PDA

View Full Version : Could it happen?


McGlock
03-22-2010, 8:41 PM
Hi all,

Sorry if I placed this in the wrong forum, but with all the current natural disasters happening around the world and in the event that California goes through one, (hopefully not) could California be placed in the same situation that New Orleans faced back in 2005 during Katrina where all law abiding citizens were stripped of their 2A and weapons confiscated?

Roadrunner
03-22-2010, 8:48 PM
According to the bill Arnold signed into law, no. However, reality suggests otherwise.

Deamer
03-22-2010, 8:48 PM
I think the Governator signed a order that would prevent that.

Glock-matic
03-22-2010, 8:53 PM
My concern would be some of the questionable LEO involved shootings that occurred post Katrina.

Ca Patriot
03-22-2010, 8:58 PM
They wont take my guns.

snobord99
03-22-2010, 8:58 PM
My concern would be some of the questionable LEO involved shootings that occurred post Katrina.

I think that could happen anywhere no matter what the laws are. The problem there isn't necessarily bad laws. It's bad cops.

Window_Seat
03-22-2010, 9:57 PM
I think this forum has a place for this kind of discussion, so if Mods are thinking of moving it, I would be OK with keeping it here, but that's just me.

Erik.

Lone_Gunman
03-22-2010, 10:09 PM
I see Shotgun Man has taken up DedEyes occupation of tilting at windmills. Different windmills than Ded but windmills just the same. I wish you luck sir and God speed.

champion
03-23-2010, 7:38 AM
So this discussion makes me ask this question?

What if in New Orleans someone had defended their right to keep and bear arms, a firefight took place, and a cop was killed in the process. Do you think the constitution would have reigned supreme or would local law have trumped the constitution, OR am I not seeing something here?

BTW, I'm asking in a strictly constitutional sense. In all reality I think I know what would happen nowadays.

bodger
03-23-2010, 7:47 AM
It's not going to happen at my house if I'm still alive, that's all I know for sure.

Whatever Ahnold signed won't mean diddly to some LEOs once they get the gun grab ball rolling.

todd2968
03-23-2010, 8:27 AM
To quote the late Charleton Heston and many others. They will take my guns when they pry them from my cold dead hands.
Funny thing was when Mississippi was equally hit, or even worse. Everyone started carrying (open carry) everywhere, and there were no issues. My block barricaded the streets and we divided into patrols.
We had a horn that if anyone challenged us the rest would either come a running or sight in from the house.
This was before we even heard of the gun confiscation thing in NAWLINS. It's not that we feared LEO it was to protect our houses from looters, but I'm sure anyone trying to disarm would be met with the same resistance.

ZombieTactics
03-23-2010, 9:02 AM
There are many ways to protect your property and rights in such situations. It's likely not necessary to even be belligerent about it in many cases. Most of my gear isn't even stored on my property. Some is out-of-state, some in a very secure self-storage facility within walking distance of my house.

My personal protocol goes something like this:

[B]LE: "We're going door-to-door confiscating weapons. You got any guns?"
ME: "Heavens no! I don't have anything illegal like that. I'm not one of those types y'know?"


Now, that may end it right there, as cops are people and people are often lazy, and lazy people just want to get on with it a lot of times. If not:

LE: "Well, we need to have a look around all the same"
ME: "I have no problem complying with the law, I imagine you've at least got some kind of warrant or whatever? If not, just come back whenever you get one, it's all good!"
LE: "We don't have time for that, this is an emergency. If you don't comply I'll arrest you for interfering with an investigation"


The strongest likelihood ... laziness, y'know? ... is that they'll locate ONE handgun and confiscate it. If they get snippy or imply that I lied to them, I'll simply apologize like a whipped puppy and beg forgiveness offering that I thought they meant ILLEGAL guns. If they inquire about other guns, I'll inform them that I have "hunting stuff" stored out-of-state with friends, but nothing illegal.

Ron-Solo
03-23-2010, 9:14 AM
Both the Federal government and the State of California have laws that prohibit this type of thing from happening again. We in law enforcement are well aware of it, and will follow it. You didn't see confiscations of firearms during the LA riots or the Northridge earthquake did you?

This topic has been beaten into the ground on so many threads and usually descends into the realm of LE bashing very quickly.

ZombieTactics
03-23-2010, 9:19 AM
Both the Federal government and the State of California have laws that prohibit this type of thing from happening again. We in law enforcement are well aware of it, and will follow it. You didn't see confiscations of firearms during the LA riots or the Northridge earthquake did you?

This topic has been beaten into the ground on so many threads and usually descends into the realm of LE bashing very quickly.
This is a very encouraging post to be sure, and let's not let this get into LE bashing.

I do have a question for you, however: IF your commander, or the chief-of-police, or some federal official ordered you to confiscate weapons, what do you think the response of most of your department would be? I personally believe that you have a constitutional duty (and authority) to arrest any said official for treason and place them into custody pending a fair trial.

champion
03-23-2010, 9:44 AM
I've asked both military and LE buddies about whether or not they would follow through with such an order and they both said that as of right now, they and most of those serving with them would tactfully ignore such an order. They did say that their would be some who would follow such and order but as Ron-Solo pointed out, since the incident in New Orleans no such action has taken place. In fact, due to the backlash that took place because of those confiscations I think most agencies are probably leary of taking such an action.

This is a very encouraging post to be sure, and let's not let this get into LE bashing.

I do have a question for you, however: IF your commander, or the chief-of-police, or some federal official ordered you to confiscate weapons, what do you think the response of most of your department would be? I personally believe that you have a constitutional duty (and authority) to arrest any said official for treason and place them into custody pending a fair trial.

Vtec44
03-23-2010, 11:13 AM
Everyone keeps saying Arnold signed a bill that would prevent your guns from being confiscated. Do we know exactly which bill he signed?

berto
03-23-2010, 11:20 AM
There are state and federal laws barring such action. Those laws are only as good as those tasked with enforcing them.

todd2968
03-23-2010, 11:21 AM
I am military and I swore an oath to support and defend the constitution against "ALL" enemies foriegn and domestic, so any order that the defies the constitution is considered unlawful.

Ron-Solo
03-23-2010, 2:14 PM
This is a very encouraging post to be sure, and let's not let this get into LE bashing.

I do have a question for you, however: IF your commander, or the chief-of-police, or some federal official ordered you to confiscate weapons, what do you think the response of most of your department would be? I personally believe that you have a constitutional duty (and authority) to arrest any said official for treason and place them into custody pending a fair trial.

Please remember that during an emergency, all the existing firearms laws are still in effect, so those can be enforced. The individual officer still has some discreaton on misdemeanor offenses. (frankly, after a few days of getting shot at, the desire to cut someone some slack goes away. I was shot at 7 times in the 1st two hours of hitting the streets during the LA Riots)

IF my superior directed me to confiscate weapons for no other reason than someone had them, I would question what his/her legal standing would be for such an action, since it is clearly banned by Federal law. (and no, I don't remember what the section is, but since I won't be confiscating any guns, I don't need to have it memorized).

He/She would be unable to provide any such legal standing so we would not be confiscating guns "just because" someone didn't want the people armed.

During the LA riots and Northridge earthquake I was a squad leader on many response teams. I remember driving down Long Beach Bl in Compton and seeing numerous armed shop owners in their stores and on roof tops. Didn't give them much as a 2nd glance, except out of curiousity for what they were packing. :)

When things started to settle down, I had many interesting conversations with some of them about thier hardware.

Now, if there are roving bands of armed people wandering about, you can bet they will get special attention. Vigilante patrols can be a problem and that's what was intended to be stopped after Katrina, but it got out of hand. I have friends who responded there. The initial direction was to put a stop to roving bands of vigilantes, and some knucklehead expanded on it and they were jacking people up for their guns.

Stopping roving armed vigilante bands was probably a good idea, but the plan was severely flawed, and confused by poor leadership.

And while there are some of my superiors that I'd love to hook up :cool:, arresting them for treason is not a valid option :(. Treason is very specific and this doesn't fit the crime. Contrary to popular belief, treason is a very hard crime to prove.

Aloha, Ron

elSquid
03-23-2010, 2:44 PM
What if in New Orleans someone had defended their right to keep and bear arms, a firefight took place, and a cop was killed in the process. Do you think the constitution would have reigned supreme or would local law have trumped the constitution, OR am I not seeing something here?

What's going to happen, post incident, is that the whole event will be evaluated by the legal process. Obviously, the outcome will depend on a variety of factors.

For example, the so-called "Danzinger bridge massacre" is winding it's way through the system as we speak:

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2010/02/former_police_officer_pleads_g.html

Admitting a cover-up of shocking breadth, a former New Orleans police supervisor pleaded guilty to a federal obstruction charge on Wednesday, confessing that he participated in a conspiracy to justify the shooting of six unarmed people after Hurricane Katrina that was hatched not long after police stopped firing their weapons.

The guilty plea of Lt. Michael Lohman, who retired from the department earlier this month, contains explosive details of the alleged cover-up and ramps up the legal pressure on police officers involved in the shooting and subsequent investigation. It's unclear when Lohman's cooperation with federal authorities began, but he presumably is prepared to testify against the officers he says helped him lie about the circumstances of a shooting he immediately deemed a "bad shoot."

So, the lesson to take away is that even in a large disaster the rule of law still holds sway. Expect incidents to be investigated.

-- Michael

ocspeedracer
03-23-2010, 2:55 PM
I'm thankful for the good LEO's around the OC, there may be a few bad apples but I haven't met any.

No, I haven't met Mike Carona.

oddball
03-23-2010, 2:58 PM
Anything's possible.

So "they" signed it into law :rolleyes:. If martial law ever took place in any given situation, rights and laws will most likely take a backseat to "security". Liberties will be restricted, all in the name of Public Safety. And we all know Ben Franklin's quote on that subject.

Given the events in the last few days, do you honestly think our liberties will be absolutely ours to keep in a Katrina, or other SHTF situation? Let's be real.


__________________

hoffmang
03-23-2010, 7:22 PM
Lot's of tinfoil here, not much Google skill.

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?id=10152

AB 1645 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1645&sess=PREV&house=B&author=la_malfa) of 2007.

-Gene

Shotgun Man
03-23-2010, 7:30 PM
Lot's of tinfoil here, not much Google skill.

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?id=10152

AB 1645 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1645&sess=PREV&house=B&author=la_malfa) of 2007.

-Gene

Since when does the law prevent the government from violating it, especially in an emergency setting? The recent examples are too obvious to state.

champion
03-23-2010, 8:15 PM
In the end I suppose one has to know their rights and decide in that moment what is the best course of action.

POLICESTATE
03-23-2010, 8:21 PM
Anything is possible, to take some comfort in laws that the govt can easily break I think is foolhardy. Granted, it's not supposed to happen, but that doesn't mean it won't.

Swatguy10_15
03-23-2010, 8:32 PM
Since when does the law prevent the government from violating it, especially in an emergency setting? The recent examples are too obvious to state.

Although this is very very true I think "they have" learned what NOT to do. Being they took lessons learned from katrina and such and took the time and effort to vote and sign for a law I really dont think anyone would try this.. But who am I?
I fly so in the event of any form of military involvement in a natural disaster I would be (happily) floating above the mess, even so if they came down with an order to take "citizens weapons away" I along with all of the soldiers I know would laugh.
People take theyre right to defend themself very seriously and I am not about to get into a firefight with a fellow american because some Gub'ment official decided he/she didnt want the locals to have theyre weapons. If they want them, THEY can go get them :)

CCWFacts
03-23-2010, 8:47 PM
Sorry if I placed this in the wrong forum, but with all the current natural disasters happening around the world and in the event that California goes through one, (hopefully not) could California be placed in the same situation that New Orleans faced back in 2005 during Katrina where all law abiding citizens were stripped of their 2A and weapons confiscated?

I think it's very likely, even though there is a "Katrina bill" here. In disaster situations, in liberal areas, it seems like they put disarming residents as the top priority, above rescue operations. It's some kind of instinct, and our "Katrina bill" won't prevent it.

These threads come up regularly and my advice is always:


Have a "throw-away" gun that you can give up. "Oh no, officer, please please don't take my Mauser! It's all I've got!"
Have a simple rugged video camera as part of your preparedness kit, and video tape all interactions with LE. I'm sure 99.99% of LEOs are proud of the work they do and will be proud to be video taped in the course of rescuing people and keeping their oath to defend the Constitution.


Using these two techniques, if there is a confiscation effort, you will:


Lose a gun that you didn't care about.
Have one or more other guns ready, after the rescue crew leaves.
Have a wonderful video tape of you repeating over and over, "I don't consent to a search, I want a receipt for that, I'm not voluntarily giving this up, you're violating my right to keep and bear arms", etc.


With some luck, the video tape will let you exchange that old Mauser for a new house.

bambam8d1
03-23-2010, 11:02 PM
members of the military take an oath to protect and defend the constitution and also to follow orders of the president correct? what if the president gives orders that are illegal or unconstitutional?

elSquid
03-24-2010, 12:44 AM
In the end I suppose one has to know their rights and decide in that moment what is the best course of action.

If you really want to stand up for your rights and push back against the system, you'll surrender your firearms under protest and document everything you can about the incident. Post-event retain a lawyer and use the legal system - that's what it's there for. You may be able to get a criminal conviction against the officer(s) involved or get them fired, and you will be able to sue for civil rights violations ( thanks to "Heller" and "McDonald" ).

Escalating the situation into a violent confrontation does not benefit anyone.

-- Michael

vantec08
03-24-2010, 5:52 AM
Lot's of tinfoil here, not much Google skill.

Lots of wishful thinking here, not much common sense.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/u-s-troops-to-march-in-red-square-parade/

Ron-Solo
03-24-2010, 9:28 AM
Since when does the law prevent the government from violating it, especially in an emergency setting? The recent examples are too obvious to state.

What recent examples do you refer to in California? Did we have an emergency that I missed somewhere in the state where guns were confiscated.

Everyone keeps referring to Katrina, where even the law enforcement community doesn't trust New Orleans police. Sadly, they have a reputation for corruption.

And for those of you that refer to martial law, the military takes over control of all law enforcement. I can't think of a time in my 32 year career where it has happened in California. It didn't happen in the LA riots. I was there. Calling in the National Guard is not martial law.

chrisw
03-24-2010, 9:54 AM
Wasn't one of the cops that took that old lady's revolver during Katrina a California LEO?

Saying that we have laws to prevent gun confiscation during a disaster is like saying gun free zones stop gun violence at school.

hnoppenberger
03-24-2010, 10:00 AM
too many well to do, maniac gun owners here. too many of us wont give up guns no matter what cost.

Ron-Solo
03-24-2010, 12:52 PM
Wasn't one of the cops that took that old lady's revolver during Katrina a California LEO?

CA LEO's that went to Katrina were sworn in as Louisianna peace officers and were following their laws, which are different. Since that incident, both CA and the Federal Govt have passed laws prohibiting such actions.

Saying that we have laws to prevent gun confiscation during a disaster is like saying gun free zones stop gun violence at school.

Apples and oranges in my opinion



Can anyone cite factual information on a single gun confiscation in CA as a result of a disaster declaration in recent history?

Just the facts ma'am, just the facts.

berto
03-24-2010, 2:09 PM
Can anyone cite factual information on a single gun confiscation in CA as a result of a disaster declaration in recent history?

Just the facts ma'am, just the facts.

My neighbor's uncle's friend's gardner swears he knows a guy who knows a guy who's friend heard from a friend that something bad went down during an earthquake or a fire or something.

hoffmang
03-24-2010, 3:34 PM
It is far easier to convince an agent of the state to do something that's not clearly illegal.

When the dust settles (and it will) then there will be a price for those who violate the law.

Otherwise, you're an anarchist.

-Gene

BillCA
03-24-2010, 3:50 PM
And for those of you that refer to martial law, the military takes over control of all law enforcement. I can't think of a time in my 32 year career where it has happened in California. It didn't happen in the LA riots. I was there. Calling in the National Guard is not martial law.

1965 - Watts riots.

Simple rules. In the aftermath of a disaster, keep the black & Soviet rifles concealed. Keep a low profile with any guns. Coordinate with neighbors in keeping your neighborhood safe.

CAL.BAR
03-24-2010, 3:53 PM
I think the Governator signed a order that would prevent that.

Tell that to the officer who tells you to get off the roof and hand over your rifle.

todd2968
03-24-2010, 7:28 PM
members of the military take an oath to protect and defend the constitution and also to follow orders of the president correct? what if the president gives orders that are illegal or unconstitutional?

I didn't vote for him. They put that oath in context: Support and defend the constitution against all enemies foriegn and domestic and the orders of the President and those appointed over me. I've also been taught any order that violates the law is unlawfull and shall not be followed. Example my Senior whatever gives me a direct order to rob a bank.
Besides there would be the conversation that happened before I am ordered to come to your house. "YOU WANT ME TO DO WHAT"

Ron-Solo
03-25-2010, 8:15 AM
1965 - Watts riots.

The National Guard was called in, but I'm not certain they declared martial law. When martial law is declared, the military takes over all law enforcement, which did not happen then or the 92 riots. The national Guard was in a support role to LAPD and LASD both times. I need to do some research on it further

Simple rules. In the aftermath of a disaster, keep the black & Soviet rifles concealed. Keep a low profile with any guns. Coordinate with neighbors in keeping your neighborhood safe.

Sound advice. Low profile won't cause LE to wonder whose side you're on. :)



Like a meteor crashing into the Earth, it could happen, but beyond that, it is not likely based on current laws in effect.

BillCA
03-25-2010, 11:04 AM
Like a meteor crashing into the Earth, it could happen, but beyond that, it is not likely based on current laws in effect.

Martial law was declared. I believe it was declared on Saturday, August 14, 1965 and affected only a certain area of L.A. - mostly the south-central districts, including Watts. Interestingly... The initial commander of National Guard troops was Colonel Bud Taylor, then a motorcycle patrolman with the Los Angeles Police Department, who in effect became superior to Chief of Police Parker.

A coworker of my father's (some 16 years later) was one of the national guard to arrive on Friday and was there during the worst of the rioting. A sniper wounded a fireman and they were called in. The sniper was using a corner 3rd floor apartment to snipe at authorities. The solution, once the building was evacuated, to order his surrender. When he fired on the guard, Shorty's crew used a 75mm recoiless rifle. No more sniper.

Current laws permit the declaration of Martial Law once a jurisdiction has asked the Governor to send in National Guard troops to assist police in maintaining order. There is a formal procedure for declaring ML and once done, the city's CLEO falls under the authority of the ranking military commander in charge.

Ron-Solo
03-25-2010, 1:05 PM
Martial law was declared. I believe it was declared on Saturday, August 14, 1965 and affected only a certain area of L.A. - mostly the south-central districts, including Watts. Interestingly... The initial commander of National Guard troops was Colonel Bud Taylor, then a motorcycle patrolman with the Los Angeles Police Department, who in effect became superior to Chief of Police Parker.

A coworker of my father's (some 16 years later) was one of the national guard to arrive on Friday and was there during the worst of the rioting. A sniper wounded a fireman and they were called in. The sniper was using a corner 3rd floor apartment to snipe at authorities. The solution, once the building was evacuated, to order his surrender. When he fired on the guard, Shorty's crew used a 75mm recoiless rifle. No more sniper.

Current laws permit the declaration of Martial Law once a jurisdiction has asked the Governor to send in National Guard troops to assist police in maintaining order. There is a formal procedure for declaring ML and once done, the city's CLEO falls under the authority of the ranking military commander in charge.

Quite possible in 1965. I was only 9 in 1965, so those things were not important to me then. I was on the front lines in '92 and they didn't, because like you said, the CLEO has to give up his power. They don't like that very much and for that reason, will resist any declaration of martial law.

Ron-Solo
03-25-2010, 1:12 PM
My neighbor's uncle's friend's gardner swears he knows a guy who knows a guy who's friend heard from a friend that something bad went down during an earthquake or a fire or something.

:rofl2:

BillCA
03-26-2010, 10:11 AM
I was on the front lines in '92 and they didn't, because like you said, the CLEO has to give up his power. They don't like that very much and for that reason, will resist any declaration of martial law.
The 1992 riots were not as bad as the Watts riots. At least that's what the father of one of my neighbors tells me. He was in the NG that arrived on Saturday and in 1992 he covered those riots as an independent for the LA Times. His opinion is that the 1992 riots were about 1/4 the scope of the Watts riots. That's probably the reason that martial law was not implemented. It didn't spread like the 1965 riots.

Chatterbox
03-26-2010, 11:29 AM
Re: Videotaping LEOs

You videotape them, they order you to put away the camera, you refuse, they arrest you on charge of disorderly conduct.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/cbs_2_cameraman_arrested_at_an.html

http://policelink.monster.com/news/articles/136127-jury-clears-no-man-in-cameraman-arrest

http://www.rcfp.org/news/1994/0712a.html

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/abc/denver_police_arrest_abc_news_reporter_92855.asp

Dragunov
03-26-2010, 12:32 PM
My firearms will not be confiscated.