First of all. I'm a 12 year reservist with a long military lineage. I'm not bashing the military by any means. But some of these "tin foil hat" sites that I have been reading, along with some actual events like Katrina have gotten me thinking about some of these scenarios.

Would I follow orders to confiscate weapons? I mean from a young age it is drilled in my head to follow orders, to be diciplined, its what makes our military the greatest.
In one hand, instances like Katrina can be justified. If I was there in a military capacity, removing those weapons would make my job safer. On the other hand, if I was there in a Civi roll, theres no way in hell I'd give up my arms.
Then these sites pop up with all sorts of accusations and conspiracy theorys about the military's roll in them. I'm not saying that I beleive any of that but it cant help but make you think.
I just wonder what you would do.

for reference:
http://www.libertyforlife.com/law/posse_comitatus_destroyed.htm

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/020408_shoot_americans.htm

The first person that tried that in my house would receive a 30.0.6 in the knee....

And if they were still intent on disarming me? There's a .357 to back it up And I'm an army wife.

I live in Texas..it's still okay here to stay armed, and protect your home and property.

I hear ya...

But what if it was your local little league coach that you used to have over for cookouts or your cousin fresh out of boot, just following orders...

What if your husband was ordered to do it elsewhere..

kinda reminds me of the brothers fighting brothers during the War of Northern Aggression
that would suck.

Interesting. There were a lot of instances where the Lousiana NG were troubled with the orders. Suppose some soldiers refused to obey the orders. No doubt commanders would be troubled about prosecuting these soldiers with UCMJ. For a soldier to refuse to obey the order on grounds that it is an illegal order is risky. Because the legality of the order has to be justified later in a court of law. The legality of the order is figured out later. It could be clearly illegal at the time, only to have a judge declair it legal later. Then, the commanders would have the choice of prosecuting or resigning. If they resign, they are replaced by commanders who would prosecute. And so on up the chain of command.

Any further speculation might venture into the realms of conspiracy theory.

Many New Orleans police walked off the job.

Would I fire on an American citizen if ordered to? It would depend on the legality of the order at that time or situation.

For example, if I had been in uniform and under arms when I saw anti-abortion terrorist Eric Rudolph place his bomb at the Olympics in Atlanta, GA and my military superior said "Fire!", yes, I would have gone for a head shot - and not lost a minutes sleep over it.

if I were in uniform and under arms when the President of the United States was visiting Boston and I saw a man or woman in the crowd carrying a firearm and my military superior ordered me to confiscate the firearm - I would confiscate it on the spot - and shot them if they resisted turning it over.

It's not all cut-and-dried - it's situational.

A short doccumentry on the confiscation of firearms ater Katrina here

In this video, you can see that if the military has trouble enforcing questionable decrees, one can always find goons to do the dirty work.

quote:

Originally posted by ImonKPagain2:
Interesting. There were a lot of instances where the Lousiana NG were troubled with the orders.

troubled, but they did it..

quote:

Suppose some soldiers refused to obey the orders. No doubt commanders would be troubled about prosecuting these soldiers with UCMJ. For a soldier to refuse to obey the order on grounds that it is an illegal order is risky. Because the legality of the order has to be justified later in a court of law. The legality of the order is figured out later. It could be clearly illegal at the time, only to have a judge declair it legal later. Then, the commanders would have the choice of prosecuting or resigning. If they resign, they are replaced by commanders who would prosecute. And so on up the chain of command.

Any further speculation might venture into the realms of conspiracy theory.

thats alot to mull over, especially in the seconds one would have to comply to an order.

quote:

Many New Orleans police walked off the job.

true, but some with suspect motives IMHO..

quote:

Originally posted by Fightdirector:
Would I fire on an American citizen if ordered to? It would depend on the legality of the order at that time or situation.

For example, if I had been in uniform and under arms when I saw anti-abortion terrorist Eric Rudolph place his bomb at the Olympics in Atlanta, GA and my military superior said "Fire!", yes, I would have gone for a head shot - and not lost a minutes sleep over it.

if I were in uniform and under arms when the President of the United States was visiting Boston and I saw a man or woman in the crowd carrying a firearm and my military superior ordered me to confiscate the firearm - I would confiscate it on the spot - and shot them if they resisted turning it over.

It's not all cut-and-dried - it's situational.

those situations are cut-and-dried...
the ones in that video that imonk. posted (which I didnt see untill after my last post)are not so cut-and-dried. granted those were police and I know thats a little different from a military presence although not much.

I dont the whole Katrina thing and some of what those other sites are posting just really troubles me as a patriotic military person.

Let's take it to another, but non-Katerina, situation:

If you were at Waco, Texas, surrounding the Branch Davidian compound, and you recieved .50 caliber fire from the building (as those surrounding the compound did) and your military superior said "return fire" - would you?

Or would you have said, "No, they're just exercising their 2nd Amendment rights as American citizens. I can't shoot them.".

The military, at least at this point, wouldn't be used to do the actual dirty work. Notice in the second video, the soldiers' orders are to disarm citizens, is the citizen refuses, contact "other aurhorities".

Local law makers don't have direct authority over the NG to give it such direct orders. They have their own police and SWAT for that.

A more likely incident is that NG soldiers get positioned around neighborhoods to maintain a visual presence and to protect citizens and property from looters. Though not having authority to actually pull the trigger. This would be good enough to deter petty theves and opportunists.

How clear would the soldiers' orders be in regards from keeping people out of the neighborhoods. An opportunistic group of dirty cops might try to gain enery into homes for the purpose of burglary. Would the soldier allow the police entry into homes. Or, an opportunity by overzealous DEA to use the emergency to just sweep through houses in search of paraphanalia or marijuana growing operations.

Another danger are the more organised and violent criminal gang elements. A soldier without ammunition would be a juicey target if someone wanted to steal an M16.

Getting the military involved with questionable law enforcement is dicey. In all likelyhood, the military would only have a nominally supportive role in it.

Soldiers themselves are more likely to refuse or question iffy orders.



Disarming and forcably evacuating the holdouts is another matter.

"If you were at Waco, Texas"
thats a little bit different, and imho I believe that could have been handled alot differently from the begining, but thats another dead horse that doesnt need to be resurected...

I'm not talking about criminals here. I'm sure you are familiar with SHTF?
I'm talking about martial law, and disarming a law abiding society with registered weapons, or suspending the Constitution.

Look at it from the other side, what would you do if they came to take your weapons and leave you and your family defenseless?

Or when you are deployed and your family is back home without you AND any weapons?

Unless the NG has been federalized, and martial law declared, the NG is subordinate to the civil authorities. The civil authorities cannot be displaced unless martial law is declared.

Waco. Law enforcement does not use suppressive fire. We return fire only on a positively identified threat. It may happen, at time, but it should not. As a civilian officer, my superiors CANNOT order me to fire on someone. It is strictly and undeniably MY choice. In fact, my agency has specific wording stating that an officer shall not be censured, diciplined, etc. for NOT discharging a weapon in an incident. We are required to justify using force, not justify not using force. Cops are not soldiers, soldiers are not cops.

I watched the YouTube clip myself and something came to mind:

Let's assume you decided to stay in your house despite the order to evacuate. You're sitting there in the dark, drinking bottled water and eating cold beans with your wife, with your rifle/shotgun/pistol by your side - and you hear someone on your front porch. He says "This is the police". You say "Go away". He says, "You are violating the evacuation order and we're here to move you to safety." You say, "I'm not leaving my house". He kicks in your front door and you fire your rifle/shotgun/pistol, killing the policeman. His partner returns fire, killing you and your wife when she goes for her gun.

Was his partner in the wrong for shooting you and your wife, because you had both shot his partner and had also violated the law by refusing to obey the evacuation order? By violating the evacuation order/law, you were a criminal - you ceased to be an innocent homeowner. He would be in the right - and if I were a military policeman charged under martial law with enforcing the evacuation order, I would have been in the right - and I would have blown you away.

You see, this is the flawed thinking. You have people in authority willing to use force to the point of blowing someone away to enforce an order meant to protect that person you are blowing away....Does it make sense? And, since when has deadly force been considered justified for a violation of an evacuation order?

Granted, an officer has the right to defend himself if assaulted or attacked, such as your little shooting scenario, but, realistically, how often does that happen? One would think that if there is a proclivity of the populace to do fight removal, the civil government would let it go, and let them stay in place, and suspend any further mandatory, forced evacuation, in order to avoid bloodshed. A reasonable LE executive or Mayor would recognize this and suspend operations.

quote:

Originally posted by Fightdirector:
I watched the YouTube clip myself and something came to mind:

Let's assume you decided to stay in your house despite the order to evacuate. You're sitting there in the dark, drinking bottled water and eating cold beans with your wife, with your rifle/shotgun/pistol by your side - and you hear someone on your front porch. He says "This is the police". You say "Go away". He says, "You are violating the evacuation order and we're here to move you to safety." You say, "I'm not leaving my house". He kicks in your front door and you fire your rifle/shotgun/pistol, killing the policeman. His partner returns fire, killing you and your wife when she goes for her gun.

Was his partner in the wrong for shooting you and your wife, because you had both shot his partner and had also violated the law by refusing to obey the evacuation order? By violating the evacuation order/law, you were a criminal - you ceased to be an innocent homeowner. He would be in the right - and if I were a military policeman charged under martial law with enforcing the evacuation order, I would have been in the right - and I would have blown you away.

No
....and F NO!

quote:

Originally posted by Fightdirector:
I watched the YouTube clip myself and something came to mind:

Let's assume you decided to stay in your house despite the order to evacuate. You're sitting there in the dark, drinking bottled water and eating cold beans with your wife, with your rifle/shotgun/pistol by your side - and you hear someone on your front porch. He says "This is the police". You say "Go away". He says, "You are violating the evacuation order and we're here to move you to safety." You say, "I'm not leaving my house". He kicks in your front door and you fire your rifle/shotgun/pistol, killing the policeman. His partner returns fire, killing you and your wife when she goes for her gun.

Was his partner in the wrong for shooting you and your wife, because you had both shot his partner and had also violated the law by refusing to obey the evacuation order? By violating the evacuation order/law, you were a criminal - you ceased to be an innocent homeowner. He would be in the right - and if I were a military policeman charged under martial law with enforcing the evacuation order, I would have been in the right - and I would have blown you away.

I think Gene said it best with his "flawed thinking" line.

So you would just hand over your weapons and accept the free ride to the "FEMA" camp?
Remember we will all retire one day...

As an active police officer, I would refuse to conduct door to door operations to confiscate weapons in the possession of the populace. If a person were using the firearm in the commission of a crime against another, that is a different, and individual, incident. I do not consider, however, the retention of a firearm after an unlawful and unconstitutional mandate to surrender that weapon a crime. When the New Orleans crap went down, and they seized weapons, that was an unlawful order. As far as removing people forcefully from their homes, I have a problem with that. If there is no immediate danger, and a person wants to stay in their home to care for it and protect it, leave them be. If it is underwater, and they are at risk, well, I can see telling them to leave, but, if they are able bodied and capable of caring for themselves, and resist, let them stay. They have the right to decide for themselves. We are free people, and yes, the govt. does tend to be intrusive in the attitude of "we know what is best for you"....

I have seen the above video before, and the announcement the NO chief of police made in the beginning infuriated me. I cannot blame the officers for walking away from the job, if that is the reason. I think it is a tiny example of what to expect from authorities if there is ever a nationwide cataclysm.

Not just NO, But hell no!

quote:

Originally posted by ImonKPagain2:
Interesting. There were a lot of instances where the Lousiana NG were troubled with the orders. Suppose some soldiers refused to obey the orders. No doubt commanders would be troubled about prosecuting these soldiers with UCMJ. For a soldier to refuse to obey the order on grounds that it is an illegal order is risky. Because the legality of the order has to be justified later in a court of law. The legality of the order is figured out later. It could be clearly illegal at the time, only to have a judge declair it legal later. Then, the commanders would have the choice of prosecuting or resigning. If they resign, they are replaced by commanders who would prosecute. And so on up the chain of command.

Any further speculation might venture into the realms of conspiracy theory.

Many New Orleans police walked off the job.

ah man the nopd was courrpt as hell a lot of them probity saw their house of cards coming down and said later... a captain in the nopd blew his brains out...

i dont think many would carry out these orders borderline unconstitutional(well it is but there are admindment to override it in times of uncertainly).. yea i know it has happen but i also heard that they had to get mercanires to do it...