If active duty or reserve (or Vet), would you follow orders to seize arms from law abiding citizens?

2017-09-04T16:51:43-04:00

I am researching for an article I am working on. If you are active duty, the reserve or Vet if ordered by your Chain of command to take part in the seizure of firearms from law abiding citizens, would you follow that order?
Is there any situation you can see yourself taking part in seizing of weapons from citizens that are doing nothing more than just possessing them? Or would you refuse to follow that order?

It appears some doubt this is for a writing assignment, for those I write and am published on several news sites, Fox News, OpsLens.com, Lifezette.com and others. I'm a Senior OpsLens Contributor. In my spare time I am a freelance writer and posts my articles on "Down Range with Chris Wagoner". This question is not politically motivated as much as it is research orientated. Thanks!

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Sep 4 at 2017 4:56 PM

2017-09-04T16:56:42-04:00

I will answer your hypothetical unanswerable question with an obvious response

I would follow the lawful orders of those appointed over me

A secondary response might be
No commander would give such an unlawful order therefore the situation cannot exist thus cannot be answered

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Sep 4 at 2017 4:58 PM

2017-09-04T16:58:05-04:00

Kinda thought these posts would go away after the election when people realized President Obama wasn't actually hiding behind their gun safes waiting to steal peoples guns...

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Sep 4 at 2017 4:59 PM

2017-09-04T16:59:03-04:00

The human imagination is a wonderful thing you can dream up many variables and imaginative "what if's"

Asking somebody for "research" to give a realistic answer to it in probable hypothetical question might be a fun game but I'm not sure it will amount to much usable research data

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Sep 4 at 2017 5:00 PM

2017-09-04T17:00:53-04:00

It's happened. It happened in New Orleans following Katrina and I've heard rumors of it happening in Texas. Someone needs to look into this...

Response by SGT Eric Knutson made Sep 4 at 2017 5:08 PM

2017-09-04T17:08:54-04:00

As American soldiers, yes, we are charged with following lawful orders, and have the intelligence to see if an order is lawful or not. I would hope that SGM Erik Marquez is correct and that the chain of command would quash said order early and to the point that those in the ranks never even heard about it, BUT, unfortunately, there have been cases where that is not the case. I remember the Guard during Katrina were caught trying to do that very thing, State Police in NJ saying that they would have no problems coming and taking your guns just because they were told to. That is when it is our job to protect and defend the Constitution, of which the Bill of Rights are part of. Not saying to fly across the country as a solo person, but if you are there, it is our job to defend the civilians.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 4 at 2017 5:11 PM

2017-09-04T17:11:52-04:00

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

Response by SGT Jim Arnold made Sep 4 at 2017 5:45 PM

2017-09-04T17:45:15-04:00

I would actively oppose such acts as they are completely against the intent of our enumerated rights guaranteed by our Constitution and bill of rights. It's our duty as Americans to maintain those rights. You want to disarm people use the law and due process.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 4 at 2017 6:26 PM

2017-09-04T18:26:39-04:00

All have a duty to not obey what they believe to be an unlawful order. So, depending on the circumstances if it was unlawful you would have to disobey it. It would have to be a very unusual situation for any such order to ever be given. The Command would likely staff it and never impose such an order. If it happened to be a lone wolf Commander acting on his own you would become complicit by obeying. If he/she is that irrational you could also get shot for disobeying. That would be a tough situation for sure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders

William Calley - Wikipedia

William Laws Calley Jr.[1] (born June 8, 1943) is a former United States Army officer convicted by court-martial of murdering 22 unarmed South Vietnamese civilians in the My Lai Massacre on March 16, 1968, during the Vietnam War. While not technically exonerated, after three and a half years of house arrest, Calley was released after a ruling by federal judge J. Robert Elliott who found that Calley's trial had been prejudiced by pre-trial...

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 4 at 2017 7:53 PM

2017-09-04T19:53:32-04:00

How many times is this question going to be re-worded and re-asked on RP?

Response by MSgt Cayle Harris made Sep 4 at 2017 9:23 PM

2017-09-04T21:23:05-04:00

Uphold and defend the Constitution!

Response by CDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 4 at 2017 9:49 PM

2017-09-04T21:49:52-04:00

The order in question would be an illegal order that violates the Posse Comitatus Act for active duty and reserves on federal orders. Second and probably more importantly there is no way this order could be physically carried out. There are over 320 million firearms in this country, one for roughly each person in this country and we have 1.43 million people on active duty. That means each member of the armed forces from 4 star down to the newest E-1 would have to find and seize 225 arms. That is why we such an issue with gun violence and crime in this country. Even if 99.9% of the people who own guns are law abiding there is still so many guns out there for criminals to acquire that it does not matter if you have restrictive or unrestrictive gun laws, criminals will still have access to a weapon and will use it.

Response by LTC Bill Koski made Sep 4 at 2017 10:25 PM

2017-09-04T22:25:23-04:00

So, CONUS, service members are given a lawful order to disarm citizens. Well, a lot must have changed in the constitution when this order is given. Posse Comitatus is not an issue, and the arms laws where this act takes place are such that the government can take them.

This happens every day by police officers on traffic stops and pat/frisks. Weapons are taken for officer safety reasons, legally disarming the citizen.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Sep 4 at 2017 10:43 PM

2017-09-04T22:43:08-04:00

A mutiny, we haven't had one of those for a while

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 4 at 2017 10:50 PM

2017-09-04T22:50:13-04:00

Don't have to follow unlawful orders

Response by MSG Jay Jackson made Sep 4 at 2017 11:18 PM

2017-09-04T23:18:33-04:00

Yes citizens are disarmed by LEOs every day in the course of their duties. But as for a state or national confiscation, not gonna happen. I am not familiar with any law that says anyone can suspended any right or amendment. It would have to be a pretty damn serious problem! Also if people are being disarmed in Texas would someone please post a link. I would think that this would be the time in Texas that guns would be needed more than ever.

Response by SGT David T. made Sep 5 at 2017 8:11 AM

2017-09-05T08:11:58-04:00

Being a civilian I would laugh at any military leader who attempted to "order" me to do this. I have no legal, or moral obligation to follow an order in a military context. That being said, if my ethics and my profession as a public servant ever come into conflict to an unacceptable level, I would resign.

Response by SFC William "Bill" Moore made Sep 5 at 2017 8:32 AM

2017-09-05T08:32:40-04:00

I think you probably have a good idea on the way this would go down. Now, think for a minute. Say there were a few Officers that would not look at this as an unlawful order. If you refer back to the first comments made here, you will find a SGM, 1SG and a CMSgt, that answered very frankly, and are well within the power range to smack some upstart in the head with common sense. That is their job, to keep the officers from screwing the pooch and protecting the troops. In 20+ years, I may have disliked a CSM, SGM or 1SG, or two, but I personally, have never wondered where their focus was and I can guarantee they knew the difference between lawful and unlawful. When you add in the Reserves and NG, remember, they are closest to the general civilian population, and yes, I know they have been used to do just what is mentioned, but, a whole scale confiscation will bite too close to their own families and households.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 5 at 2017 8:44 AM

2017-09-05T08:44:33-04:00

Response by SSgt Holden M. made Sep 5 at 2017 9:52 AM

2017-09-05T09:52:44-04:00

I would absolutely refuse. I might actually be somewhere between it just deeming it an unlawful order and actively oppose any that would follow such an order.

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Sep 5 at 2017 11:39 AM

2017-09-05T11:39:44-04:00

I will hedge my "No" vote and say there may be very limited circumstances where it might be legal to temporarily seize legal weapons from a law abiding citizen. I'm straining my brain to imagine such a situation, but I can't completely rule it out.

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Sep 5 at 2017 12:43 PM

2017-09-05T12:43:38-04:00

I hope that I am never in the position to make that decision.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Sep 5 at 2017 2:18 PM

2017-09-05T14:18:00-04:00

We have a duty not to obey illegal orders - and this would be an illegal order. At the same time, I would recognize that by disobeying a direct order I would be putting my career and possible even my freedom at risk.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Sep 5 at 2017 6:31 PM

2017-09-05T18:31:45-04:00

SGT Chris Wagoner I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic...

Amendment II United States Constitution: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment IV United States Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment XIV United States Constitution: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That would be an order that violates at least three Constitutionally guaranteed rights. I would hope that my superior officers would recognize that it was an unlawful order, and not issue that order to begin with.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 5 at 2017 8:11 PM

2017-09-05T20:11:20-04:00

If AD military were confiscating arms from fellow citizens, then all hell has broken loose. Posse Comitatus anyone?

Response by CPO Nate S. made Sep 7 at 2017 9:49 AM

2017-09-07T09:49:11-04:00

Lets look at our Oath of Enlistment:

"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

This oath is a sword with two very sharp edges:

1st edge - "...defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic ..."

- First, we have the higher calling of the Constitution for each of us to be clear-eyed about as we defend it - "against all enemies" regardless of where the threat comes from.

- Next, if we choose to defend against a domestic enemy then such domestic enemies can also be those elected by us who want to hold on to or seize power(s) when none are owed to them.

2nd edge - "...will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice..."

First, the words "...according to regulations and the UCMJ..." are about looking deeper at what you are "obeying". Great leaders know if their orders are appropriate (aka lawful). They also know if the orders they issue are defensible in the" light of day" by them.

- Next, "regulations" are laws, and unless - the law - provides for such seizures of personal property that has been passed by the people's representatives, then such seizures violate the:

IV Amendment - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Reference:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment

It must the wording "upon probable cause" that is being taken out of context by the Governor of the VI. But, what the Governor is ignoring are the words that follow "supported by oath or affirmation". It seems there is NO oath or affirmation to seize any personal effects, including weapons possessed by lawful citizens, if a neighbor or other has not made such an oath to toward a given person.

We are a nation of laws, or at least I want to continue to believe that. With this said, we have been trained as military men and women to "follow the LAWFUL orders of our seniors". We have to be informed with fact and the knowledge of what is LAWFUL.

I hope my fellow veterans take to heart knowing what is LAWFUL and what is UNLAWFUL. I always reserve the right to defend my family. Owning a weapon or potential weapon from gun to a baseball bat is about personal responsibility and accepting responsibility to the proper LAWFUL use of items in any form that can be used for defense. Let me ask this question as I close. What if everyone's hands were considered weapons? You can choke someone to death correct? So, if that is true should to government be allowed to hack off our hands as potential weapons? The question may be silly, but when you think about it every thing any of us owns from a nail hammer to a fire arm can be a weapon under the right circumstances.

I hope this response has been clearly laid out and offers a more reasoned understanding of this interesting issue that must remain in all of our forethoughts!

Fourth Amendment

FOURTH AMENDMENT: AN OVERVIEWI. INTERESTS PROTECTED

Response by PFC Jessi West made Sep 8 at 2017 2:09 PM

2017-09-08T14:09:20-04:00

I would only say yes if the individuals possessing the firearms were concidered incapable of using them for the right purpose. Individuals without the proper training should never be in possession of a deadly weapon of any sort. Especially since a lot of people don't pay attention and use their brains as much as they should.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Sep 8 at 2017 2:20 PM

2017-09-08T14:20:55-04:00

You would have no option to do anything else. If Soldiers are being told to seize weapons from citizens it is likely that Martial Law is in effect or that the NG has been activated in time of crisis and the weapons in question cannot be adequately stored. In any case you have no option unless you wish to attend your own Court Martial.

Response by SSgt Boyd Welch made Sep 8 at 2017 4:25 PM

2017-09-08T16:25:33-04:00

I will answer the way most law enforcement friends of mine do when asked that same question.."Not no but hell no! We don't want crosshairs placed on us or our family members and we sure as hell know that it would happen..."

Response by SSG Robert Perrotto made Sep 9 at 2017 8:45 PM

2017-09-09T20:45:12-04:00

First line of our oath - "support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic" Such an order would be unconstitutional, thus, the person giving the order is violating their oath - as such, I would not follow that order.

Response by CSM Eric Biggs made Sep 10 at 2017 6:34 AM

2017-09-10T06:34:48-04:00

I would have to refuse to follow that order and detain the individual/individuals issuing the order. It is unlawful and unconstitutional. Pretty sure this falls under that part of my oath to support and defend the Constitution.

Response by SPC Franklin McKown made Sep 10 at 2017 12:36 PM

2017-09-10T12:36:47-04:00

I would be OBLIGATED to fight such an order and to me THE BEST way is decapitation if it's attempted,but BETTER than me are already on it.

Response by Sgt Wayne Wood made Sep 10 at 2017 8:57 PM

2017-09-10T20:57:21-04:00

The M-16 was known as "... the Mighty Mattel ... " i don't see a reason to confiscate kids toys (or their derivatives)

Response by Sgt Martin Querin made Sep 12 at 2017 5:45 PM

2017-09-12T17:45:40-04:00

We all take an oath to defend this Country and the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Unless they changed the Constitution we are bound by our oath to disobey that order and defend the Constitution.

Response by PO1 Aaron Baltosser made Sep 12 at 2017 11:40 PM

2017-09-12T23:40:43-04:00

This was tried while I was in under the previous predecessor. We were instructed to gather a list of all firearms owned, to include type, caliber and serial number of every member of the battalion. I drug my feet and got chewed out several times for noncompliance. Had I been forced I would have altered the numbers to provide no correct information because after a list like that is put together, there is only one thing that happens and it looks an awful lot like Germany in the 1930's I am German heritage, so I take that kind of blind obedience to awful things personally.

Response by SFC Jim Ruether made Sep 15 at 2017 8:40 AM

2017-09-15T08:40:46-04:00

We were asked if we would do this when a survey was passed around in units across Minnesota. They said they were merely doing a sampling of the National Guard to see if they would follow such an order? Our unit said, "Hell No"

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Jan 22 at 2018 9:00 PM

2018-01-22T21:00:54-05:00

When your Officer pulls his gun and points it at your head? I know I would not negotiate my authority It's sort of like the draft. Could they force you to fight a war you consider illegal. In my day they would drag you out kicking and screaming, but you volunteered

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Jan 22 at 2018 9:35 PM

2018-01-22T21:35:22-05:00

There are circumstances to which are not Cceary defined. Keep in mind we swear an oath to support the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. To that end is there the chance we could be ignorant of what the charges are? There has been times in our countries history where the force of arms was used. Washington as POTUS, led troops in the Field for Shay's Whiskey rebellion. So to draw a simple conclusion of three choices is vague at best.

Response by SSgt Harvey "Skip" Porter made Jan 22 at 2018 11:05 PM

2018-01-22T23:05:22-05:00

SGT Chris Wagoner That sounds what California is trying to do to us law abiding citizens who own guns. All along the scumbag criminals continue to make things harder for legal gun owners by the senseless cowardly crimes they commit using guns. The guns are not the problem it's the scumbag criminals. I think they lawmakers should focus on dealing with the scumbag criminals.

Peace!