hutchinson and Todd Masson available at amazon.com

    And then there is the lawsuit filed against P. Edwin Compass III and the city of New Orleans that was won by the NRA and ACLU who represented hundreds of citizens who had this happen to them. There are many more examples but I don’t want this to get too long.

    “Let’s pick up with the last sentence of your response, above. The fact is that the responsibility is most certainly NOT lifted from the individual (for obeying an illegal order) in American law enforcement. Cops learn at the Academy in the beginning that “I only followed orders” is no excuse, and that they are forbidden from doing illegal things, period. This is hammered into them more by their unions, and more by the constant civil liability seminars that are part of continuing police education.” “Those two words — CIVIL LIABILITY — are key. Cops know that they are individually responsible for any bad acts, civilly as well as criminally.”

    I understand that the responsibility is not lifted from the individual by stating “I’m just following orders”. However the training and reinforcement of how the command structure is set up emphasizes the following of orders and most, not all, most will not question orders given, using the “I’m just following orders” as a rational.

    The United States military adjusted the Uniform Code of Military Justice after World War II. They included a rule nullifying this defense, essentially stating that American military personnel are allowed to refuse unlawful orders. This defense is still used often, however, reasoning that an unlawful order presents a dilemma from which there is no legal escape. One who refuses an unlawful order will still probably be jailed for refusing orders (and in some countries probably killed and then his superior officer will simply carry out the order for him or order another soldier to do it), and one who accepts one will probably be jailed for committing unlawful acts, in a Catch-22 dilemma.

    All US military personnel are supposed to receive annual training in the Law of Armed Conflict, which delineates lawful and unlawful behaviors during armed conflicts, and is derived from the Geneva Conventions, a subset of international law. This training is designed to ensure that US military personnel are familiar with their military, ethical and legal obligations during wartime but proof of military personnel receiving this training is difficult to substantiate and is often not received.

    You are also saying here is that police don’t do things they are not supposed to do because they will get prosecuted. That’s correct if, I say if, you are able to file a complaint. It has become a trend for police to cover badge numbers and wear swat style black hoods covering their faces also refusing to identify them selves when asked for that information (I personally witnessed this on numerous occasions here in NY).

    If you don’t have a large powerful organization or expensive lawyer behind you and try to file a complaint against an officer the complaint is often met with intimidation and arrest. I’m not saying all police departments are guilty of this but it doesn’t take much to destroy the faith and trust of an ordinary citizen in the police. and as a result a many incidences are not reported or prosecuted. Here are some examples; I limited the links again due to space.

    FOX news Police Complaint form lands you in Jail http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxF-UAxm25o

    KCTV Police Abuse Investigation
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vX3jPzh9eQ

    Miami Police Shot Protester, then laugh about it.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G63FEamhpA0

    It’s a different world when you are not a part of the police community. I have life long friends who are police officers that told me they will right or wrong defend fellow officer’s actions unwaveringly stating they know other officers will do it for them. I got your back you got mine.

    My whole point to this is yes police and National Guard units as well as regular military are capable and do follow illegal orders and will do illegal things despite the oaths and training. To say otherwise is simply untrue and naive. No organization (civilian included) is squeaky clean no matter how they like to be portrayed.

    So the chances that illegal gun confiscation orders will be carried out are very good. I’m not willing to put my faith that illegal orders will NOT be carried out “because they are illegal” (Just like the illegal wire tapping, torture and suspension of heabas corpus is not supposed to happen and yet is) and will plan accordingly.

    For the record, I’m in no way a cop hater; I have many great friends who are in the military and are police officers and I was there at the towers during the attacks and am thankful for the job they do.

    My nightly ritual was to bring coffee and doughnuts to the many cops (From many states not just NY) standing on just about every corner on my way home. They endured LONG, COLD nights making sure nothing else happened to the city and I will be eternally grateful to them.

    Thanks for doing this blog and letting people convey their ideas and feeling on what can be touchy subjects. I wish there were more people out there like you.

    Thanks again!
    ~Brogan

  36. Brogan, thank you for helping the rescuers in that incident, and thank you for your civility here.

    I was long since familiar with your Katrina links. What you have to remember is that cops had been shot at, and were entering homes that were supposed to have been evacuated and might have been occupied by looters when they entered, so it’s no surprise that they did so with guns ready. The 58 year old lady gets my sympathy as much as yours, but when she appeared to act irrationally (in refusing to leave a danger zone) and then picked up a gun, I can’t blame the cops for grabbing her and forcibly disarming her. I’m older than she was, and I know how fast that revolver can start to speak.

    The other links, I do not find persuasive. The “Police Abuse Investigation” guy was clearly intent on provoking a confrontation and did so (watch the surveillance video carefully and listen carefully, folks) and it appears to me that when the cop cuffed him, he threw himself at the glass window (maybe harder than he intended), giving himself a bump on the head that frankly earns no sympathy from me.

    The “Shot Protester”lady who pretty much begged the cops to nail her with rubber bullets, doing the attention-hound thing in front of the cameras to get the 15 minutes Andy Warhol promised us all, was interfering with police officers in the lawful performance of their duties. She knew what they would have to do. She got the attention she wanted. End of story.

    In the “Untold Story” link you posted, one of the complainers said, “They treated us as if we were in a third world country,” or words to that effect. After the Hurricane hit, it did indeed bombard the community back into the “third world,” and the rescuers acted accordingly. Unable to determine who was a looter, who was a nutcase, and who was a good guy, they had to assume the worst. I do not see any evidence there of cops going door to door solely to confiscate firearms.

    Brogan, we both agree that the topic under discussion is whether American police would just go door to door and illegally confiscate firearms if a new Administration passed new legislation that criminalized the possession of them. We’ve each explained our positions here in depth.

    There would be ample time for police groups to take legal avenues to quash illegal orders to perform illegal action. That time was not present in the unusual circumstances that surrounded Hurricane Katrina, and that among the other things I’ve explained is why I don’t think cops nationwide would carry out an illegal order from DC to confiscate ordinary people’s guns, absent the sort of unusual and rare circumstances that came together in New Orleans.

    Finally, America’s police chiefs have seen what happened to the New Orleans chief who gave the order, and don’t want to be the next “bad example.”

    Cordially,
    Mas

  37. Mas, we are going to have to agree to disagree on a bunch of stuff but that’s what makes this country great.

    My problem was not when police entered houses in the flooded areas and in areas obviously hard hit. The problem I have is when people high n dry, with enough food and water to wait out the crisis were subjected to gun confiscation. The first video from ABC world news shows them hand cuffing people in wealthy high and dry areas, taking their guns and leaving them defenseless. The 58 year old lady also was dry, had food and water and a means of defense yet was subjected to what we can see on the video. I don’t see what is irrational about not wanting to leave your house and or wanting to defend it when you are not under water and have supplies enough to weather out the crisis. Call me irrational then, because if I hade food water and a gun and was not underwater, I would have been one of them who opted to stay with my house and belongings.

    But then again debating weather or not police followed illegal orders is really moot because of the verdict in the lawsuit proves that guns were taken illegally and in order for that to have happened the illegal orders given by the New Orleans chief had to have been carried out.

    I also have to disagree that there would be ample time for police groups to take legal avenues to quash illegal orders to perform illegal actions. It took years to win this lawsuit and that’s with two large organizations behind the plaintiffs. The thought of my well kept (some expensive) guns rusting away in a bin somewhere while lawyers are arguing, leaves the state time to entrench itself on its position. It also leaves us with no means to fight a corrupt government that took the guns in the first place (the original reason for the second amendment).

    The very definition of a corrupt government is that they don’t follow the rule of law. I guess only time will tell if all this will play out the way you predicted or how I did. I just hope we don’t end up in another revolution. Thank you again for allowing myself and others a venue to voice their thoughts.

    Keep up the good work!

    ~Brogan

  39. I believe the defeatist, pacifist, and live to fight another day mentalities go a long way towards explaining the current mess. Some worry what enemies, the ignorant, or the weak might think of efforts to resist, and then willingly submit to tyranny. Yet, it is the scorn of free men that is surely earned when we allow injustice to stand.

    I’ve seen pets with more courage than many of our citizens. A great mystery, considering most citizens aren’t neutered.

  40. Blagojevich appeared to be in jail for govt crime prices as well as conspiracy theory in order to spend send together with insert scams and also solicitation associated with bribery Dec 9, ’08. Regarding Thinking about receiving 9, the year just gone, a The state of illinois Household associated with Distributors voted in order to impeach Blagojevich by just a 114-1 political election to get file corruption as well as misconduct within business office, to begin with this behavior is actually ingested next to a good governor for The state of illinois, helping to make him or her the other condition genuine on Il past to become impeached. All the Il Point out Us senate with one voice identified your man guilt ridden belonging to the rates in impeachment, along with the person was initially pulled from company upon Jan 30, the year just gone. Within a independent, moreover unanimous political election, Blagojevich was basically suspended for keeps right from controlling open public office environment during the Declare from Il