Should police departments and / or the government be allowed to confiscate legally owned firearms?

SFC Mark Alaimo — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 15:18:15 -0400

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/12/right-to-bear-arms-gun-grabbing-sweeping-nation/

Right to Bear Arms? Gun grabbing sweeping the nation

Cherished family heirlooms were among the 21 firearms Michael Roberts surrendered to the Torrance Police Department in 2010, after his doctor filed a restraining order against him.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2015 3:50 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 15:50:04 -0400

Not without probable cause and due process.

Response by SGT John Wesley made Apr 11 at 2015 10:27 AM

SGT John Wesley — Sat, 11 Apr 2015 10:27:36 -0400

On a case by case basis? If the person is mentally unstable, has proven to be a threat to others? Yes.

Generally? Hell no....

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Apr 11 at 2015 10:29 AM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Sat, 11 Apr 2015 10:29:18 -0400

And this happened where?
Or is this a hypothetical .. in which case refer to the 4th amendment.
Nothing to do with the 2nd, really.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2015 6:01 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Apr 2015 18:01:38 -0400

no!!!

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2015 6:30 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Apr 2015 18:30:43 -0400

Over my dead body!

Response by SPC Patrick Gearardo made Apr 12 at 2015 8:18 PM

SPC Patrick Gearardo — Sun, 12 Apr 2015 20:18:54 -0400

I love it when our so-called government picks and chooses WHEN they want to follow the Constitution.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2015 8:41 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Apr 2015 20:41:15 -0400

NO! It is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD what keeps on getting tossed around the D.C. area.

Those Criminals are afraid of the TRUE AMERICAN Public.

Response by SFC Charles S. made Apr 12 at 2015 9:46 PM

SFC Charles S. — Sun, 12 Apr 2015 21:46:35 -0400

Not no but Hell no.

Response by SPC Jesse Bruno made Apr 21 at 2015 3:33 PM

SPC Jesse Bruno — Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:33:41 -0400

I always think its funny when people use the phrases "protection of citizens" or "for the good of society" frankly I really don't give a rats you know what of how others feel is good for others. I know whats good for me and mine. every one who thinks they know otherwise can go climb a rope.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Apr 21 at 2015 3:35 PM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:35:27 -0400

No ... The key words in your question are "legally owned". If they are legally owned, why would the police have any authority to confiscate them?

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Apr 22 at 2015 10:09 AM

SCPO David Lockwood — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:09:31 -0400

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2015 10:32 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:32:11 -0400

Legally purchased is just that, they were bought legally. The government does not have a right to my firearms.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Apr 22 at 2015 10:32 AM

Capt Richard I P. — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:32:26 -0400

Worth keeping an eye on, but a far cry from the powder raids. Don't keep all your eggs in one basket. Don't give up anything you aren't legally obligated to give up.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2015 10:35 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:35:10 -0400

Show me where this is happening and I won't get pissed off at you for posting this.

Response by SGT Michael Touchet made Apr 22 at 2015 11:25 AM

SGT Michael Touchet — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:25:31 -0400

No!

Response by LTC John Shaw made Apr 22 at 2015 12:03 PM

LTC John Shaw — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:03:28 -0400

The Fox News article states this well: “People keep forgetting the right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment, is protected by the U.S. constitution, and private property is protected under the Fifth Amendment,” Kilmer said. “Government cannot take property without just compensation and due process. The great thing is that when it comes to guns, you get protection under both amendments.”

As state and federal governments become more unfriendly to the 2nd amendment, gun owners will have to be willing to take them to court to protect their rights.

Response by SFC Chris Sedlock made Apr 22 at 2015 2:53 PM

SFC Chris Sedlock — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:53:06 -0400

Im just going to leave this right here

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ngsKzdKNAmo

Response by SrA Edward Vong made May 16 at 2015 10:59 PM

SrA Edward Vong — Sat, 16 May 2015 22:59:23 -0400

They will if they really wanted to. But they won't, and it wouldn't happen.

Response by SGT Kevin Brown made Jun 10 at 2015 11:03 PM

SGT Kevin Brown — Wed, 10 Jun 2015 23:03:46 -0400

Never. When it comes to the 2nd Amendment the right of the government (at any level) is well defined with these four beautiful little words "Shall not be infringed".

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 11 at 2015 1:13 AM

PO1 John Miller — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 01:13:38 -0400

I doubt this will ever actually happen. But if it does, they can TRY to take my guns. I may get killed in the process, but all they'll get from me is my bullets as they exit my gun(s)!

Response by LCpl Paul Scruggs made Jun 11 at 2015 1:21 AM

LCpl Paul Scruggs — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 01:21:47 -0400

Fuck no

Response by SGT Kristjan Rahe made Jun 11 at 2015 1:27 AM

SGT Kristjan Rahe — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 01:27:09 -0400

You have answered your own question, no , as they are legally owned. Without violation of law, specifically domestic violence provisions, assault with said weapon, illegal proxy purchase then there is no legal means. I know , and I speak for my own experience, but most LEO'S are 2d amendment lovers

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2015 1:58 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:58:06 -0400

The fact is this. The 2nd amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms. The 4th amendment requires due process relating to search and seizures. The government can howl and cry about it all day long but they can't change that. Their only option is to amend the constitution, or to restrict via regulatory fiat. The former is allowed but would never pass, and the latter is tyranny, more specifically, tyranny that would require an army to enforce, which, judging by the comments here, would be a gross miscalculation of where our loyalties lie. As for me, I would never follow an illegal order that violates the rights of the citizens I have risen my hand 3 times now to swear to protect. My oath is to the Constitution of the United States, to the rights of the people, and NOT to some overstepping regulatory federal agency. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to try and "come and take them", but be warned, I'm an excellent marksman and I damn sure hate tyranny.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 12:45 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 12:45:15 -0400

NO WAY!!!!

Response by SFC Jeremy Stocker made Jul 5 at 2015 8:43 PM

SFC Jeremy Stocker — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 20:43:53 -0400

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or Bill of rights are you guaranteed a warm and fuzzy feeling, however We are guaranteed the rights to bear arms under the Second Amendment, and under the forth Amendment to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Said searches and seizures must "be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause." If no crime has been committed how can there possibly be probable cause. If the guns are legally owned how can they be confiscated under even a legal 4th amendment search if they have not been used in a crime and are not evidence to such.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 24 at 2016 6:52 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 May 2016 06:52:28 -0400

No, never. Our constitutional rights are protected above and beyond any laws that congress makes, or orders that the president issues. We the people have the authority to declare any act unconstitutional, if it infringes upon our constitutional rights.

Response by SSG George Holtje made Dec 23 at 2019 8:33 PM

SSG George Holtje — Mon, 23 Dec 2019 20:33:31 -0500

One issue, the only real issue. Can a child access the weapon? I would consider disarming people without the good sense to secure their guns so the kids can’t play with them.

Response by PV2 Kathleen Shanks made Aug 10 at 2020 5:45 PM

PV2 Kathleen Shanks — Mon, 10 Aug 2020 17:45:27 -0400

The US must pull out the disarmament agreement with the UN! In basic training, you told us that in 50 years, the United States would no longer exist, as China and other countries would take ownership. It turns out that you were correct! This was something that my eighteen-year-old mind could not comprehend then, and I doubted your words, Mark. It is clear that the UN Agenda 21 and 2030 are currently ravaging our country. The evil powers that be, will pull false flag after false flag to achieve their goal of systematically destroying our country and implementing the NWO. "The great reset," which includes the removal of rights and depopulation. It is time that we band together to restore the republic, and make the population the sovereign beings they were intended to be, and not mere debt slaves that they are currently. I am interested to hear your thoughts on current events. I have always thought of you as wise, and more aware than most of the sleeping masses. God bless you!

Response by SPC Jesse Davis made Jul 1 at 2021 6:16 PM

SPC Jesse Davis — Thu, 01 Jul 2021 18:16:46 -0400

They already do in certain contexts, so given that this is a fox article, what it's really asking is if certain protected demographics should be subject to the same treatment.

Response by MSG Stan Hutchison made Jul 1 at 2021 6:24 PM

MSG Stan Hutchison — Thu, 01 Jul 2021 18:24:45 -0400

It is evident that someone here screwed the pooch. There is absolutely the need to remove weapons from someone that has been deemed a threat by a judge, after a hearing. However, there also is an absolute necessity that those weapon be returned when that threat is no longer valid.

As usual, Faux spins the story.