I am a gun owner, all legal and registered with the state. Hypothetically, if ordered to confiscate my guns, how far would you go to do so?

MSgt Jeff S. — Tue, 09 Aug 2016 19:47:32 -0400

Response by MSgt Jeff S. made Aug 9 at 2016 7:50 PM

MSgt Jeff S. — Tue, 09 Aug 2016 19:50:17 -0400

For clarification, I own handguns, hunting rifles and the "dreaded" AR-15. in this scenario, if the government decided to ignore the 2nd amendment and attempt to confiscate civilian weapons, what would you do when the order comes in?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 9 at 2016 7:50 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Aug 2016 19:50:44 -0400

Is this asking how far would I go to confiscate your guns?

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Aug 9 at 2016 8:03 PM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Tue, 09 Aug 2016 20:03:15 -0400

A couple of States have passed laws to confiscate standard capacity magazines, such as New York, and recently California. So if you want to look to see what would happen on the firearm side, those are likely good examples. Basically, people just turned everything in, or otherwise have remained silent on it.

Response by 1SG Dennis Hicks made Aug 9 at 2016 8:04 PM

1SG Dennis Hicks — Tue, 09 Aug 2016 20:04:21 -0400

The folks that would follow that order wouldn't have to worry about the consequences for long The Military regardless of component has ZERO business in suppressing the Bill of rights. While it seems far fetched and you would have rhetoric on both sides then a trigger point would be reached. Lots of folks would die and tensions would exponentially increase until it reached a point of no return. As it always ends up, the innocent will suffer the powerful will be targeted and outsiders will take advantage of the chaos and make it a hundredfold worse.

Response by SFC Richard Giles made Aug 9 at 2016 8:52 PM

SFC Richard Giles — Tue, 09 Aug 2016 20:52:30 -0400

Correct me if I'm wrong but it was Los Angeles not California that banned magazines of 10 or more rounds?
In my opinion as I have stated in another post, all AR type weapons or weapons that can be made fully automatic and the ammo need to be off of the market. The ones sold legally need to be picked up or turned in and some kind of compensation given. That's not going to get them out of the hands of people who have them illegally but it's a start.
As for the magazines just stop making them, don't ban them, anything over 10 rounds needs to stay where it's supposed to be at, the military or law enforcement.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Aug 9 at 2016 9:00 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Tue, 09 Aug 2016 21:00:46 -0400

Step away from the computer and think hard before you answer this one. It can and has happened. In New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, officials went door to door confiscating guns. Oh, but only a small percentage of the guns were confiscated, some have countered as though this mitigates the infringement. Now, you may respond heroically swearing that they'll only take them "from your cold dead hands". Good luck with that. No individual, not matter how well armed, can resist a coordinated assault. Good luck every body

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 9 at 2016 9:49 PM

2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Aug 2016 21:49:44 -0400

first mistake: "register." Come get em boys!!!

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 9 at 2016 9:54 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Aug 2016 21:54:40 -0400

Let's assume that this is a lawful order. It is possible that the Guard might be ordered to confiscate weapons in a domestic emergency or some natural disaster big enough to require the use of the military to secure the populace. For the purposes of the question, I will answer this straightforward rather than delve into the political undertones this scenario suggests.
In this instance, it is very likely that people like me - Civil Affairs guy - is the one to walk up and make this happen. In brief, were military personnel to confiscate personal property, weapons or no, we would be required to provide a receipt so that the property owner can be remitted his/her property or a suitable payment if for some reason the property cannot be returned.

It should be noted that when doing disaster response or stability operations, means to defend oneself is seldom an item confiscated as persons that are unable to secure their property become prey for opportunists and crime can become rampant, as well as dependency. The goal is to prevent dependency so that normalcy can be restored as soon as practicable. Offensive weapons such as explosives, automatic weapons, armor, or aircraft may well be secured to prevent the predation mentioned above or a destabilizing revolt from breaking out or conflict between rival factions. It is a tough balance to draw, but by and large the weapons the average American keeps on hand would not fall into a category that would warrant seizure.
If some cat were making homemade explosives and the like, I'd have no issue taking his toys away.

Response by ENS Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 9 at 2016 10:56 PM

ENS Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Aug 2016 22:56:07 -0400

I would not follow that order to the highest extend. I have been sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. The 2nd amendment protects all others. The military will never turn on her people or the Constitution, even if the order to do so comes directly from the President. We obey LAWFUL orders above all else. True Patriots.

Response by SFC Wade W. made Aug 9 at 2016 11:02 PM

SFC Wade W. — Tue, 09 Aug 2016 23:02:59 -0400

I wouldn't. That simple.

Response by 1stSgt Eugene Harless made Aug 10 at 2016 12:23 AM

1stSgt Eugene Harless — Wed, 10 Aug 2016 00:23:43 -0400

I personally would hope not a single member of Law Enforcement or the military would be involved in a gun-grab. Unfortunately the politicians will never bill it as such. The military will be fed a bunch of crap about the people targeted being terrorists who are planning to attack schools and malls. The generals will go along with it to keep their stars and by the time the order gets down to squad level all the gun owners targeted will be "known terrorists who have killed law enforcement and executed service members o leave"

Response by Maj John Bell made Aug 10 at 2016 12:30 AM

Maj John Bell — Wed, 10 Aug 2016 00:30:37 -0400

Depends on the context. If you were engaged in illegal activity where you used the firearm to further your aims, all the way. If it was part of some sweep based on legislation or even a change to the Constitution, I would not. The bill of rights is in my opinion sacrosanct. Any attempt to do away with any of them releases me from my oath my oath.

Response by TSgt Melissa Post made Aug 10 at 2016 1:51 AM

TSgt Melissa Post — Wed, 10 Aug 2016 01:51:31 -0400

I think there is a similar question posted on here, if someone else has already stated this I do apologize. But the other question stated something along the lines of if ordered to take peoples guns away, would you do it. If your question is how far would I go as a military member to take your guns away from you? The answer would be not far at all. keep your guns. If I am being ordered to turn my weapons in, well as any self respecting southern and Texan would say, I ain't goin down without a fight. I am also part Scottish, and if my history was passed down correctly, I believe when England attempted to take the Scots weapons away from them, they hid them. Many were never found by the English. I would do everything I could to protect my family and myself especially from those trying to take away my rights!

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Aug 10 at 2016 2:36 AM

Capt Jeff S. — Wed, 10 Aug 2016 02:36:12 -0400

Let's hope that the military would have enough sense to refuse to obey unlawful orders that strip Americans of their rights and freedoms.

Response by SPC James Gromley made Aug 10 at 2016 4:54 AM

SPC James Gromley — Wed, 10 Aug 2016 04:54:24 -0400

The whole reason for the second article in the constitution is to prevent law abiding citizens from have their rights ignored in that way. We the people must be willing to Die in defense of those rights, just like those who created this great nation. They where willing to die for those things they felt where Self evident and so must we. When you put on the uniform of this nations military you have already said that you are willing to give your life so others may live free. So there is no Hypothetical question about it, If the government shows up and tries to confiscate my weapons tomorrow they better bring body bags and protection from the use of my weapons. I will defend my rights even if it means I die trying, because face it do you really want to live in a world or country where any one who is armed can walk in to your house and do what ever they want? There is no thinking about it! Death is so much more appealing than living in Fear!

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Aug 10 at 2016 6:03 AM

SCPO David Lockwood — Wed, 10 Aug 2016 06:03:27 -0400

I would be in violation of that order. I would do anything that would hinder me being able to protect my family or property.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2016 7:00 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Aug 2016 07:00:10 -0400

It's a good thing I sold all my long guns on craigs list to people with valid CCW and all my hand guns were lost in a boating accident last year. Tragic really.

Response by Sgt Seth Welch made Aug 10 at 2016 7:42 AM

Sgt Seth Welch — Wed, 10 Aug 2016 07:42:39 -0400

I'm not overly concerned how they'd go about this, point blank they're not getting my guns. Stand your ground

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2016 8:39 AM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Aug 2016 08:39:12 -0400

Posse Comitatus Act states that Congress would have to authorize the use of the Army for policing actions. National Guard is another story.
So even if the SCOTUS becomes left leaning, we still would not use active duty to perform such an action. The only way would be for a veto majority in both houses with a left SC and a left Pres.
But we experienced 2 years of a left congress and left President and I still got my AR-15 and a few more shotguns during that period...

Response by Sgt James Hatcher made Aug 10 at 2016 9:45 AM

Sgt James Hatcher — Wed, 10 Aug 2016 09:45:03 -0400

Would never turn them in.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2016 9:45 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Aug 2016 09:45:07 -0400

Response by Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth made Aug 10 at 2016 10:38 AM

Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth — Wed, 10 Aug 2016 10:38:25 -0400

First of all this can't happen with federal military troops (title 10). Federal military troops (to include reservists...not National Guard) cannot provide any law enforcement in the United States. Posse Comitatus act prevents that. HOWEVER, the National Guard (Title 32 or State Active Duty) is a different story as they belong to states and governors until federalized by the president...once federalized (title 10), they fall under the possse comitatus act "The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878 by President Rutherford B. Hayes. The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. It was passed as an amendment to an army appropriation bill following the end of Reconstruction, and was subsequently updated in 1956 and 1981. The Act only specifically applies to the United States Army and, as amended in 1956, the United States Air Force. While the Act does not explicitly mention the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps, due to their being naval services, the Department of the Navy has prescribed regulations that are generally construed to give the Act force with respect to those services as well. The Act does not apply to the Army and Air National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor. The United States Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act either, primarily because although the Coast Guard is an armed service, it also has both a maritime law enforcement mission and a federal regulatory agency mission." An example where leadership was held accountable for violating the act is "On March 10, 2009, members of the U.S. Army Military Police Corps from Fort Rucker were deployed to Samson, Alabama, in response to a murder spree. Samson officials confirmed that the soldiers assisted in traffic control and securing the crime scene. The governor of Alabama did not request military assistance nor did President Obama authorize their deployment. Subsequent investigation found that the Posse Comitatus Act was violated and several military members received "administrative actions".

Response by SGT Edward Wilcox made Aug 10 at 2016 11:56 AM

SGT Edward Wilcox — Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:56:50 -0400

The problem with "hypothetical" questions like this, is that they are designed to inflame passions with no actual proof that it could ever happen. I refuse to answer the question simply because it has no place in the discussion about gun control.

Yes, there have been isolated instances where gun were taken. However, those actions were taken illegally, and were corrected. They were isolated instances that would never happen on a larger scale.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Aug 10 at 2016 1:10 PM

SN Greg Wright — Wed, 10 Aug 2016 13:10:37 -0400

Illegal order until the constitution is changed. So I wouldn't do anything.

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Aug 10 at 2016 4:04 PM

SMSgt Thor Merich — Wed, 10 Aug 2016 16:04:12 -0400

Tough question. I am not sure what I would do.

However, years ago, California created a assault weapons law which required certain rifles (mostly AR-15 types) to be registered. Previously they were not required to be registered as only handguns were registered with the state. Many law enforcement officers I know who owned rifles on the list chose not to register their guns. They completely understood the direction that California was going and the potential ramification to our freedoms. Registration is the first step to taking away guns. Removing guns from citizens hands is exactly what the founding fathers did not want. It was very telling to me when law enforcement is choosing to ignore certain (albeit bad ones).

Response by Sgt Joseph Baker made Aug 10 at 2016 8:14 PM

Sgt Joseph Baker — Wed, 10 Aug 2016 20:14:26 -0400

It is illegal for the government to keep firearms records on you except for FFL situations where you own otherwise prohibited weapons such as machine guns. But, just today I read an article about an audit of government systems that are not supposed to keep gun owner identifiable information stored, and I believe they found 6 out of 8 systems was out-of-compliance. Can you say 'ghost gun'?

Response by PO3 Sherry Thornburg made Aug 11 at 2016 4:34 PM

PO3 Sherry Thornburg — Thu, 11 Aug 2016 16:34:37 -0400

That would be an unlawful order. We give an oath to defend the constitution, not who ever is in office. During Hurricane Katrina it was the local police that did confiscations. They did it on the orders of their mayor and governor I believe. The federal National Guard was not asked to get involved with that. Likely because they knew it was illegal.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 14 at 2016 1:51 AM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 14 Aug 2016 01:51:44 -0400

Based upon what reason to confiscate? If this were to happen, using "today's laws and statues," then I have the duty to disobey an ILLEGAL order, which this would be.

Response by TSgt James Carson made Jan 19 at 2017 6:44 PM

TSgt James Carson — Thu, 19 Jan 2017 18:44:03 -0500

That's where the state is breaking the law. There was NOT to be a paper trail or files kept on it's citizens.

Response by SSG Bill McCoy made Oct 19 at 2022 12:27 AM

SSG Bill McCoy — Wed, 19 Oct 2022 00:27:50 -0400

In my mind, confiscating firearms would be an overt violation of the US Constitution. In many states such as PA, it'd also a violation of the Commonwealth's Construction. So no, I'd consider that to be an unlawful order.