Anyone with anything between their ears except air knows a fight is in the wings over the lawful ownership of firearms. The proposed registration will ultimately (based on history) amount to confiscation. Think about the last time you voted in what are called “free and fair” elections, and see how well that’s working out for you right now.
With the scribble of a pen, law-abiding citizens will be in violation of the law for possessing certain guns. They’ll be required to take the guns they have to a place to be determined by armed personnel of the government, where the guns — now deemed illegal — will be confiscated. The guns deemed “okay” will be documented and the owner(s) fingerprinted, photographed, questioned, poked and prodded about why they need any gun. And then they’ll probably have their guns held in a “secure” place until they need them for hunting or something.
If you’re stupid enough to say, “Well I’ll bury my gun,” you don’t get it. If you’re considering burying it, you probably actually need to also consider using it.
Teachers in public schools will question kids about whether or not their parents own guns — all under the guise of “protecting kids” and making the world safer, or some other bunny-hugging gig. Every resource, every credit card purchase and any form of transaction will lead to information about what guns you have.
A doctor I know says things like, “I’m not giving up my guns.” Good thought, but he and his wife (who isn’t really into guns) have two little kids, ages 3 and 5. Under all this gun stuff he’d stand to lose his fancy house, his BMW, his practice and his wife, who will take the children out of the house when the gun police arrive to address him.
Even if his wife was into guns, personal protection and stuff, how far will either let this go before it puts their kids in danger? Then they roll over and give up the guns. Or not to worry, because his new practice at the FEMA camp will be busy, if not financially fruitful? I’m just saying, is all.
I know very few cops who don’t own guns, and most believe they’ll be able to keep their guns because they’re cops. A notable concept, except remember there are different classes of cops. It’s been my experience (and if you have a different experience, write the editor and tell her about it) that most federal cops think they are better, and most often believe they are exempt from laws affecting the rest of us. Let a Fed do something wrong, like shoot an unarmed-somebody, and see what happens. Let a local cop whack a guy with a stick and see how fast the Feds are there to push civil rights violations up and down the appropriate body openings. I’m not disgruntled, I’ve just seen it happen too many times.
Something to remember: The County Sheriff — elected I might point out — is always the senior law enforcement officer in his county. So will appointed federal law enforcement exempt local elected law enforcement? Possibly. Remember, Feds are always exempt, and often seemingly above the law (just ask them). And I say again, if you’re a local cop and you’ve had a different experience, let us know, we’d be happy to publicize it. There are sterling federal cops, but the general culture of federal agencies is as I’ve said.
The snag for all police, at least as I remember, is they took an oath. I did, and the gist of it is we swear under oath to “obey and support the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.” So what if the new law outlaws guns?
What’ll happen when cops retire? Will a retired cop be allowed to have a gun? If you’re a cop now (you won’t always be), you have the privilege to have a gun, but when you retire, what will you think about not being able to have a gun? The thought of you being a good cop for 30 years, upholding the law and never doing anything wrong and then, no gun. How does that feel for you?
In the vast majority of Australia, the local police have to turn in their duty guns at the end of shift and go home unarmed. Can’t happen? It did there, and the cops weren’t exempt from anything.
Here’s another can of worms. Governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, military troops can decline to obey what they consider an unlawful order. They have a duty to obey lawful orders and an obligation to disobey unlawful orders — including orders by the president — that don’t comply with the UCMJ. Their moral and legal obligation is to the US Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.
Non-commissioned officers and warrant officers can only give lawful orders. Officers can give direct orders, and the only response a lower ranking officer, non-commissioned officer or private soldier can make, other than simply obeying the order, is to protest, demand the order in writing and then obey the order.
Picture this: “Secure this area, search each building, seize all weapons and detain people with these illegal weapons.”
That could be the legal order troops would be forced to comply with. Your military can — and probably would — be used against you if it came down to it. To fail to follow orders equates to mutiny or sedition, not good things if you’re in the military. Another issue will be whether this confiscation is ever declared a war of sorts on the American public. If so, it adds a new dynamic to how the troops can and would be used. Military assets will be used, from armor (Waco, Texas) to drones and more to solve this issue of non-compliant gun owners.
What goes for the cops goes for the military. After 30 years of service to your country, multiple combat tours and burying your friends all around the world, you now retire in your own country but can’t have a gun? A lot of Vietnam vets are asking the same question. We realize the War on Terror is a big deal, but trust me, Tet in ‘68 was also a big deal.
I’m not saying all this will happen, but it certainly could happen. If you’re a cop, you need to be thinking about this stuff now. You have some important decisions to make about your future.