2nd ammendment, and the enlisted soldier

[adowdell]

"I, --------- do solemnly swear 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 is the Oath that took when I enlisted in the Iowa Army National Guard 8 1/2 years ago. I was wondering if I could get some good legal info is something like Katrina Happens and I'm involved. What if my unit is tasked with removing weapons from private land owners who are protecting their private property? What and how do I legally tell my commander that I swore and oath to support and defend the constitution, and I will not do anything that goes against that, without incriminating my self, or boxing myself inbetween a rock and a hard place where I can't get out...

I want good hard realistic info, I'm going to inform my fellow soldiers what our duty is, and how it should be carried out. If our soldiers don't know what to do in a situation like this, and how to keep them selves out of trouble, we'll do just about anything we're told--if it's spun correctly to sound right to the average soldier.

Thanks for all of your help!

[adowdell]

Already got an aswer from a fellow RPer from the facebook group!

Here was his answer if anyoneon here is looking for an aswer!

Everyone should watch this video. Make sure you read the description in the info too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

There was some state legislation that passed in Louisiana that stopped these crimes from happening.
http://www.nraila.org//News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=6539

A federal ban on the seizure of weapons during a state of emergency was included in the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007(actually became public law on Oct. 4, 2006 ), the H.R. 5441 Bill
http://fiftycal.org/federal.php

Section 557 of H.R. 5441 States

"Amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) to prohibit any U.S. officer or employee, or person operating under color of federal law, under control of a federal official, or providing services to such person, while acting in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency, from: (1) seizing any firearm the possession of which is not prohibited under federal or state law, other than for forfeiture in compliance with federal law or as evidence in a criminal investigation; (2) requiring registration of any firearm for which registration is not required by federal or state law; (3) prohibiting possession of any firearm where such possession is not otherwise prohibited; or (4) prohibiting the carrying of a firearm by any person otherwise authorized to carry firearms, solely because such person is operating under the control of a federal agency in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency. Authorizes any individual aggrieved by a violation of this Act to seek relief by bringing an action for redress and by bringing a civil action in U.S. district court for return of a confiscated firearm."

Full Detail of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act 2007
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=summary&bill=h109-5441

I hope that you and your fellow soldiers would never put law abiding citizens through the injustices experienced by the people of New Orleans. Good luck to you

[RPFP]

You my friend are a good person. It makes me feel much better to hear one of our fine military personal actually thinking of these questions. I respect the military very much, I have family and many friends in the service. I do however do not trust the military complex. With fine soldiers like yourself, we have nothing to fear.

[Nicketas]

,.,.,.

[Dequeant]

I'm active duty and was in the sandbox when Katrina kicked off. I'm from New Orleans (born in Marrero actually) and I watched it all on TV. It pissed me off so bad i was wanting to seriously beat the **** out of those guardsmen taking the guns. As an NCO i can say with utmost certainty none of my troops will ever participate in something like that, and if i received the order to do so, even my superiors, on up to God himself if need be, would hear my opinion on it.....and it would still go undone. The fact is, the first thing you swear on oath to is the U.S. Constitution, the next is the president. If any order is unconstitutional, it is also unlawful.

It's a very similar issue, and i've done a lot of research on the subject of constitutionality of orders.

My research lead me to the case of 2nd Lt. Ehren Watada. It's very good reading, though many opinions vary on the constitutionality, it is good reading nonetheless.
http://www.thankyoult.com/

[Maz2331]

When I served in the USAF (late 1980's - early 1990's) we were taught in no uncertain terms that following an illegal order was a criminal offense in and of itself. "Sir, that is an illegal order," was the expected response, and we were taught to ignore the order and arrest the person giving it - REGARDLESS OF RANK.

Are they still training troops to do that?

[Dieseler]

Its a wonderful life.

[Dequeant]

Are they still training troops to do that?

They train new recruits in basic on the differences between lawful and unlawful orders. They don't tell you to arrest the person making the order, just that it is your duty to disobey. Keep in mind this was more than 6 years ago when i went thru basic.

There really should be some type of annual recurring training on constitutional orders. With the war in iraq, patriot act, and all that good stuff......it's probably in the president's best interest NOT to hammer on the fact that it is our duty to disobey unconstitutional orders.

Regardless, in my opinion, every NCO should take it upon himself to make sure he and his troops know the difference between lawful and unlawful orders. The officers give the orders, but they give them to the NCO's. I like to think of NCO's as the bullshit filter. If there were 1 or 2 good NCO's in the guard during katrina, we'd have heard about it......there aren't.

[tcindie]

When I served in the USAF (late 1980's - early 1990's) we were taught in no uncertain terms that following an illegal order was a criminal offense in and of itself. "Sir, that is an illegal order," was the expected response, and we were taught to ignore the order and arrest the person giving it - REGARDLESS OF RANK.

Are they still training troops to do that?

I don't recall being taught that in Marine Corps bootcamp and I got a perfect score on my practical knowledge test... (they want to train obedience, not dissent) but it is standard protocol, and absolutely the duty of every member of the military.

In fact, the same applies to the general public, that is why it is still our legal right to exercise a citizen's arrest. :)

[Tugboat1988]

I was in the submarine service so I can't tell you how a soldier should act toward an illegal order such as entering homes to take firearms. I will say, that you should know what the Constitution says about it first. But then, you should know what us older folks know about it before you knock. In many cases you'll be met with force. And that would be a very sad day.

Here's some of what you need to know about what us old folks know from our studies.

The Resolution sent to the States by the First Congress carried the intention and pointed out the force of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment. The original intention remains unchanged to this day. The Resolution reads, in part: "...in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of government powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..."

The Second Amendment is a declared restriction on government. It intendes first; to prevent misconstruction: That is, implications that govenment, politics or courts can change the meaning understood by those who required and ratified the document. Secondly, it intended to prevent abuse of government power by the words stated. Look to Yale's Avalon Project to varify the document, or you can dig it out of American Memory archives.

As for the Second Amendment itself read: "....shall not be infringed." Then ask 'be infringed by who, whom, or by what entity?' The answer is found by reading the Resolution from the first Congress. The answer boils down to government and its agents.

Next, Google "Enabling Acts Providing for the Admission of New States into Union." The Delegates gathered from the far reaches of the proposed new State were required FIRST to ADOPT the US Constitution. That means it includes the Bill of Rights, which also includes the Second Amendment and the meaning understood by the people who first required it. That extends to a State's National Guard. Isn't it amazing how thoughtful our founders were....

Tugboat

[tcindie]

Isn't it amazing how thoughtful our founders were....


Yet how quick they are in recent years to trample all over it, and how so many people have either forgotten, never learned, or don't care about it.

I'm with you though. Someone tries to exercise martial authority in my home they'll be met with force.

In fact, I'm posting a large notice on my front door that reads "Those who do not uphold the unadulterated constitution of these United States, and Bill of Rights are not welcome here."
(Something to that effect anyway, still working out the exact wording)

:)

[Tugboat1988]

Yet how quick they are in recent years to trample all over it, and how so many people have either forgotten, never learned, or don't care about it.

I'm with you though. Someone tries to exercise martial authority in my home they'll be met with force.

In fact, I'm posting a large notice on my front door that reads "Those who do not uphold the unadulterated constitution of these United States, and Bill of Rights are not welcome here."
(Something to that effect anyway, still working out the exact wording)

:)


Well, I hear you and won't tell you not do that.

Here's what I recommend. First understand the basis of proper interpretation of documents like the Constitution and it's specific articles. The founders understood them to be treated as agreements, contracts if you will.

Here's what John DeWitt wrote to the people of Massachusetts when they were considering ratification of the Constitution in 1787. "All contracts are to be construed according to the meaning of the parties at the time of making them....snip... There is no difference in the constitution of government."

From my earlier post, your or others, may have a more clear understanding of the appropriate documents and how they operate. With that, if I were going to post a notice on my doorstep, I'd think it would be read far more frequently by neighbors and other Citizens rather that a deputy after your firearms. Something like "We believe the Bill of Rights offer further declared restrictions on government." Now, your neighbors are more likely to agree with you. smile

Tugboat

[tcindie]

Well.. hehe I don't even know any of my neighbors. It's not a very neighborly neighborhood.

I like your suggestion though.. Maybe I should add something to that effect too.

Perhaps "I reserve the right to enforce the restrictions on government granted by the Bill of Rights"

[Dave Pedersen]

There is a deep rift among the officers concerning this issue and during martial law this rift or schism will be come evident. Some units, loyal to the constitution and the rule of law, will break away from the chain of command and others will stay true to the treasonous commander in chief.

For those who find themselves under a commander faithful to the constitution the choice should be easy. If you find yourself under the command of a traitorous officer you should prepare yourself with the best response you can come up with before you have to make your stand.

Both sides will be calling the other "traitors". Your duty is to the supreme law of the land, the constitution of the United States.

Good luck and God bless.

[tcindie]

Both sides will be calling the other "traitors". Your duty is to the supreme law of the land, the constitution of the United States.

Good luck and God bless.

Amen brother..

Tugboat: Here's what I've come up with, I think it's the best of both and hopefully would give any soldier operating under an unlawful order pause (and save me having to shoot them)

ATTENTION:
If you do not honor
the unadulterated
Constitution of these
United States of America
(as written in 1789)

YOU ARE NOT WELCOME IN MY HOME

Beyond this door,
I reserve my right to enforce
the restrictions on government granted by the Bill of Rights.

[Tugboat1988]

Well.. hehe I don't even know any of my neighbors. It's not a very neighborly neighborhood.

I like your suggestion though.. Maybe I should add something to that effect too.

Perhaps "I reserve the right to enforce the restrictions on government granted by the Bill of Rights"


OH faint!!! You are going to give me another hear attack.

You wrote, "...granted by the Bill of Rights"..." Those who wish to override the Bill of Rights say exactly that to qualify it for legilative meddling. It don't grant you the Right. It BANS government from interfering with the Rights. That's something that Alexander Hamilton would have loved you to believe. A positive restriction on government is a whole lot different than having it grant you the right because it directs force toward government as intended.

One political trick that's use so much that people no longer even catch it is to continue the debate. A continued debate will lead to success for those with designing ends and intentions. Look at this question often seen in Polls.

Do you believe the Second Amendment gives an individual the right to keep and bear arms? Many people will who believe the Right will answer "yes" to the question. Knowing better, the judge in a case considering this question will say, "you lose your case". Then he won't take court time to explain it and you are befuddled. What went wrong?! The question was wrong is what was the matter. The 2nd don't give, or grant, you the Right. The Right was individual and was operative before the Constitution was adopted, and the Constitution did not offer government power over it. Fact is, the Bill of Rights denied government powers relating to the Right.

There is a world of difference in this and everyone should work to understand it.

Tugboat

[tcindie]

Doh.. I knew that too.. blah..

I'm not allowed to write when operating on few hours of sleep anymore.

*slaps idiot label on forehead*

[Tugboat1988]

I love it. People standing up with pasion for what is right and properly constitutional.

I'm going to post a seperate thread from SCOTUSBLOG about the present administration is requesting from the Supreme Court on the firearms case out of the District of Colombia. You won't like it. I think. Maybe.

Tugboat

[tcindie]

Ok.. I think I've figured out how to eliminate the problem as previously written.


ATTENTION:
If you do not honor the unadulterated
Constitution and Bill of Rights
of these
United States of America
(as written in 1789)

YOU ARE NOT WELCOME IN MY HOME


Beyond this door,
I reserve my right to enforce
restrictions on government


TRESPASSERS MAY BE SHOT

[tommyzDad]

There is a deep rift among the officers concerning this issue and during martial law this rift or schism will be come evident. Some units, loyal to the constitution and the rule of law, will break away from the chain of command and others will stay true to the treasonous commander in chief.

For those who find themselves under a commander faithful to the constitution the choice should be easy. If you find yourself under the command of a traitorous officer you should prepare yourself with the best response you can come up with before you have to make your stand.

Both sides will be calling the other "traitors". Your duty is to the supreme law of the land, the constitution of the United States.

Good luck and God bless.

Don't LEOs take the Oath as well? I wonder if any of them refused to follow Ray Nagin's and Cheif Compass orders to disarm New Orlean's citizens after Katrina. I wonder if the citizens will tolerate that crap if it happens again? (I wonder how I will act were I put in that situation, being disarmed.)

[Fields]

///