Would you enforce a law you felt was not Constitutional?

[ShadowWarrior]

A Question for my LAW ENFORCEMENT friends and fellow officers/ deputies.

If they pass a BAN on "Assualt Rifles" and you are told to take part in physical confiscations at peoples homes who have done nothing other than own one, would you do it and comply or would you refuse to follow the order based on it be "unconstitutional" in your eyes?

I am only tabulating numbers not names after I tabulate your answer I will not use any names or locations in my article.

Thanks this is research for an article I am writing.

Be safe out there! Feel free to share with your LEO friends if you will.

[Ratatatat]

I would quit.

Easy for me to say though... I'm out of the biz!

I don't think it will happen, either. Campaign rhetoric from a candidate in the single digits.

NRA should send Beto a thank you card for the jump in memberships today....

[Aidokea]

Beto is going to go down in history as the best gun salesman since that guy that chose to bring honor to the office of the President of the United States by jamming a cigar up someone else's daughter in the White House while his wife was sleeping in the next room and then lying about it on national television...and then getting impeached for it.

You know, that guy who was married to that woman who went on national television to refer to a KKK Exalted Cyclops as her "friend and mentor", was endorsed in the 2016 presidential election by KKK Grand Dragon Will Quigg, and then somehow lost the election.

[retired1995]

Appointment to a position in law enforcement requires the administration of an oath of office, typically swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and frequently swearing to uphold the constitution of the state in which we are commissioned. That oath, once given, has no expiration clause.

I will not attempt to speak for others who have taken up a career in law enforcement. I will simply say that if the day should arrive when the legislators and congress-critters choose to ignore the Constitution (and their own oaths of office to support and defend said Constitution) I will not comply with unconstitutional (i.e.: unlawful) orders.

I will also point out that there are approximately 110-120 million law-abiding gun owners in the United States with an estimated 350-400 million firearms and well over 1 trillion rounds of ammunition.

Historians generally agree that during the (first) American Revolution there were never more than about 2% of the American population actively engaged in rebellion. Assuming that the same holds true, the (second) American Revolution might consist of approx. 2.2-2.4 million citizens with about 7-8 million firearms and over 200 billion rounds of ammunition. That represents roughly 6-7 times the forces deployed during the Vietnam conflict, and more than 10 times the forces deployed during the various modern conflicts in the Middle East (not to mention being about 6 or 8 times the number of all active law enforcement officers in the United States).

Finally, today's politicians would do very well to recall that on the morning of April 19, 1775 the lawful government of North America, in the person of Governor General Gage, deployed British troops in a march on Lexington and Concorde for the specific purpose of disarming the American colonists and seizing stores of arms and ammunition. The result was shots fired at the Old Stone Bridge, beginning the (first) American Revolution. Gun control did not work in 1775 and it will not work any better in 2019; the only differences will be the numbers of casualties and the greater amount of media attention and daily body counts on the nightly news reports.

Please note that I am not advocating violence or rebellion against lawful authority, I am simply commenting on history and human nature, particularly in the United States where heavy-handed government is not tolerated very well.

[Aidokea]

Absolutely spot-on. And an infinitely more mature response than calling Beto O'Rourke's attention to my mistletoe belt buckle.

[CCCSD]

I would never answer these types of posts as it is discoverable and will be used against you during the IA and termination.

[Aidokea]

...but you just did...

[ShadowWarrior]

So explain to me how an answer to this question could harm you in IA. Just what violation of department policy would it involve?

[RGDS]

Their social media policy and the one about bringing shame on the Department.

[CCCSD]

No, I did not comment on the subject. I commented on the issue of social media searches done by IA et al in order to punish officers.

[L-1]

If they pass a BAN on "Assualt Rifles"..........

Dude, have you been in a coma for the past 20 years or so??????

California banned certain firearms as "Assault Rifles" many years ago. The battle has been fought in court and the Supremes have yet to declare the assault weapon ban as being unconstitutional.

[ShadowWarrior]

No "Dude" that is California, which has been completely off the charts with many of its laws and rulings. What California does is not national. I am talking on National level "Dude".

[RGDS]

Do you even know what you are talking about?

The Cal ban had been in place 1989.

There once was a national ban. It existed from 1994-2004.

Large scale gun confiscation didn’t occur. Even small scale confiscation didn’t occur. Because you have a 5th Amendment right to property.

Now, in California, those who are convicted felons, those with qualified misdemeanor convictions, and those who are adjudicated mentally unfit must surrender their weapons or they will be confiscated. This isn’t unconstitutional.

A national level ban is realistic. A national level ban with forced confiscation is a talking point by people not in a position to enforce law. It is also not realistic.

[AtlCop]

Nevermind. .

[Ratatatat]

I've lived and worked in rural communities in both the west and the south. I can attest there is a significant portion of the population who believe very strongly in the concept of "only from my dead fingers". I can also state these people are not always the typical militia or anti-gov archetypes- often they are law abiding, tax paying, God fearing people who really don't care what the government does, as long as they have their guns. Mass confiscation would be a garryowen for mobilization and reaction on an unprecedented scale.

Beto can wishful think all he wants, but there will never be mass gun roundups. Voluntary compliance would be low, sheriffs and PDs would refuse to assist (some sheriffs may even obstruct. Ever been to rural Idaho or Utah?), and too many LEOs would be put at risk taking away guns from patriotic decent citizens. And I agree- this is the kind of thing that could spark Civil War 2.0, something which many eggheads who study history believe this country is headed for anyway, given the rising social and political tensions.

[Ratatatat]

Another thought:

What would happen with all the LEOs who personally own ARs?

Would they line up to hand over their custom build short barrel with EOTech sights to some bureaucratic minion to toss in the blow torch pile?

Or would they become outlaws themselves?

[RGDS]

What bureaucratic minions?

And there was no need to bring Benchmade into this.

[Kraut0783]

I think if there was a federal law passed to confiscate weapons....States (some, not all) would impose there own laws against that. Kinda like the states that have passed marijuana laws, but the Federal law is still there, just not enforced.

It would be an interesting line in the sand.

Anyway, if we came to that....it would be a S*** show.

[Dinosaur32]

The question here is about obeying an order to enforce a law. As a LEO you must enforce any lawful order. All laws are lawful/constitutional until a court overturns the law. As a sworn officer you do not get to determine what laws are constitutional.

[Ratatatat]

The question here is about obeying an order to enforce a law. As a LEO you must enforce any lawful order. All laws are lawful/constitutional until a court overturns the law. As a sworn officer you do not get to determine what laws are constitutional.

Not sure it's that cut and dry. PDs all over are turning a blind eye to immigration laws. Some sheriff departments in the west don't acknowledge federal land agency laws. And I've seen numerous occasions of 'selective enforcement' or 'prosecutorial discretion' throughout my career, where some laws on the books that didn't get much heedance also didn't get a lot of police attention....

[Dinosaur32]

Ratatat......What you wrote is somewhat different from the original post. If the powers that be, Sherif, Police Commissioner, do not tell you to enforce a law, that is their decision. As an officer, we do not have the authority to decide what laws we will enforce.

[BTDT2]

I would never answer these types of posts as it is discoverable and will be used against you during the IA and termination.

No, I did not comment on the subject. I commented on the issue of social media searches done by IA et al in order to punish officers.

I concur with 3C’s.

[Ratatatat]

I concur with 3C’s, a number of years ago on another LE forum a print out of post and private messages between another member and myself found its way to IA and shoved up our rear ends by command staff.

What was the context? Dirty jokes? Ethnic slurs? Smack about your bosses?

And how does discussing a hypothetical 'what would you do' result in shame on your department if you aren't talking about your department?