Posted on Sep 4, 2017
If active duty or reserve (or Vet), would you follow orders to seize arms from law abiding citizens?
13.3K
262
117
9
9
0
I am researching for an article I am working on. If you are active duty, the reserve or Vet if ordered by your Chain of command to take part in the seizure of firearms from law abiding citizens, would you follow that order?
Is there any situation you can see yourself taking part in seizing of weapons from citizens that are doing nothing more than just possessing them? Or would you refuse to follow that order?
It appears some doubt this is for a writing assignment, for those I write and am published on several news sites, Fox News, OpsLens.com, Lifezette.com and others. I'm a Senior OpsLens Contributor. In my spare time I am a freelance writer and posts my articles on "Down Range with Chris Wagoner". This question is not politically motivated as much as it is research orientated. Thanks!
Is there any situation you can see yourself taking part in seizing of weapons from citizens that are doing nothing more than just possessing them? Or would you refuse to follow that order?
It appears some doubt this is for a writing assignment, for those I write and am published on several news sites, Fox News, OpsLens.com, Lifezette.com and others. I'm a Senior OpsLens Contributor. In my spare time I am a freelance writer and posts my articles on "Down Range with Chris Wagoner". This question is not politically motivated as much as it is research orientated. Thanks!
Firearms and Guns
Bill of Rights
Constitution
Edited 7 y ago
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 38
19
19
0
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
(19)
(0)
SGT Eliyahu Rooff
Nice sentiment, but keep in mind that newspaper editorials are not controlling law or precedent.
(0)
(0)
SSG Edward Tilton
A little knowledge can be dangerous. ARTICLE I of the Constitution places the President in Command of the President. Any "Militia" refusing would be mutineers. During integration National Guards were called up and kept in their reserve canters while the Regular Army did their job
(0)
(0)
I will answer your hypothetical unanswerable question with an obvious response
I would follow the lawful orders of those appointed over me
A secondary response might be
No commander would give such an unlawful order therefore the situation cannot exist thus cannot be answered
I would follow the lawful orders of those appointed over me
A secondary response might be
No commander would give such an unlawful order therefore the situation cannot exist thus cannot be answered
(17)
(0)
CSM Thomas McGarry
SPC Franklin McKown - SPC McKowen I think you answered your question, if the order is illegal that also makes it unlawful.
(0)
(0)
Maj Robert Dudley
I just can't think of any situation where that is a legal order. So, on the face of it, I'd have to say, "Nope."
(1)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
Maj Robert Dudley - That catch 22 is the phrase "from-law-abiding-citizens"
All the Gov leadership need do is take that away...and the order can now be legal.
Hurricane Ira hits, governor ask the Pres for a state of emergency to be declared, he does.
State gov declares the area x-y a disaster area, unfit for human habitation. Order mandatory evacuation, signs emergency order declaring area X to Y coordinated off due to dangerous conditions.. Locals told they have 96 hours to get out, government transport provided to all, no one will be left behind that is cooperating with the evac process. Order further states, it will be illegal to be inside the cordoned off area after Date X. those found inside the are will be charged with trespassing (or what ever law)
Well hey now,,,, those that stayed behind to protect their home, or had literally no place to go, and dying there if it came to it was better then dying homeless elsewhere. Or they are truly self sufficient, prepared to exist without any outside resources for at least 120 days, food, fresh water ect so do not really "need " to leave... those stayed and refused to leave are now criminals and the state guard so ordered to detain them and confiscate any "dangerous " materials found later in the area.. Or as part of the detention the weapons are collected as part of the arrest process...
So of course the order to confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens would never fly , but once the government makes them criminals with the stoke of a pen, then that same order that was illegal yesterday becomes a legal order today.
But that would never happen right?
I what law could ever be written that makes a citizen doing a legal "thing" ok now, but moving a single stride forward could make them a criminal ...hmm what law,,,, Oh I know, hundred of conceal carry laws, or other weapons laws. In and cross state lines.
Im a legal Texas citizen, law abiding, statistically less likely to commit a crime then any other demographic in the state , to include police.. I can stand on a sidewalk with my concealed handgun and be legal, honest, trust worth, statistically less likely to commit a crime then any other demographic ....and take a single stride forward and be a felon having crosses an invisible line on the sidewalk now standing on a piece of cement that is part of a open air gathering that has an on site consumption alcohol permit making it a "bar", and off limits according to TX state law. One foot back I was a upstanding legal citizen, but moving one foot forward I become a criminalize, with no other change then moving a singe foot ..
Take off on an airplane in Indiana with your legally owned properly declared to TSA, hand gun in your suitcase headed for Maine, land in NYC due to weather and mechanical issues with the plane, and retrieve your bag for the night, you just became a criminal.
All the Gov leadership need do is take that away...and the order can now be legal.
Hurricane Ira hits, governor ask the Pres for a state of emergency to be declared, he does.
State gov declares the area x-y a disaster area, unfit for human habitation. Order mandatory evacuation, signs emergency order declaring area X to Y coordinated off due to dangerous conditions.. Locals told they have 96 hours to get out, government transport provided to all, no one will be left behind that is cooperating with the evac process. Order further states, it will be illegal to be inside the cordoned off area after Date X. those found inside the are will be charged with trespassing (or what ever law)
Well hey now,,,, those that stayed behind to protect their home, or had literally no place to go, and dying there if it came to it was better then dying homeless elsewhere. Or they are truly self sufficient, prepared to exist without any outside resources for at least 120 days, food, fresh water ect so do not really "need " to leave... those stayed and refused to leave are now criminals and the state guard so ordered to detain them and confiscate any "dangerous " materials found later in the area.. Or as part of the detention the weapons are collected as part of the arrest process...
So of course the order to confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens would never fly , but once the government makes them criminals with the stoke of a pen, then that same order that was illegal yesterday becomes a legal order today.
But that would never happen right?
I what law could ever be written that makes a citizen doing a legal "thing" ok now, but moving a single stride forward could make them a criminal ...hmm what law,,,, Oh I know, hundred of conceal carry laws, or other weapons laws. In and cross state lines.
Im a legal Texas citizen, law abiding, statistically less likely to commit a crime then any other demographic in the state , to include police.. I can stand on a sidewalk with my concealed handgun and be legal, honest, trust worth, statistically less likely to commit a crime then any other demographic ....and take a single stride forward and be a felon having crosses an invisible line on the sidewalk now standing on a piece of cement that is part of a open air gathering that has an on site consumption alcohol permit making it a "bar", and off limits according to TX state law. One foot back I was a upstanding legal citizen, but moving one foot forward I become a criminalize, with no other change then moving a singe foot ..
Take off on an airplane in Indiana with your legally owned properly declared to TSA, hand gun in your suitcase headed for Maine, land in NYC due to weather and mechanical issues with the plane, and retrieve your bag for the night, you just became a criminal.
(1)
(0)
PO1 Aaron Baltosser
SPC Franklin McKown - Can't be done during a national emergency either...a hurricane for example. Absolutely not legal.
(0)
(0)
10
10
0
As American soldiers, yes, we are charged with following lawful orders, and have the intelligence to see if an order is lawful or not. I would hope that SGM Erik Marquez is correct and that the chain of command would quash said order early and to the point that those in the ranks never even heard about it, BUT, unfortunately, there have been cases where that is not the case. I remember the Guard during Katrina were caught trying to do that very thing, State Police in NJ saying that they would have no problems coming and taking your guns just because they were told to. That is when it is our job to protect and defend the Constitution, of which the Bill of Rights are part of. Not saying to fly across the country as a solo person, but if you are there, it is our job to defend the civilians.
(10)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google