Reddit: "Police Officers: If ordered, would you confiscate firearms from law abiding citizens?"

[Monky]

Are you all high!? EVERY SINGLE LEO I've talked to has stated that they're not going to enforce any gun confiscation efforts. The one I took my class with on Sat, who works for Commerce City PD, said everyone in his department, from Patrol officers, to supervisors, to the deputy chief (no word from the chief) all are not going to participate in any gun round-up. This talk of "a paycheck will keep them in line," is BS. If every single cop in a department refuses to go out and take guns away from people what are they going to do? Fire them all? Yeah right. Think of it this way- your boss just told you to increase the risk in your job by 500%, meaning you will most likely get shot at or killed... would you really do it? Some jurisdictions I know are too busy with just day to day calls, much less have the time to go door to door. I can't believe the lack of common fricken sense going on in here...

Do you sanitize the badges prior to licking them?

[Ronin13]

ok ronin, follow me here.


what if the government passes legislation banning assault weapons (new ones, transfers, etc)? but, not confiscating them? what if they ban mags over 10 rounds? what about limiting ammo purchases? will the police follow these laws? clearly they have in the past. so, once all the guns are banned and the mags are limited, then what? this will all be incrementally done untill we are defenseless.

Oh I'm following like a blue tick hound... I didn't say it won't be incremental erosion. I'm simply saying that an outright ban and confiscation measure wouldn't work, and wouldn't be enforced... That says nothing of a buy-back or amnesty. Like that saying goes "When you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns."

Ronin:

Few people, in any occupation, are willing to stand for principle over economic security, particularly when families are at stake. It is easy to take a stand when you have nothing at stake. It is an order of magnitude more difficult when you have your personal security or liberty at stake. It is exponentially* more difficult when your family or loved ones will suffer your decisions. That is the nature of humanity.

From a historical perspective, when local law enforcement cannot or will not comply with an order, entities such as the National Guard have been called in to take their place. The Insurrection Act provides an exception to Posse Comitatus that permits the National Guard to engage in law enforcement action under command of the state Governor.

To not understand the mechanisms, both of human nature and of law, by which people can be compelled to do something they might otherwise find morally repugnant, is a mark of ignorance or immaturity.





* As in, small changes along the X axis (family involvement) produce large changes in the Y axis (difficulty), quickly forming a vertical asymptote wherein minimal changes on the X axis drive the Y axis value towards infinity. Also as in: You should have paid more attention in math and/or I was the kind of kid you wanted to beat up in high school.

Except the small thing you're forgetting... In the 1860's Lincoln declared martial law and suspended Posse Comitatus, and the SCOTUS later found that measure to be unconstitutional (but Lincoln was already dead, so they couldn't put forth articles for impeachment). And I know what Exponential means, smartass. I've said it before, not sure if you saw, but "There is nothing more demoralizing to a unit than policing it's own citizens." And again, how many times do the few of us that actually look at the reality of the situation have to repeat ourselves... Stop. Think. Quit using the "people will toe the line for economic security" BS line... Let me put it in plain English (HBAR, don't need you to repeat yourself, I got your point)- As per this conversation, what was suggested, to mean, confiscation efforts (we're excluding buy backs/amnesty- talking outright ban, then if you don't comply, John Law is at your door to take your firearms) WILL LEAD TO THE DEATH OF HUNDREDS, if not THOUSANDS, of LEOs, they will not take part if their daily risk level goes up 500 fold. Capice?

[jhood001]

So these 'LEOs' you've been talking to Ronin... When you were talking to them, did they say they wouldn't enforce confiscations because they were afraid of being shot dead, or did they say they wouldn't enforce confiscations because it is wrong?

[TS12000]

So these 'LEOs' you've been talking to Ronin... When you were talking to them, did they say they wouldn't enforce confiscations because they were afraid of being shot dead, or did they say they wouldn't enforce confiscations because it is wrong?

Oooooh boy [pop]

[lowbeyond]

Oh I'm following like a blue tick hound... I didn't say it won't be incremental erosion. I'm simply saying that an outright ban and confiscation measure wouldn't work, and wouldn't be enforced... That says nothing of a buy-back or amnesty. Like that saying goes "When you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns."

Ok. Fine. Some won't sell em to the State. Now they are criminals.

So now what ?

[Citizen_Soldier]

If that were true I would think the turnover at police departments would be huge.

Well the day to day risk of death for your average LEO is relatively low, at least in smaller cities. I can count on one hand how many homicides occur per year in my entire county. I can't even remember the last LEO who died in the line of duty, it would take a lot of searching.

Law enforcement is all about minimizing risk. When they respond to a call where there is even a possibility of a lethal weapon, not even necessarily a firearm, they will arrive in force with lots of backup. Entire SWAT teams get assembled, fully kitted out, just for a single active shooter. Can you imagine the manpower/equipment/time required to go door to door to thousands of houses, with even 1% of them suspected of owning "assault rifles"? I think the risk is too high both for the officer who wants to go home to his family that night and also for the Chief/Sheriff who is responsible for his men's lives.

[JohnnyEgo]

Ronin, I am going to give you a pass because even though I believe you are young and ignorant, I also believe you are well intentioned. For all the grandiose talk, this very thing has repeated itself throughout history, c.f. the UK, Australia, or even here during Prohibition. A lot of people might look the other way or use discretion when there is little risk. Fewer will outright refuse an order.

And if you are going to cite history as a counterpoint to law, then you should demonstrate a better understanding of both. Understanding the Insurrection clause to Posse Comitatus would be a good place to begin. Long after Lincoln, the National Guard has been used when local law enforcement could not or would not obey orders. This has been for both good and ill. You shoulda easily be able to come up with the examples yourself, such as the Civil Rights movement or Katrina. You can argue theory all you want, but it is a poor substitute to experience.

I have to go and subsidize the 47% now that my lunch break is over, then Arrow is on the CW tonight, and I find it more stimulating then this discussion. So you will forgive me if I don't respond promptly to whatever insightful counterpoint you have to offer.

[sniper7]

It will just take one cop getting shot and the rest of the pissed off force will be busting down doors with tanks.

Or they might think it isnt worth it. Would have to be on a major scale and not isolated events

[Ronin13]

So these 'LEOs' you've been talking to Ronin... When you were talking to them, did they say they wouldn't enforce confiscations because they were afraid of being shot dead, or did they say they wouldn't enforce confiscations because it is wrong?

Both, actually. Many said that it's increased and unnecessary risk, and a clear and present violation of the 2nd Amendment.

I won't direct any response to JohnnyEgo- it's pretty obvious he didn't comprehend what I wrote earlier and already has some sort of preconceived notion that I'm ignorant due to my age... whatever, pal.

[10mm-man]

Ok, so I'm just mistaken that I didn't see already 12 CLEOs saying they will refuse to enforce any unconstitutional laws? If 90% of all cops refuse to enforce ONE law (jay walking is against the law, I've never seen anyone in the last 10 years get popped for it) they won't be fired. Especially if their Chief/Sheriff refuses to do so... Like you said, we'll see what happens, but I don't see a confiscation getting through congress.

I am a little fuzzy on this logic... Tell me; is not the registration of NFA items unconstitutional? How many LEO enforce that BS law? Set me straight as I am confused....

Think i am gonna go saw off a few shot guns, convert some Ar's into full auto and just keep em off the books! No need to worry about any LEO enforcing that because it's unconstitutional..... Yea!