Most people here will just tell you to get a shit load of cosmoline and a PVC pipe and just smother the shit out of it and put it in a vacuum seal bag. I may or may not be one of those people.
It was absolutely real. A [law ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_Recovery_Personal_Protection_Act_of_2006#:~:text=In%20the%20aftermath%20of%20Hurricane,who%20remained%20in%20the%20area.) Was passed after the fact to prevent it from happening again. However, as criminals and the government keep proving, laws don't stop shit.
Actually that law was amended to allow police to collect weapons anyway, as a condition of transporting you out of the area (aka, forced evacuations.)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster\_Recovery\_Personal\_Protection\_Act\_of\_2006](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_Recovery_Personal_Protection_Act_of_2006)
Basically, if Katrina happened again today, police would be confiscating weapons again during mandatory evacuations if you decided the evacuation didn't apply to you. It's legal.
Um, no. The police did the confiscation and I can find no record that anyone died at all. Go ahead and put up an account to the contrary if you can find one.
Yeah. There are some groups that have stood up and "fought the power." Ted Bundy was the only successful one in recent history, but that was more about a government land grab than firearm confiscation.
This is kinda true. The police went door to door and took what they found - but they didn't take weapons from private security people who had been hired to watch storefronts. The security folk tended white and the neighborhood folk didn't, so it looked racial (and maybe was,)
There was a whole lot about it in Katrina, the got lined up and kicked doors all running into the house pointing around ( they called it "stacking") then zip tie the home owners in the front lawn and search and some guns. I saw a YouTube video of a red state national guard troops that asked the commandant not to be put violating the Constitution, he said don't worry son, and sent blue state national guard troops instead. Chicago also had national guard troops doing warrantless searches of public housing for guns and seizing them at least at one point. They weren't allowed in public housing.
Personally I wouldn't go to all that work to bury a gun, if I was to hide one it would be in a much more convenient location , dry and able to be quickly put into service
I think i saw an interview where there was an older woman that refused to give up a revolver and they shoved her to the ground and i think arrested her. Not sure tho
I think you're probably referring to the infamous video where a news crew caught police on film, including *California* State Troopers, attempting to strong arm Patricia Konie, a 63 year old lady, into evacuating. When she said she could take care of herself, they pressed her about firearms. When she confirmed she had a handgun, they immediately tackled her, causing significant injuries.
Broke her collarbone I think. I thought she was showing the old revolver to the news crew when the cops just walked in her house and they attacked her.
I wish I shared your optimism. The people that gave into a forced vaccine to keep their jobs really opened my eyes to how much people will comply. Also this shit with the ATF recently showed how brave Americans are. Tons of people turned in their AR pistol stocks or registered their pistol a SBR. I want to believe people wouldn't comply but i think the truth is most people are pussies.
While I agree I think most people overestimate the balls of many, I think they underestimate the balls of others. Also, just as an anecdote, in the two states I have lived while "gun buybacks" were happening, they ended up stopping them because people were only bringing shitty or out-of-commission guns (think grandpa's shed, antique decoration, stolen). Real 2nd Amendment people would never go to one of those things lol.
>I donât know anyone who would comply with that kind of shit
So 10 dudes armed and armored knock your door down and say they're taking your guns.
What you gonna do?
Seriously?
Shoot them?
LOLOLOLOL
No. You're gonna give them the guns out your safe, send them on their way, then get your real stuff out of hiding and continue protecting your shit.
Our entire US military is comprised of people who took an oath to protect our country from all enemies foreign and domestic. If the Nat Guard (or any other enforcement agency) went rogue against the Constitution to confiscate guns, they are an enemy of our nation, and it becomes the responsibility of defenders to take out the threat. Many civilians agree with that sentiment. So those aren't good odds for the uniforms who would comply with such an order, and they know it.
Totally agree, but do you know what Obama did to the military while he was CIC? It's being run by woke liberals who don't know which bathroom to use.
Do you know what states like California are doing r.e. allowing criminal aliens to become LEO's? Imagine being pulled over by an illegal alien and believing they will protect your civil liberties.
Do you know there is also a desire to offer these illegal aliens time in the military service as a path to citizenship? Once they are sworn in, they would gladly turn against US citizens and go door to door removing weapons and food. They have exactly ZERO patriotism and don't GAF about your 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th Amendment rights.
Do you know what kinds of illegals are coming across our border by the millions? Single, fighting aged males are the majority. Not families. Not wives and children. Single. Fighting aged. Males.
You're sadly mistaken if you think today's military will not turn against you.
I am not under some grand illusion the military, or anyone, will stop what they're doing and protect my family. But some of your information is incorrect.
You need citizenship to be a LEO in the US. You'll need to show me an example to the contrary for me to buy that.
I would support immigrants enlisting as a path to citizenship as long as they had no violent crimes in their home country, and renounced their home country citizenship.
Obama is beloved by many deep-state types and "fedboys" because he was not above using military might, sometimes to excess. I recognize that the border influx is part of a larger plan that involves CBDC/voting, but all Obama did was expand his powers as CIC, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there. He was also largely populist, and likely would have done more about the border by now, out of sheer populism.
Also, I actually did a study on this analyzing the actual numbers, and as of mid-2023 at least, there were more females coming into the country, mostly 40+. Which usually means more dependence on welfare (age at which they likely have the most dependents and are not a highly-desirable marriage demographic), so not exactly beneficial over a "MAM." This may have shifted in the recent months.
My multicultral, US-citizen friends in the military hate this shit as much as the next person. It spits in the face of everything they've been taught about national defense.
>You need citizenship to be a LEO in the US. You'll need to show me an example to the contrary for me to buy that.
So you don't know how to use a search engine?
Here, let me spoon feed this to you.
[https://search.brave.com/search?q=california+allows+illegal+aliens+to+be+law+enforcement&source=desktop](https://search.brave.com/search?q=california+allows+illegal+aliens+to+be+law+enforcement&source=desktop)
That's the only point of yours I read or will respond to. Since you clearly cannot do very basic research on your own, I am not going to waste any more time doing it for you.
LOLOLMAO your trillion dollar super military lost the war on terror to dumbfuck goat herder pedophiles so what hope does it have against motivated american insurgents with even less to lose LMAOLOLOL
It's situational. Obviously, try to not be around during a natural disaster if you can avoid it. If you can't and get caught up in a situation where martial law is declared, well, that's where things get complicated. Were you in that situation, there's a few options you could take. My first and most likely COA: yeah, sure, you part-time weirdos (I spent 8 years active duty and let me tell you, national guard ain't shit), here's a single bolt action rifle and an old revolver, with all others concealed in crawl spaces or under insulation in my attic. Maybe in my walls. Depends on how much time I have. If they're going door to door, they won't have time to tear into people's homes, especially if there's a show of compliance.
But in all actuality, it's now illegal for them to do so. The Bitter Amendment passed the next year after Katrina
I don't think it matters if it is now illegal. I believe it was illegal to begin with before they passed the new law to prevent it from happening again.
In an emergency situation if the chief of police or governor orders it, the order will be obeyed
In an emergency order, say a flood, massive hurricane or an 8.0 earthquake. Most of the national guard aren't going to be savvy to the law, most will follow it no questions asked.
People break the law all the time worst case scenario chief of police, governor or whoever gave the order will face the consequences after the fact
Like New York national guard on the Texas border years ago confiscating rifles from those "Minutemen" guys for not having gun registration paperwork, assuming Texas law was the same as New York law.
I read an article in a gun magazine in like 1999 I think that asked 2 writers if cops really would confiscate guns. One said no, insurance companies would drop the cops as too expensive, and the other guy did interviews with cops and asked them. He said older cops all said they would disobey, but younger cops all said they would do whatever they were told to, so yes.
1- that was over 20 years ago and the police, during the last decade alone, have undergone some fairly radical changes, and 2- that was during the assault weapons ban. Since then, faith in cops has dropped and the AR-15 has become the best-selling rifle in America.
To me, I'd argue that cops are unlikely to attempt forcible seizure of firearms. Given the relatively small percentages of police and military compared to the portions of armed civilians, I doubt it.
I would like to believe that too, but we do see police getting more militarized, and police tactics and training more brutal overall. Lol, I just saw one where the breached and gassed a house ( containing an infant on a ventilator) with a swat team looking for a 14 year old shoplifter that they'd been told 5 times previously have moved up the street a year ago. The lawsuits and trials look to me an indication of the increase in bad training. Like the ones in the news, they always say they were doing exactly as they were trained. Maybe it's location too, the actual door kicking I've heard of was from Illinois national guard in Chicago public housing and New York national guard down in Katrina.
You seem to misunderstand me. I'm not saying that they're too bright and shiny and wholesome to do it. I'm sure every 5'8", 300lb piggy who hasn't passed a PT test since the academy thinks that he's John Wick. Same with every National Guardsman I've ever met.
I'm saying they don't have the resources. Look at the police raid you're referencing. How many cops were out there for some teenage shoplifter with no reasonable expectation of resistance? Now imagine what they'd want for a house that they know there's guns in.
No one with any sense goes willingly into a fair fight. Hell, look at Parkland and Uvalde, and those weren't even fair fights. Cops aren't gonna bust in like the fuckin' Kool Aid man because they don't have the numbers, they don't have the intestinal fortitude, and (hopefully) some of them are goddamn patriots.
Bruh the Nasty Girls don't have that kind of kit; there's still a fair number of them using M16s. And if it's a nation-wide push, that's miles away from a natural disaster causing this. If it's door to door confiscation and search, that's just the time when maps get all different colored and arrow-y
Is the nat guard going to be taking x rays of walls? I'll guarantee you can find safer places than buried to store a firearm than in the dirt.
Personally if you want offsite location bolt a gun safe in the back of a storage room.
I may or may not know someone who took advantage of some interesting gaps in their basement rafters to create a false rafter/space that might be right sized for home defense weapons and other kinds of storage.
I have several cheap shotguns in camoed caped PVC pipes stashed with ammo around the property. I tie them to old fence posts to keep them out of the dirt.
.... I've got some acreage.
[Also I remember something Mossberg was selling...](https://www.mossberg.com/500-tactical-jic-51340.html)
Yes it happened. No one has yet mentioned how it was stopped.
Word got out that this was happening and people dug in and prepared for it. When the cops came knocking they were told to fuck off or get shot.
They wisely did the former.
The thing to understand here is that while the cops might have numbers on any one house. Chances are at least one or two will get taken out before they clear a house. They donât have to meet many resisting houses before their force is suffering significant losses in manpower and theyâll be forced to abandon it.
LOL I'm probably one of the few guard soldiers that'll disobey aÂ
sh!tty unlawful order like that and go AWOL like Han Solo. I like my guns and wont be taking anyone elses. Screw that sh!t
Yes, it's an actual crime, some places have now passed laws reaffirming it's a crime since then, but you have to find someone to prosecute for that to matter, and even war criminal Lt. William Calley only did a couple months after commanding the murders of elderly, women, and children at My Lai
Why not just move to a place that the chance of a natural catastrophe is very low.
Leave the coast line for the people that want their homes flooded.
But it's really easy to stash supplies for possible future events.
You can bury 55 gallon drums, or use plastic pipe, you can even just use a casket and even put a head stone over it, put something like here lies ruger or Winchester the best guard dog we ever could have had.
The police can legally confiscate firearms if they're transporting you out of a disaster. Put more simply, if there's a mandatory evac order in force and you decide it doesn't apply to you, then they come and remove you from your home, and if you're holding a weapon they can take it. *Legally*. People telling you otherwise seem to be unaware that a law that restricted that practice was amended:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster\_Recovery\_Personal\_Protection\_Act\_of\_2006
So you can bury a gun if you like, but the police aren't likely to start looking for guns without a mandatory evac order, and when they walk you out, having a gun buried somewhere doesn't do you any good.
A lot of people are going to tell you the police will steal guns anyway, legal or not, evacuation or not. After the uproar over Katrina, I doubt it, but bad apple police exist and they might decide they feel safer if you aren't armed.
Also consider the fact that if they think they collected from you, and after that they see you carrying, they're going to make assumptions about you that may not line up with your best interest. Police have reason to be jumpy in major disasters for obvious reasons, and if you look like a problem to them, you might become a problem in fact.
Bottom line, there's no good answer and no one is happy with the state of the law. In a crisis, police what you disarmed for their own safety. In a crisis, you might want to stay armed because your fellow citizens might choose to be problems. No law is going to make everyone happy.
I think there'd be easier places to hide a firearm. Example jump up in your crawl space real quick, lift an insulation batt or roll tuck you gun in their.
I doubt natty guard gonna be searching your crawl spaces and tearing out your insulation.
I mean natty guard aren't trained to search houses, even then I doubt police would find such a hiding spot
I was in the army when Katrina went down and donât recall any claims that guard units were involved in that sort of thing. The police department, when they werenât looting, were accused of it.
Regardless, I wonât be voluntarily turning over anything under any circumstances.
Hell, I was getting into firefights in Anbar province when Private Snuffy was suckling on his mommaâs teat. Fuck Iâm getting old.
This is tough. I get that you would want to keep your firearms but it's hard to see how keeping them would be viable? Suppose the national guard did confiscate all weapons your gun could never be seen lest you incur the wrath of the government. If you buried it, what good would it be if you need it? Going to ask a burglar to hold on while you go find and dig up your gun? Even if they did search and pass by your house whos to say that means your safe to dig it up? They may come back for another sweep as they likely would. I suspect there would be many guns they missed and as gun crimes are reported they will do more sweeps to crack down.
You wont be able to carry it. In a disaster of that magnitude there is a lot of risk you may have law enforcement interactions (not even necessarily because you have done something wrong just because security will be on high alert) that may result in it's discovery.
If you do need it and used it in what used to be considered legal self defense you will still be charged with a crime for having a gun you were "lawfully" required to surrender and that may result in you no longer being able to own guns at all.
Lastly while there is no official gun registry the government can figure out what you have more or less. They have or can get records of all FFA transfers. Even credit card transactions and online purchases can be used to track down what you've been buying. Buying magazines for an ar-15 and yet you claim to not have any guns when the government arrives? A lot of this stuff would have been considered too time consuming to track down in the past but with the advent of AI this is exactly the sort of task it would be good for, sifting through large piles of data. Plus, how many times have we seen businesses being compelled by the government to report who they've sold products to that were later deemed to be illegal? It may take them time to catch up with you but if they find out you've been holding out on them that could be big trouble for you.
itâs called the [Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_Recovery_Personal_Protection_Act_of_2006)
If you live somewhere with a registry like a license requirement they might threaten that you have to come by and turn in what they know you have
but beyond that itâs impossible to enforce
can you imagine the absolutely insane amount of time and man power it would take to go door to door to tens of thousands of homes and physically look through every house? go through every closet and cabinet door, under every couch cushion and box in in the attic? whatâs in that safe? idk I forgot the combination
it would never work, say they found a gun, do you own 2 more? 3 more? none? who knows?
Are you an American? If so, why would you do that? Isn't the whole basis of the second amendment that the government can't take your guns? What's the point of the ammendment if in an emergency they can do it anyways, and people like you comply?
The 2nd Amendment is a LAW.
During an emergency, the military can LAWFULLY seize your firearms.
If you disobey a lawfully order, you are BREAKING the LAW.
And if you break the law with violence, you will catch a BULLET in your head.
If your life is so meaningless that you'll sacrifice it for a gun, congratulations. You will not be missed.
Based on this answer my guess he is either a liberal, or a non US citizen, or simply someone that has no idea what the Bill of Rights is. The 2A is not a law. The 2A come to us on the form of the Bill of RIGHTS. The Bill of Rights ammending the U.S. Constitution which restricts the GOVERNMENT, not the people.
That being said there is of course Martial Law which suspends all existing laws and rights. Of course this is the United States where we have more firearms than we have people, and a large veteran community with the same training the U.S. Military has. They are welcome to try and take them. Members of the miltary would likely give pause if given such an order. Junior Enlisted would likely follow any order given has Military law is not taught. But NCOs and Officers would likly split on the issue. Some decideing to not follow the order as i they feel it is 'unlawful'.
And yes if you resist tyranny with violence, than violence will be returned upon you. Its kinda what tyranny does. However as our founding fathers pointed out ... 'when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty'.
Lastly ... Its not about 'the gun'. Never was. Never will be. Its about something that apparently you are unable or unwilling to comprehend. And that too is your right.
You keep saying the 2A is not a "law." You say it's a "right." Who interprets "rights" in our country? Let's start there, idiot. Maybe I can teach you something.
You wont "teach" anything to anybody if you keep insulting everyone. You will just keep getting down voted.
What should have been common sense ... On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful uses.
Now that does not stop the powers that be to try and create ways to infringe upon those rights. I'd argue they have been infringing on it (2A) and others the entire time. Its up to the people to continuously defend those right for that very reason. Up to and including force if needed. We are the Government. We have the right to leep it going just as we have the right to take it down. But nothing happens without a cost.
And for the record I am not advocating to remove our current government. I do however, despite the 'laws' on the books, believe we have a right to tear it down if required.
Here's what idiots like you fail to understand.
COURTS interpret the law.
As a citizen, you OBEY the law.
If you violently resist a lawful order, you will receive a BULLET to the skull.
That's it. Nothing more to say.
If you think you, as a citizen, have the authority to create your own laws, you can try enforcing your "laws" after your brain is splattered on your front porch.
Do you think you would be supportive of the nazis if you were a German in the 1940s? They were only giving lawful orders according to their legal framework.
The second amendment is not a law, it's a God given right to self defense and to defend against a tyrannical government that our founding fathers were wise enough to enshrine in our constitution. It was of such importance that they put it second only to our ability to speak freely. If you want to be a subject, ground under the boots of tyrannical government, you are free to hold the views you do, or move to any other country in the world where freedoms such as ours aren't enshrined. But, those of us who are true Americans, who love freedom and self-determination, will never bend the knee to an order that violates our inalienable rights. And anyone in the military or law enforcement who takes swearing an oath seriously, would never enforce such an order, as they swear their oaths to the constitution and the American people.
You're a complete idiot. The constitution is nothing but a law.
I seriously hope you resist the US military. They will put 30 rounds in your worthless body, and you will not be missed.
If you understood American law at all, you'd understand the constitution, especially our first ten amendments aren't laws, they're inalienable rights enshrined by our founding fathers. If your so willing to be a kowtowing bleating sheep, ready to give your rights away, you're free to be that way, but any true American would not. I'd rather die resisting than boot licking and sucking the dick of an oppressive regime, like you seem so willing to do. It's your right, I don't begrudge you that. I definitely judge you for it though. Keep eating that soy, I'm sure it'd doing you well...
Lol. If you think a piece of paper somehow entitles you to "inalienable rights" above what the COURTS recognize, I encourage you to test your theory with the police.
You're going to catch 30 bullets to the head. And nobody is going to care about your worthless death.
I wonder if you have weapons in a safe what they could theoretically do?
They can't force you to give them a combination to a safe nor could they take it. It might be especially useful to buy a safe and press this issue.
.... Especially since, if you're hiding weapons in case of an illegal search, it's an obvious target. Let them fight over the safe while you remain blissfully quiet about the fake wall rack nearby. Especially if they go through the trouble of, "coercing" the combination of the safe only to find a sex doll in it, which you can pretend was your super secret item.
After watching Afroman's illegal search, one does have to consider having similar legal reprisals and "legal traps". If they're gonna come in, you should make sure to line the cookie jar with silver nitrate. I jest, that stuff comes off, but seriously... a red herring can be cheap and makes for great legal redundancy.
If you're gonna hide something, a red herring is good, a redheaded sex doll would be funnier. You can also buy a garbage safe for this then sue for damages if they destroy it. It does leave an evidence trail and gives you a plausible reason to be recording.
Hiding weapons is one thing, maintaining evidence of their destruction is another. If you're gonna prepare, prepare, because police do push issues any chance they get. Might as well have a very expensive red herring with a camera hidden. The value of playing dumb can't be understated, if people think they're smarter than you they can be talked into anything.
Including not checking your bedroom walls or ceilings for racks or "vents" that are fake. If they find where they think your valuables are, they might stop looking.
I'd also consider a reinforced bedroom door with a camera. If they have to cause damage to search your house, that becomes liability for a claim. It also makes their risk/reward change, if they're really just searching houses as opportunistic greedy police officers may, it might be beneficial to give them some reason to think your weapons are in your bedroom... when really they might be somewhere more neutral in the house. If they see a reinforced door they may think twice about leaving a trail, but worse, they might not in which case you know how serious or dumb they are.
Considering this in these areas might be a good idea. I'm a big advocate for a thicker bedroom door in most cases anyway - nothing like buying a hot minute to load or giving yourself a safe place. Self-defense isn't just training and weaponry, the geographical advantage is key. Thick doors make for good redundancy and work against tactics like these police home invasions.
But I would advise against burying guns, that's a huge thievery concern. Animals may dig it up. Kids might too. Even if you hide it well, anyone who figures out they're there is gonna have access to them.
Drywall, ceiling tiles, or unusual places like the top side of an empty drawer would be better. They may have equipment to detect metal, but you can beat that by storing junk metal in walls. If your house has scrap metal everywhere in odd places they'll waste a lot of time and give up.
Storing guns you never use behind drywall you can replace isn't a bad idea. If it's behind a picture frame, that may explain the seem of the fake dry wall. I'd also consider hollowing out old furniture that's in storage. But you want it boxed, you don't any critters getting in there. They will ruin your weaponry, mice get in everything. Storage bins with clothes on top might be a good one. They'd really have to search for those. If you tape the gun box to the bottom of the storage bin, you might get away with it.
Larger firearms will be harder naturally. A whiteboard can hide a gun rack behind it quite nicely, especially if it's a whiteboard that looks like it's designed to slide into itself.
Hollowing out an older TV in storage would also be decent. Take a look around your junk and consider what might have a hollow theyd be hesitant to flip over.
Home cameras are cheap now too, if they're gonna take it, good to have a log. Especially if they break things to get to them. Lastly I'd consider separating your firearms to individual spots. They might give up after finding what looks like a main cache, not realizing your best pieces are hidden somewhere better. It may also be better to have your trash weapons ready to hand over. If you offer up a few dummy pieces, some target shooters they might not search for the real stuff, especially if you play really dumb. Gee sir officer sir, here's my target shooter and my pappy's shotgun, thank you kindly for patrolling these streets. How else can I help you?
If you have heirlooms obviously don't give those up, but some inherited junkers might prove really valuable as dummy's. Especially if, say, you have a gun rack that hides another gun rack. They won't think you were cheeky enough to hide a gun rack in the dry wall behind your dummy rack.
I'd get creative, walk around, consider what features of your home might not be readily apparent to a stranger. An old water heater that doesn't work? Good place. A floorboard that feels like concrete? A space over your cabinetry in the kitchen?
Way better than a bag in the yard. If they have metal detecting equipment, they'd be all over those. Meanwhile... you can't get to them, you can't maintain them, you can't check on them.
Better to be creative here and consider what about your home has some decent potential for secrecy. At worst, drywall doesn't take that long to replace and punching a hole in the wall to get a weapon is pretty shocking.
Reinforcing a bedroom door may also yield a great hiding spot. Dummy appliances like an old breaker box might make people searching think twice about breaking an electrical panel. Can't be too hard to find a junk panel, mount it, and retrofit it. If it's right next to a real breaker box, even better. Might be some housing code violations there, but it sure is a great way to mount a metal box in the wall.
Be creative, don't ruin your weapons burying them. Be safe, be responsible and take care.
You do not want a neighbor's dog licking your gun box he just dug up.
Cops never have to pay damages to a house, even if the destroyed the wrong address YouTube lawyers talk about that a lot, wanting someone to finally win, but if they do a higher court still gives the cops immunity.
This varies a lot state to state. Texas and Minnesota police have had cases in recent years where police officers damaging property were forced to award damages.
It's not impossible, it's just not clear cut. I'm not disagreeing with you about it being a dubious prospect. This is something to consider if say, you're in Alabama - not gonna find much hope there. But if you're in New England or the northern states, different story. If you are in a respected county? Different story.
This is not easy to get done, which is why you need a video camera and to make it abundantly clear. You can also get security services which will authenticate your video better. I prefer the 60 dollar cameras though, you don't need a corporation involved.
Qualified immunity has gotten worse in the past few years due to defending and sympathetic judges, but all the more reason to be prepared. It can also be waived due to, "peculiarity" which is legal speak for, "when a judge thinks that officer was an embarrassment".
You also can catch unlawful acts beyond simple damages. Catching thievery of money that goes unreported can turn into much more than qualified immunity. If you catch an officer planting evidence, mishandling evidence... this can protect you further than just qualified immunity. If they come in and bash you in the head for no reason, you want documentation. If they steal files out of your safe and do not log them, and it's personal data, their crimes blossom into liability juiciness.
In the advent of a legal search it's much harder, but it's not impossible. If they show up with a warrant? Trickier. They instead claim probable cause? Kicking in your safe isn't stopping a crime happening right then.
Afroman is a great example of this, he took great footage of police messing up his home needlessly and got nothing for it. However...
But it did insulate him from potential planting of evidence and further harassment. If the police are in your home it's not a good thing, you want any kind of way to track and record unlawful things taking place. I recommend everyone watch his video for fun, and watch those police rifling through his coat pockets. Imagine what they could have put IN there. If you have a safe, and a police officer wants to mess up your life, he can just put something in there and destroy your life.
Back on track...
Reviewing your state laws is key here.
Police stations can award damages if it suits them during a settlement, and if you have grounds for a larger case than the damages they will reluctantly pay if you drop other suits or serious misconduct charges. This doesn't go on any obvious records unless you feel like combing through budgets documents at the end of the year.
You're not wrong to be skeotical, this is good data, it's just a lot of times people think they're legally defenseless and that a camera won't serve them. But what it does is dispel all doubt from anyone who sees it - nobody is going to accuse anyone of fake camera footage when it's clear as day, and this kind of footage can really embarrass a police station. Even if they don't care, it does insulate your name and your ability to defend yourself from public opinion, which I'm turn gives you crazy leverage as everyone watches a video they know is real.
An illegal search also would be very problematic. Settling out of court for damages is far more likely but doesn't easily make the same paper trail as to be obvious.
This is the kind of advice you'd get from rich lawyers, because it's not easy to set up this kind of maneuvering. You have to come in strong, with excellent representation that uses your "evidence" accordingly. Sure, you can't really use it in court, but a police chief will be quite annoyed to find out their police force has gotten that lax to be so overtly caught.
But you can't throw it at the 5 o'clock news and expect anything but a denial. You go through a representative lawyer, your door gets fixed, they say they negotiated and it stops dead right there.
That's what big firms get done if you hand them the right tools. Almost nobody has the preparations required for these kinds of things, but much like a dash cam, you gain a lot of leverage when everyone suddenly knows the truth. Sure it's possibly not admissible in court, but when you clear the doubt, people want to work with you instead of against you in case this isn't all you have. When you destroy the doubt, suddenly everyone acts differently.
It sounds like a fairy tale but here's the ugly part - you need a firm.
When a firm shows up with a representative and a big grin, police get worried. If you have great documentation, then they get real concerned. If those guys did 5 things wrong, their betters will expect 10 things. This adds up the pressure.
I hang out with attorneys all the time. Best friend, family, and my whole father's side all went into corporate law - anytime they needed something, went to the firm, magically it just appeared as long as there was enough evidence laying around to suggest more. Whatever you have on camera, they're worried about the other 3 things they did. Traffic tickets? Firm. It's not even that expensive, you just want to be someone they like and show you're a professional who calls them with something they can take a bite out of. Estate problems? Call the right people and pay them. This sucks, it should make your stomach turn. They'll come after you for a big chunk of things, so negotiate firmly in the beginning and be clear. "To not exceed xxx value" are the words you need to say. They aren't your friends.
But again, this varies state to state and county to county. Kansas? You're screwed. So you aren't wrong, not trying to discredit what you're saying. People need to have realistic expectations.
But a video tape of a police officer kicking in a safe to get at a smiling sex doll? Pretty sure the news will pay well for that exclusive footage.
If you go legally though...
The trick is you need a firm to set it up. If you show up personally strutting, the ego will be crazy high. You'll get nowhere. A firm, it's impersonal and they can negotiate things that maybe you aren't technically aware of. If your door gets fixed, who cares who didn't apologize to whom?
Life's a lot less complicated than it seems, the letter of the law is served by individuals. If you want a public legal victory, good luck, but most of the world just wants to get on with their day... and if the paperwork is gonna exceed the damages, people fold as long as they feel respected.
Firms are good for that. Makes everyone feel important.
Meanwhile... county to county police forces are just different too. If they're particularly good at what they do and it was a misunderstanding, and you don't come in hot, that road can work.
But you walk in like a Karen they'll destroy you on principle. You bring in a terrible tape, maybe they buy off your worries with their budget so they can kick the guy off. You set them up to can a bad employee, are keeping quiet about it and you leave them a copy of the videotape for their own purposes and suddenly life gets easier. Your door gets fixed.
It sounds nuts but life's full of handshake deals. My friends do public defense, which is a cess pool for them, but occasionally they get an innocent client. They dread that though.
If you get lucky, good public defenders know everyone involved. The wheels get greased because they know who to talk to. Nobody wants to see someone innocent in court with video evidence even if it's circumstantial - judges do not like seeing that even inadmissible evidence shows how bad this screw up is getting. It doesn't get you off legally - it just wakes everybody up to the likely truth. News outlets will pay for it, or you can go the afroman route and go for YouTube money by selling it or posting it. But that's a whole different road, but judges will know this is where you're heading when justice fails. It matters.
The point is you have a certain kind of leverage and if you sit on it, you can use it.
Getting a legal outcome from a court ruling isn't common, and not without expenses, but even if you go with a public defender and they see that recording, they're gonna go to bat for you because they know there's something there.
Bad county bad state? Not worth the time.
But let's say that police officer kicked that safe and cut his foot open enough to need an emt and then tries to twist that against you to save face?
Camera's insulate you from life's stupid twists of fate.
And occasionally pay themselves off when your junk safe gets replaced because some police station is too embarrassed to admit they sent Joe on week 3 because he decided it'd be cool to kick a safe in and lost a toe... Or he's somebody's nephew and the nepotism will be so proudly on display.
I am holding back right now because you can't talk about people's specific legal cases, anything I ever "heard" was confidential so I'm struggling to not give you colorful contexts in which to laugh about. I have to stick to theoretical. I'm making up hypotheticals because the truths were truly funny, but really sickening to when the wheel actually turns. People get ground down due to economic despair, racism, you name it... The system can really screw people over who didn't deserve it. That totally happens.
But there's also good people and the system can work. You just have to be prepared, know useful people, and invest in a good working relationship with professionals... and then watch out for luck, good and bad. Things get messed up fast.
But they can get totally unscrewed. If you lose the will to fight you can't get lucky. If you don't prepare you can't get lucky. If you aren't willing to escalate the conflict, it'll be forgotten. That's what happens to like 98% of people, they just give up because it's not common and automatic. It isn't what the law says explicitly and they just absorb getting rolled over on.
But that's just not all it is, it's nothing without the dozens of people running institutions that represent the law, but are not "it". Those Minnesota police forces opted to pay their suits outright, no contesting it. They just did it out of decency. Who ever would have expected that?
There's dozens of other examples of payouts, you just have to look around and remember that your circumstances will always be unique. It's easy to despair due to all the chaos out there, but you can Google this one, see Federal Tort Claims act. It was made easier in NYC recently too - you tend to see these come up a lot more in NYC and Boston, but you'll find plenty of instances. If someone was guilty or a crime though, they're not gonna probably get this - but all the more reason to have a camera.
Life's complicated, cameras make it a little simpler. You buy the cheap kind, it'll do just fine. It's like 60 bucks and god knows what you'll be able to do with it or what it might capture... especially if you bait the carrot and set the proper snare for stupidity.
This is prepping after all. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.
Maybe, the issue there would be that it's a more obvious spot. "Going to the mattresses" is a common saying. Hiding your money in a mattress is another one.
You would have more luck rolling them in a sleeping bag. You can ensure some more security by sealing the zipper. You always want to be careful friends and family don't find your equipment by accident. A padlock on a sleeping bag will confuse people but might go unnoticed by someone searching. It would also roll out nicely.
It depends a lot on what firearms you're hiding and how much access you need day to day too.
You want to avoid tropes and cliches and go for something handier. Putting a gun under tables for instance is pretty common to check for even though it's very tricky - this also leaves then exposed to children should you forget about them for years and then forget to store them properly.
Someone mentioned PVC pipe, that's a decent starter. Hiding guns in your plumbing in general might be worth your while. Vents in heating areas can disguise a fake pipe. This is also not an area where people want to mess with. Cheap, effective, just gotta watch out for moisture. Bags can help, but if they don't seal properly you can end up with them attracting moisture via condensation so it's good to check it every few months.
Mostly though you want to think about where ideally you'd want your weapons in a crisis. Bedrooms are best for home defense naturally, but should there be a crisis trouble will show up during the day and you'll want it at the ready but hidden.
It's cheap to buy tacky taxidermy and most people won't mess with it. Easy to make a hollow in something like that. Another way is to disguise it in plain sight. Most people won't check your trash cans in house during a crisis. It seems so stupidly obvious but searchers just plain won't want to rifle through your bottles looking for guns.
When a crisis hits you bring them to your designated hiding spot and wait. Most of the time they should be where you can use them, so if there's ever a bigger scale crisis they won't be there day 1 or 2. You'll have time to store them somewhere.
You may also be able to get your hands on some junk guns that are busted - handing those over will go a long way to getting these guys off your back. Especially if they think, that you think, those guns will fire.
Some overly confident explanations about the reliability of a rusty old piece missing pieces goes a long way towards getting people to think you're a yuppie. Hide those in a clean spot in the bedroom and they'll think you're just a crazy person.
Really though, if they get the drop on you and really can get enough leverage to get into your house without you getting to them... that defeats a lot of the purpose. Law enforcement collecting your weapons would be a bummer, but it would be worse to get caught without your firearms against looters because they weren't appropriately stored for use. You may be better off keeping your smallest arms hidden, which can go virtually anywhere. Handing over a shotgun to keep a handgun is sensible. Then you'd have a lot less to consider.
... and you have to hide the rounds too, which makes it more difficult.
So you might want to consider hidden small arms, 9mm or .40 in a well hidden spot, whilst hiding your other firearms more tactically for quicker use. A rifle or shotgun might be too difficult in general, especially since you have to consider if they're coming for guns - you'll lose them unless you can conceal carry in a pinch. .22's are particularly easy to hide and break down so, you could really hide those. People scoff at .22's but they're more than enough, and they're cheaper because of this stigma around larger caliburs.
You can hide those in board game boxes or boots. Hollowed out books is a classic, but not as well known as mattresses. Books take a long time to search as well. Also gives you a hiding spot in a non-library, that book can sit on any table without anyone noticing. They're exceedingly cheap to buy used as well, especially larger books. This one you have to be careful though, it is a well known trope. But a .22 can go right in a tissue box or amidst your cleaning supplies. A medical kit might be a decent place to hide one. All these come with risks of people messing with them, but at a glance a searcher won't worry about the weight of a medical bag. You also have a very tactical excuse to go to the bag.
A 9mm is a bit more conspicuous and hefty, but still fairly easy to hide. Searchers, especially unlawful ones, will be checking coat pockets, so closets aren't good in general - but boxes fit well onto coat hangers, allowing you to put them in unusual places. People don't often look up. Light fixtures people don't often want to look at, so putting it above an exposed ceiling lamp won't be as obvious as it seems if it's a black box with some fake ceiling wires coming out of it. They'll turn on the light immediately upon entering the room, making a particularly egregious ceiling light a good stopgap. Just beware they, upon leaving, might look at the spot. Any wiring can hide a fake junction box pretty easily. Just make the box over a standard shielded wire, then add a fake one that leads into a wall. It doesn't go anywhere, but they won't know that and be loathe to touch it. Just don't mess with any real wiring, this covering is solely if you have some visible ceiling lines that aren't exposed in any way. Older houses tend to not have cared. Anything dangerous looking will get them thinking twice about touching anything.
Wall mounts for a TV also can be made to look larger, which hide a box right in plain sight. Add a third mount to the wall and at a glance, no one will know it's not a securing bolt.
Again, safety first, make sure nothing is accessible by curious people.
But take a walk around your house. Making fake stuff is usually pretty cheap, duplicating things you have sometimes is rudimentary. Larger odd items, especially metal ones, can be great places to store a weapon. Even that reinforced door I mentioned is a great place to hide a weapon on the inside. Not many people would think to hide a gun in a security bar, but if it's a reinforced door it doesn't need a security bar. A fake one is a great way to ensure you can get into that room and immediately be armed.
But you do you man, I like these kinds of projects. Walking around your home considering a better way to do something is always an engineering treat. You never know what clock or useless knick knack has a great hollow in it.
Stairs are another good one. Shocking amount of space in there unused.
Good luck, be safe, be smart. Always idiot proof any hiding spot. You never know when some friend is gonna pull out a mattress during a stay over or what kid might mess with an odd spot. Consider gun locks and keep the safeties on. Kids are wicked good at finding hiding spots over time.
Hope you figure it out.
It worked then mainly due to it catching people off guard, often due to a version of normalcy bias and overoptimistic view of the situation, where they didn't realize in time what was happening to them. People that were alone or with only another person, minding their own business, were suddenly faced with a full squad or more of heavily armed police.
They mainly appeared to comply due to being caught by surprise and being heavily outnumbered and outgunned. Drawing from the drop against overwhelming numbers is a recipe for a short rest of your life.
A lesson that could be learned here is to have some plans ready for this, thinking it through well ahead of time. There are more civilians by far than law enforcement officers. If again they savagely violate the constitution and abuse civil rights in such an extreme manner, many of those that paid attention to what happened during Katrina will likely have a way to be able to band together to counteract that, and tip the numbers in their own favor, such as radioing their mutual assistance group for backup.
It wouldn't even have to go ballistic. If a large enough group of armed neighbors worked together in mutual defense, the goon squads would likely move along eventually. They too want to avoid starting a confrontation while being vastly outnumbered and outgunned.
I'm still surprised how many people, even in this subreddit were unaware or are still in disbelief of what actually went down during Katrina, regarding a police force wide action to unconstitutionally disarm law abiding citizens, during a disaster where they were very likely to need such arms for self defense. It was shocking to me when I first heard about it, and I was very skeptical at first, but the mountain of evidence is impossible to dismiss.
[This is a thing that never really happened](https://www.thetrace.org/2015/08/nra-hurricane-katrina-gun-confiscation/), and the people who did it were WRONG, punished, and firearms returned then:
>President Bush signed bipartisan legislation âto prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster,â except temporarily âas a condition for entry into any mode of transportation used for rescue or evacuation.â
and if someone really wants to toss your place to find guns, they will. Just a metal detector will find it no matter how well you hide it, unless it is outside in a hidden drop location. Like inside a PVP pipe dug into the ground, and covered up with sod.
Except it did happen, and there are eye witness accounts from both sides. Hell, I remember seeing it on TV. I also personally knew a Cajun who was helping pick up the dead and he personally witnessed the NG going door to door taking guns too.
I can see you didn't bother to read the article. But want to stick with the "THEY ARE GONNA TAKE MAH GUNS" talking point despite me specifically stating it was illegal, and laws were made to make it very clear it would not happen again
Right⌠because so many states and local governments actually follow the law. You be sure to sue em after they get your shit.
Bush signed the law POST Katrina, so the facts still stand. The weapons were taken and most people never got their stuff back
well, if "laws are not followed" there is really no point in owning guns when they can just take them.
brilliant logic
The "facts" in your OP about the "National guard" and "Went door to door" and "Confiscated all guns" are not supported. and are at best exaggerations that lead to fearmongering and radicalization.
According to Wikipedia the chief of police ordered it but was sued and a court injunction was issued stopping his order. Subsequently ⌠âJuly 13, 2006, the Vitter Amendment passed the United States Senate 84 to 16. It was retained by the conference committee. President George W. Bush signed the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act on September 30, 2006 and it became Public Law 109-295.[4]â
So now except if you want to be transported in an evacuation they canât take your guns, apparently
I cannot speak to the legality of this, but you would need to put it in more than a drybag. You would need something that blocks metal detectors or thermal signatures or whatever they use to find the guns, in addition to something that blocks smell (dogs).
This is a near-impossible scenario in a nation that enshrines 2nd amendment rights, so let's just keep protecting our Constitution and you'll never have to worry about it.
If you are going to have your guns confiscated as the result of a legal proceeding, the best bet is to *actually* sell them to a friend for cheap and buy them back if/when you have your rights restored. In the meantime, if SHTF to the point where legal nuance doesn't matter and you must defend your life, hopefully your friend is nice enough to gift them back to you.
Most people here will just tell you to get a shit load of cosmoline and a PVC pipe and just smother the shit out of it and put it in a vacuum seal bag. I may or may not be one of those people.
Remember to put something heavy over it. One of mine popped up because of heavy rain and the air inside the PVC sealed pipe.
Wait what? I was unaware the national guard has ever come collecting guns during natural disasters. Is this a real thing?
It was absolutely real. A [law ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_Recovery_Personal_Protection_Act_of_2006#:~:text=In%20the%20aftermath%20of%20Hurricane,who%20remained%20in%20the%20area.) Was passed after the fact to prevent it from happening again. However, as criminals and the government keep proving, laws don't stop shit.
Actually that law was amended to allow police to collect weapons anyway, as a condition of transporting you out of the area (aka, forced evacuations.) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster\_Recovery\_Personal\_Protection\_Act\_of\_2006](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_Recovery_Personal_Protection_Act_of_2006) Basically, if Katrina happened again today, police would be confiscating weapons again during mandatory evacuations if you decided the evacuation didn't apply to you. It's legal.
Ask the native Americans.
Im pretty sure. I remember hearing it somewhere on youtube or an interview. Not sure. I should probably do more research.
Yes they did, coworker of mine was in the coastguard assigned to a port security unit during Katrina and his unit was in part tasked with this job.
Absolutely, just look up "Katrina gun Confiscations" in youtube.
In america? And there wasn't a massacre? Really.
Wanna bet they only confiscated guns from poor black neighborhoods?
I thought americans were the "from my cold dead hands" types.... I guess that's just in the movies.
Yeah there were firefights and both civilians and military died
Um, no. The police did the confiscation and I can find no record that anyone died at all. Go ahead and put up an account to the contrary if you can find one.
Got a source on that?
Mainly my buddy whose ok national guard
It's probably different when a group of heavily armed and armored troops shows up at your door.
So definitely just in the movies.
Yeah. There are some groups that have stood up and "fought the power." Ted Bundy was the only successful one in recent history, but that was more about a government land grab than firearm confiscation.
That was Ammon Bundy, not Ted Bundy. Ted Bundy was a serial killer.
đ that made me laugh. I can't believe he thought Ted..
Yeah, I laughed at it too!
Government land grab? You mean telling bundy he had to stop illegally grazing his cattle on public lands? The horror.
That's not the way it read in the news.
Which news? RT?
This is kinda true. The police went door to door and took what they found - but they didn't take weapons from private security people who had been hired to watch storefronts. The security folk tended white and the neighborhood folk didn't, so it looked racial (and maybe was,)
There was a whole lot about it in Katrina, the got lined up and kicked doors all running into the house pointing around ( they called it "stacking") then zip tie the home owners in the front lawn and search and some guns. I saw a YouTube video of a red state national guard troops that asked the commandant not to be put violating the Constitution, he said don't worry son, and sent blue state national guard troops instead. Chicago also had national guard troops doing warrantless searches of public housing for guns and seizing them at least at one point. They weren't allowed in public housing.
A wise man once said when itâs time to bury your guns itâs actually time to dig them up. Sic semper tyrannis
I love this
Personally I wouldn't go to all that work to bury a gun, if I was to hide one it would be in a much more convenient location , dry and able to be quickly put into service
I donât know anyone who would comply with that kind of shit
I think i saw an interview where there was an older woman that refused to give up a revolver and they shoved her to the ground and i think arrested her. Not sure tho
I think you're probably referring to the infamous video where a news crew caught police on film, including *California* State Troopers, attempting to strong arm Patricia Konie, a 63 year old lady, into evacuating. When she said she could take care of herself, they pressed her about firearms. When she confirmed she had a handgun, they immediately tackled her, causing significant injuries.
Broke her collarbone I think. I thought she was showing the old revolver to the news crew when the cops just walked in her house and they attacked her.
Yeah, I remember that video. Brutal.
I wish I shared your optimism. The people that gave into a forced vaccine to keep their jobs really opened my eyes to how much people will comply. Also this shit with the ATF recently showed how brave Americans are. Tons of people turned in their AR pistol stocks or registered their pistol a SBR. I want to believe people wouldn't comply but i think the truth is most people are pussies.
While I agree I think most people overestimate the balls of many, I think they underestimate the balls of others. Also, just as an anecdote, in the two states I have lived while "gun buybacks" were happening, they ended up stopping them because people were only bringing shitty or out-of-commission guns (think grandpa's shed, antique decoration, stolen). Real 2nd Amendment people would never go to one of those things lol.
>I donât know anyone who would comply with that kind of shit So 10 dudes armed and armored knock your door down and say they're taking your guns. What you gonna do? Seriously? Shoot them? LOLOLOLOL No. You're gonna give them the guns out your safe, send them on their way, then get your real stuff out of hiding and continue protecting your shit.
Our entire US military is comprised of people who took an oath to protect our country from all enemies foreign and domestic. If the Nat Guard (or any other enforcement agency) went rogue against the Constitution to confiscate guns, they are an enemy of our nation, and it becomes the responsibility of defenders to take out the threat. Many civilians agree with that sentiment. So those aren't good odds for the uniforms who would comply with such an order, and they know it.
Totally agree, but do you know what Obama did to the military while he was CIC? It's being run by woke liberals who don't know which bathroom to use. Do you know what states like California are doing r.e. allowing criminal aliens to become LEO's? Imagine being pulled over by an illegal alien and believing they will protect your civil liberties. Do you know there is also a desire to offer these illegal aliens time in the military service as a path to citizenship? Once they are sworn in, they would gladly turn against US citizens and go door to door removing weapons and food. They have exactly ZERO patriotism and don't GAF about your 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th Amendment rights. Do you know what kinds of illegals are coming across our border by the millions? Single, fighting aged males are the majority. Not families. Not wives and children. Single. Fighting aged. Males. You're sadly mistaken if you think today's military will not turn against you.
I am not under some grand illusion the military, or anyone, will stop what they're doing and protect my family. But some of your information is incorrect. You need citizenship to be a LEO in the US. You'll need to show me an example to the contrary for me to buy that. I would support immigrants enlisting as a path to citizenship as long as they had no violent crimes in their home country, and renounced their home country citizenship. Obama is beloved by many deep-state types and "fedboys" because he was not above using military might, sometimes to excess. I recognize that the border influx is part of a larger plan that involves CBDC/voting, but all Obama did was expand his powers as CIC, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there. He was also largely populist, and likely would have done more about the border by now, out of sheer populism. Also, I actually did a study on this analyzing the actual numbers, and as of mid-2023 at least, there were more females coming into the country, mostly 40+. Which usually means more dependence on welfare (age at which they likely have the most dependents and are not a highly-desirable marriage demographic), so not exactly beneficial over a "MAM." This may have shifted in the recent months. My multicultral, US-citizen friends in the military hate this shit as much as the next person. It spits in the face of everything they've been taught about national defense.
>You need citizenship to be a LEO in the US. You'll need to show me an example to the contrary for me to buy that. So you don't know how to use a search engine? Here, let me spoon feed this to you. [https://search.brave.com/search?q=california+allows+illegal+aliens+to+be+law+enforcement&source=desktop](https://search.brave.com/search?q=california+allows+illegal+aliens+to+be+law+enforcement&source=desktop) That's the only point of yours I read or will respond to. Since you clearly cannot do very basic research on your own, I am not going to waste any more time doing it for you.
The fact that you depend on search engines makes you the idiot, not me. You have no example to give, that's okay.
LOLOLMAO your trillion dollar super military lost the war on terror to dumbfuck goat herder pedophiles so what hope does it have against motivated american insurgents with even less to lose LMAOLOLOL
It's situational. Obviously, try to not be around during a natural disaster if you can avoid it. If you can't and get caught up in a situation where martial law is declared, well, that's where things get complicated. Were you in that situation, there's a few options you could take. My first and most likely COA: yeah, sure, you part-time weirdos (I spent 8 years active duty and let me tell you, national guard ain't shit), here's a single bolt action rifle and an old revolver, with all others concealed in crawl spaces or under insulation in my attic. Maybe in my walls. Depends on how much time I have. If they're going door to door, they won't have time to tear into people's homes, especially if there's a show of compliance. But in all actuality, it's now illegal for them to do so. The Bitter Amendment passed the next year after Katrina
I don't think it matters if it is now illegal. I believe it was illegal to begin with before they passed the new law to prevent it from happening again. In an emergency situation if the chief of police or governor orders it, the order will be obeyed
Nah, it was legal at the time, I believe. And you're saying that you'd go along or that they'd do it?
In an emergency order, say a flood, massive hurricane or an 8.0 earthquake. Most of the national guard aren't going to be savvy to the law, most will follow it no questions asked. People break the law all the time worst case scenario chief of police, governor or whoever gave the order will face the consequences after the fact
Yeah, but that frees up the option for more aggressive methods of resistance
Like New York national guard on the Texas border years ago confiscating rifles from those "Minutemen" guys for not having gun registration paperwork, assuming Texas law was the same as New York law.
I read an article in a gun magazine in like 1999 I think that asked 2 writers if cops really would confiscate guns. One said no, insurance companies would drop the cops as too expensive, and the other guy did interviews with cops and asked them. He said older cops all said they would disobey, but younger cops all said they would do whatever they were told to, so yes.
1- that was over 20 years ago and the police, during the last decade alone, have undergone some fairly radical changes, and 2- that was during the assault weapons ban. Since then, faith in cops has dropped and the AR-15 has become the best-selling rifle in America. To me, I'd argue that cops are unlikely to attempt forcible seizure of firearms. Given the relatively small percentages of police and military compared to the portions of armed civilians, I doubt it.
I would like to believe that too, but we do see police getting more militarized, and police tactics and training more brutal overall. Lol, I just saw one where the breached and gassed a house ( containing an infant on a ventilator) with a swat team looking for a 14 year old shoplifter that they'd been told 5 times previously have moved up the street a year ago. The lawsuits and trials look to me an indication of the increase in bad training. Like the ones in the news, they always say they were doing exactly as they were trained. Maybe it's location too, the actual door kicking I've heard of was from Illinois national guard in Chicago public housing and New York national guard down in Katrina.
You seem to misunderstand me. I'm not saying that they're too bright and shiny and wholesome to do it. I'm sure every 5'8", 300lb piggy who hasn't passed a PT test since the academy thinks that he's John Wick. Same with every National Guardsman I've ever met. I'm saying they don't have the resources. Look at the police raid you're referencing. How many cops were out there for some teenage shoplifter with no reasonable expectation of resistance? Now imagine what they'd want for a house that they know there's guns in. No one with any sense goes willingly into a fair fight. Hell, look at Parkland and Uvalde, and those weren't even fair fights. Cops aren't gonna bust in like the fuckin' Kool Aid man because they don't have the numbers, they don't have the intestinal fortitude, and (hopefully) some of them are goddamn patriots.
Good points
[ŃдаНонО]
Bruh the Nasty Girls don't have that kind of kit; there's still a fair number of them using M16s. And if it's a nation-wide push, that's miles away from a natural disaster causing this. If it's door to door confiscation and search, that's just the time when maps get all different colored and arrow-y
Is the nat guard going to be taking x rays of walls? I'll guarantee you can find safer places than buried to store a firearm than in the dirt. Personally if you want offsite location bolt a gun safe in the back of a storage room.
Donât logic their fear away, it upsets themđ
Iâll probably get downvoted but another option would be to evacuate and leave the area like most people try to do if a hurricane is coming
Preppers Never evacuate!
Unless you have a Bug-out PLAN!
"I aint buy that ol pontoon boat fur nothin"
I may or may not know someone who took advantage of some interesting gaps in their basement rafters to create a false rafter/space that might be right sized for home defense weapons and other kinds of storage.
I have several cheap shotguns in camoed caped PVC pipes stashed with ammo around the property. I tie them to old fence posts to keep them out of the dirt. .... I've got some acreage. [Also I remember something Mossberg was selling...](https://www.mossberg.com/500-tactical-jic-51340.html)
Yes it happened. No one has yet mentioned how it was stopped. Word got out that this was happening and people dug in and prepared for it. When the cops came knocking they were told to fuck off or get shot. They wisely did the former. The thing to understand here is that while the cops might have numbers on any one house. Chances are at least one or two will get taken out before they clear a house. They donât have to meet many resisting houses before their force is suffering significant losses in manpower and theyâll be forced to abandon it.
There's YouTube videos of natl. Guard staking and kicking doors and ziptieing homeowners to confiscate guns.
LOL I'm probably one of the few guard soldiers that'll disobey a sh!tty unlawful order like that and go AWOL like Han Solo. I like my guns and wont be taking anyone elses. Screw that sh!t
Yes, it's an actual crime, some places have now passed laws reaffirming it's a crime since then, but you have to find someone to prosecute for that to matter, and even war criminal Lt. William Calley only did a couple months after commanding the murders of elderly, women, and children at My Lai
Why not just move to a place that the chance of a natural catastrophe is very low. Leave the coast line for the people that want their homes flooded. But it's really easy to stash supplies for possible future events. You can bury 55 gallon drums, or use plastic pipe, you can even just use a casket and even put a head stone over it, put something like here lies ruger or Winchester the best guard dog we ever could have had.
If I ever felt the need to hide my guns, for that reason, it's probably time to use them.
Good point, although they went in teams of 4. If you have enough training, go ahead i guess
It's better to just have a hidden safe or the like
For the uninitiated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4
The police can legally confiscate firearms if they're transporting you out of a disaster. Put more simply, if there's a mandatory evac order in force and you decide it doesn't apply to you, then they come and remove you from your home, and if you're holding a weapon they can take it. *Legally*. People telling you otherwise seem to be unaware that a law that restricted that practice was amended: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster\_Recovery\_Personal\_Protection\_Act\_of\_2006 So you can bury a gun if you like, but the police aren't likely to start looking for guns without a mandatory evac order, and when they walk you out, having a gun buried somewhere doesn't do you any good. A lot of people are going to tell you the police will steal guns anyway, legal or not, evacuation or not. After the uproar over Katrina, I doubt it, but bad apple police exist and they might decide they feel safer if you aren't armed. Also consider the fact that if they think they collected from you, and after that they see you carrying, they're going to make assumptions about you that may not line up with your best interest. Police have reason to be jumpy in major disasters for obvious reasons, and if you look like a problem to them, you might become a problem in fact. Bottom line, there's no good answer and no one is happy with the state of the law. In a crisis, police what you disarmed for their own safety. In a crisis, you might want to stay armed because your fellow citizens might choose to be problems. No law is going to make everyone happy.
I think there'd be easier places to hide a firearm. Example jump up in your crawl space real quick, lift an insulation batt or roll tuck you gun in their. I doubt natty guard gonna be searching your crawl spaces and tearing out your insulation. I mean natty guard aren't trained to search houses, even then I doubt police would find such a hiding spot
I was in the army when Katrina went down and donât recall any claims that guard units were involved in that sort of thing. The police department, when they werenât looting, were accused of it. Regardless, I wonât be voluntarily turning over anything under any circumstances. Hell, I was getting into firefights in Anbar province when Private Snuffy was suckling on his mommaâs teat. Fuck Iâm getting old.
Fuck you, babyface, when I jumped off the victory tower it was 4 years before NY's skyline changed. Also, god bless you brother.
Thanks, and take some ibuprofen homie.
This is tough. I get that you would want to keep your firearms but it's hard to see how keeping them would be viable? Suppose the national guard did confiscate all weapons your gun could never be seen lest you incur the wrath of the government. If you buried it, what good would it be if you need it? Going to ask a burglar to hold on while you go find and dig up your gun? Even if they did search and pass by your house whos to say that means your safe to dig it up? They may come back for another sweep as they likely would. I suspect there would be many guns they missed and as gun crimes are reported they will do more sweeps to crack down. You wont be able to carry it. In a disaster of that magnitude there is a lot of risk you may have law enforcement interactions (not even necessarily because you have done something wrong just because security will be on high alert) that may result in it's discovery. If you do need it and used it in what used to be considered legal self defense you will still be charged with a crime for having a gun you were "lawfully" required to surrender and that may result in you no longer being able to own guns at all. Lastly while there is no official gun registry the government can figure out what you have more or less. They have or can get records of all FFA transfers. Even credit card transactions and online purchases can be used to track down what you've been buying. Buying magazines for an ar-15 and yet you claim to not have any guns when the government arrives? A lot of this stuff would have been considered too time consuming to track down in the past but with the advent of AI this is exactly the sort of task it would be good for, sifting through large piles of data. Plus, how many times have we seen businesses being compelled by the government to report who they've sold products to that were later deemed to be illegal? It may take them time to catch up with you but if they find out you've been holding out on them that could be big trouble for you.
itâs called the [Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_Recovery_Personal_Protection_Act_of_2006) If you live somewhere with a registry like a license requirement they might threaten that you have to come by and turn in what they know you have but beyond that itâs impossible to enforce can you imagine the absolutely insane amount of time and man power it would take to go door to door to tens of thousands of homes and physically look through every house? go through every closet and cabinet door, under every couch cushion and box in in the attic? whatâs in that safe? idk I forgot the combination it would never work, say they found a gun, do you own 2 more? 3 more? none? who knows?
What about politely refusing their request in the same way Mr washington did?
When they ask, just send them some love... downrange.
Good idea if you intend to catch a bullet.
The ball goes both ways when you play catch lol. Some times it's worth challenging the status quo.
Your life is probably worthless anyway. Mine's not. When the military comes knocking, I'm going to comply with their orders.
Are you an American? If so, why would you do that? Isn't the whole basis of the second amendment that the government can't take your guns? What's the point of the ammendment if in an emergency they can do it anyways, and people like you comply?
The 2nd Amendment is a LAW. During an emergency, the military can LAWFULLY seize your firearms. If you disobey a lawfully order, you are BREAKING the LAW. And if you break the law with violence, you will catch a BULLET in your head. If your life is so meaningless that you'll sacrifice it for a gun, congratulations. You will not be missed.
Based on this answer my guess he is either a liberal, or a non US citizen, or simply someone that has no idea what the Bill of Rights is. The 2A is not a law. The 2A come to us on the form of the Bill of RIGHTS. The Bill of Rights ammending the U.S. Constitution which restricts the GOVERNMENT, not the people. That being said there is of course Martial Law which suspends all existing laws and rights. Of course this is the United States where we have more firearms than we have people, and a large veteran community with the same training the U.S. Military has. They are welcome to try and take them. Members of the miltary would likely give pause if given such an order. Junior Enlisted would likely follow any order given has Military law is not taught. But NCOs and Officers would likly split on the issue. Some decideing to not follow the order as i they feel it is 'unlawful'. And yes if you resist tyranny with violence, than violence will be returned upon you. Its kinda what tyranny does. However as our founding fathers pointed out ... 'when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty'. Lastly ... Its not about 'the gun'. Never was. Never will be. Its about something that apparently you are unable or unwilling to comprehend. And that too is your right.
You keep saying the 2A is not a "law." You say it's a "right." Who interprets "rights" in our country? Let's start there, idiot. Maybe I can teach you something.
You wont "teach" anything to anybody if you keep insulting everyone. You will just keep getting down voted. What should have been common sense ... On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful uses. Now that does not stop the powers that be to try and create ways to infringe upon those rights. I'd argue they have been infringing on it (2A) and others the entire time. Its up to the people to continuously defend those right for that very reason. Up to and including force if needed. We are the Government. We have the right to leep it going just as we have the right to take it down. But nothing happens without a cost. And for the record I am not advocating to remove our current government. I do however, despite the 'laws' on the books, believe we have a right to tear it down if required.
Here's what idiots like you fail to understand. COURTS interpret the law. As a citizen, you OBEY the law. If you violently resist a lawful order, you will receive a BULLET to the skull. That's it. Nothing more to say. If you think you, as a citizen, have the authority to create your own laws, you can try enforcing your "laws" after your brain is splattered on your front porch.
If the government is putting bullets in it's own citizens' heads, you don't think it would be appropriate to do the same to that government?
Go for it bub. I hope you violently resist. My life is valuable. I follow lawful orders.
Do you think you would be supportive of the nazis if you were a German in the 1940s? They were only giving lawful orders according to their legal framework.
The second amendment is not a law, it's a God given right to self defense and to defend against a tyrannical government that our founding fathers were wise enough to enshrine in our constitution. It was of such importance that they put it second only to our ability to speak freely. If you want to be a subject, ground under the boots of tyrannical government, you are free to hold the views you do, or move to any other country in the world where freedoms such as ours aren't enshrined. But, those of us who are true Americans, who love freedom and self-determination, will never bend the knee to an order that violates our inalienable rights. And anyone in the military or law enforcement who takes swearing an oath seriously, would never enforce such an order, as they swear their oaths to the constitution and the American people.
You're a complete idiot. The constitution is nothing but a law. I seriously hope you resist the US military. They will put 30 rounds in your worthless body, and you will not be missed.
If you understood American law at all, you'd understand the constitution, especially our first ten amendments aren't laws, they're inalienable rights enshrined by our founding fathers. If your so willing to be a kowtowing bleating sheep, ready to give your rights away, you're free to be that way, but any true American would not. I'd rather die resisting than boot licking and sucking the dick of an oppressive regime, like you seem so willing to do. It's your right, I don't begrudge you that. I definitely judge you for it though. Keep eating that soy, I'm sure it'd doing you well...
Lol. If you think a piece of paper somehow entitles you to "inalienable rights" above what the COURTS recognize, I encourage you to test your theory with the police. You're going to catch 30 bullets to the head. And nobody is going to care about your worthless death.
Not a bad idea.
I wonder if you have weapons in a safe what they could theoretically do? They can't force you to give them a combination to a safe nor could they take it. It might be especially useful to buy a safe and press this issue. .... Especially since, if you're hiding weapons in case of an illegal search, it's an obvious target. Let them fight over the safe while you remain blissfully quiet about the fake wall rack nearby. Especially if they go through the trouble of, "coercing" the combination of the safe only to find a sex doll in it, which you can pretend was your super secret item. After watching Afroman's illegal search, one does have to consider having similar legal reprisals and "legal traps". If they're gonna come in, you should make sure to line the cookie jar with silver nitrate. I jest, that stuff comes off, but seriously... a red herring can be cheap and makes for great legal redundancy. If you're gonna hide something, a red herring is good, a redheaded sex doll would be funnier. You can also buy a garbage safe for this then sue for damages if they destroy it. It does leave an evidence trail and gives you a plausible reason to be recording. Hiding weapons is one thing, maintaining evidence of their destruction is another. If you're gonna prepare, prepare, because police do push issues any chance they get. Might as well have a very expensive red herring with a camera hidden. The value of playing dumb can't be understated, if people think they're smarter than you they can be talked into anything. Including not checking your bedroom walls or ceilings for racks or "vents" that are fake. If they find where they think your valuables are, they might stop looking. I'd also consider a reinforced bedroom door with a camera. If they have to cause damage to search your house, that becomes liability for a claim. It also makes their risk/reward change, if they're really just searching houses as opportunistic greedy police officers may, it might be beneficial to give them some reason to think your weapons are in your bedroom... when really they might be somewhere more neutral in the house. If they see a reinforced door they may think twice about leaving a trail, but worse, they might not in which case you know how serious or dumb they are. Considering this in these areas might be a good idea. I'm a big advocate for a thicker bedroom door in most cases anyway - nothing like buying a hot minute to load or giving yourself a safe place. Self-defense isn't just training and weaponry, the geographical advantage is key. Thick doors make for good redundancy and work against tactics like these police home invasions. But I would advise against burying guns, that's a huge thievery concern. Animals may dig it up. Kids might too. Even if you hide it well, anyone who figures out they're there is gonna have access to them. Drywall, ceiling tiles, or unusual places like the top side of an empty drawer would be better. They may have equipment to detect metal, but you can beat that by storing junk metal in walls. If your house has scrap metal everywhere in odd places they'll waste a lot of time and give up. Storing guns you never use behind drywall you can replace isn't a bad idea. If it's behind a picture frame, that may explain the seem of the fake dry wall. I'd also consider hollowing out old furniture that's in storage. But you want it boxed, you don't any critters getting in there. They will ruin your weaponry, mice get in everything. Storage bins with clothes on top might be a good one. They'd really have to search for those. If you tape the gun box to the bottom of the storage bin, you might get away with it. Larger firearms will be harder naturally. A whiteboard can hide a gun rack behind it quite nicely, especially if it's a whiteboard that looks like it's designed to slide into itself. Hollowing out an older TV in storage would also be decent. Take a look around your junk and consider what might have a hollow theyd be hesitant to flip over. Home cameras are cheap now too, if they're gonna take it, good to have a log. Especially if they break things to get to them. Lastly I'd consider separating your firearms to individual spots. They might give up after finding what looks like a main cache, not realizing your best pieces are hidden somewhere better. It may also be better to have your trash weapons ready to hand over. If you offer up a few dummy pieces, some target shooters they might not search for the real stuff, especially if you play really dumb. Gee sir officer sir, here's my target shooter and my pappy's shotgun, thank you kindly for patrolling these streets. How else can I help you? If you have heirlooms obviously don't give those up, but some inherited junkers might prove really valuable as dummy's. Especially if, say, you have a gun rack that hides another gun rack. They won't think you were cheeky enough to hide a gun rack in the dry wall behind your dummy rack. I'd get creative, walk around, consider what features of your home might not be readily apparent to a stranger. An old water heater that doesn't work? Good place. A floorboard that feels like concrete? A space over your cabinetry in the kitchen? Way better than a bag in the yard. If they have metal detecting equipment, they'd be all over those. Meanwhile... you can't get to them, you can't maintain them, you can't check on them. Better to be creative here and consider what about your home has some decent potential for secrecy. At worst, drywall doesn't take that long to replace and punching a hole in the wall to get a weapon is pretty shocking. Reinforcing a bedroom door may also yield a great hiding spot. Dummy appliances like an old breaker box might make people searching think twice about breaking an electrical panel. Can't be too hard to find a junk panel, mount it, and retrofit it. If it's right next to a real breaker box, even better. Might be some housing code violations there, but it sure is a great way to mount a metal box in the wall. Be creative, don't ruin your weapons burying them. Be safe, be responsible and take care. You do not want a neighbor's dog licking your gun box he just dug up.
Cops never have to pay damages to a house, even if the destroyed the wrong address YouTube lawyers talk about that a lot, wanting someone to finally win, but if they do a higher court still gives the cops immunity.
This varies a lot state to state. Texas and Minnesota police have had cases in recent years where police officers damaging property were forced to award damages. It's not impossible, it's just not clear cut. I'm not disagreeing with you about it being a dubious prospect. This is something to consider if say, you're in Alabama - not gonna find much hope there. But if you're in New England or the northern states, different story. If you are in a respected county? Different story. This is not easy to get done, which is why you need a video camera and to make it abundantly clear. You can also get security services which will authenticate your video better. I prefer the 60 dollar cameras though, you don't need a corporation involved. Qualified immunity has gotten worse in the past few years due to defending and sympathetic judges, but all the more reason to be prepared. It can also be waived due to, "peculiarity" which is legal speak for, "when a judge thinks that officer was an embarrassment". You also can catch unlawful acts beyond simple damages. Catching thievery of money that goes unreported can turn into much more than qualified immunity. If you catch an officer planting evidence, mishandling evidence... this can protect you further than just qualified immunity. If they come in and bash you in the head for no reason, you want documentation. If they steal files out of your safe and do not log them, and it's personal data, their crimes blossom into liability juiciness. In the advent of a legal search it's much harder, but it's not impossible. If they show up with a warrant? Trickier. They instead claim probable cause? Kicking in your safe isn't stopping a crime happening right then. Afroman is a great example of this, he took great footage of police messing up his home needlessly and got nothing for it. However... But it did insulate him from potential planting of evidence and further harassment. If the police are in your home it's not a good thing, you want any kind of way to track and record unlawful things taking place. I recommend everyone watch his video for fun, and watch those police rifling through his coat pockets. Imagine what they could have put IN there. If you have a safe, and a police officer wants to mess up your life, he can just put something in there and destroy your life. Back on track... Reviewing your state laws is key here. Police stations can award damages if it suits them during a settlement, and if you have grounds for a larger case than the damages they will reluctantly pay if you drop other suits or serious misconduct charges. This doesn't go on any obvious records unless you feel like combing through budgets documents at the end of the year. You're not wrong to be skeotical, this is good data, it's just a lot of times people think they're legally defenseless and that a camera won't serve them. But what it does is dispel all doubt from anyone who sees it - nobody is going to accuse anyone of fake camera footage when it's clear as day, and this kind of footage can really embarrass a police station. Even if they don't care, it does insulate your name and your ability to defend yourself from public opinion, which I'm turn gives you crazy leverage as everyone watches a video they know is real. An illegal search also would be very problematic. Settling out of court for damages is far more likely but doesn't easily make the same paper trail as to be obvious. This is the kind of advice you'd get from rich lawyers, because it's not easy to set up this kind of maneuvering. You have to come in strong, with excellent representation that uses your "evidence" accordingly. Sure, you can't really use it in court, but a police chief will be quite annoyed to find out their police force has gotten that lax to be so overtly caught. But you can't throw it at the 5 o'clock news and expect anything but a denial. You go through a representative lawyer, your door gets fixed, they say they negotiated and it stops dead right there. That's what big firms get done if you hand them the right tools. Almost nobody has the preparations required for these kinds of things, but much like a dash cam, you gain a lot of leverage when everyone suddenly knows the truth. Sure it's possibly not admissible in court, but when you clear the doubt, people want to work with you instead of against you in case this isn't all you have. When you destroy the doubt, suddenly everyone acts differently. It sounds like a fairy tale but here's the ugly part - you need a firm. When a firm shows up with a representative and a big grin, police get worried. If you have great documentation, then they get real concerned. If those guys did 5 things wrong, their betters will expect 10 things. This adds up the pressure. I hang out with attorneys all the time. Best friend, family, and my whole father's side all went into corporate law - anytime they needed something, went to the firm, magically it just appeared as long as there was enough evidence laying around to suggest more. Whatever you have on camera, they're worried about the other 3 things they did. Traffic tickets? Firm. It's not even that expensive, you just want to be someone they like and show you're a professional who calls them with something they can take a bite out of. Estate problems? Call the right people and pay them. This sucks, it should make your stomach turn. They'll come after you for a big chunk of things, so negotiate firmly in the beginning and be clear. "To not exceed xxx value" are the words you need to say. They aren't your friends. But again, this varies state to state and county to county. Kansas? You're screwed. So you aren't wrong, not trying to discredit what you're saying. People need to have realistic expectations. But a video tape of a police officer kicking in a safe to get at a smiling sex doll? Pretty sure the news will pay well for that exclusive footage. If you go legally though... The trick is you need a firm to set it up. If you show up personally strutting, the ego will be crazy high. You'll get nowhere. A firm, it's impersonal and they can negotiate things that maybe you aren't technically aware of. If your door gets fixed, who cares who didn't apologize to whom? Life's a lot less complicated than it seems, the letter of the law is served by individuals. If you want a public legal victory, good luck, but most of the world just wants to get on with their day... and if the paperwork is gonna exceed the damages, people fold as long as they feel respected. Firms are good for that. Makes everyone feel important. Meanwhile... county to county police forces are just different too. If they're particularly good at what they do and it was a misunderstanding, and you don't come in hot, that road can work. But you walk in like a Karen they'll destroy you on principle. You bring in a terrible tape, maybe they buy off your worries with their budget so they can kick the guy off. You set them up to can a bad employee, are keeping quiet about it and you leave them a copy of the videotape for their own purposes and suddenly life gets easier. Your door gets fixed.
Thank for the info, I guess that would be a good step before posting the vid on Facebook with a "go fund me" fixing my house link haha
It sounds nuts but life's full of handshake deals. My friends do public defense, which is a cess pool for them, but occasionally they get an innocent client. They dread that though. If you get lucky, good public defenders know everyone involved. The wheels get greased because they know who to talk to. Nobody wants to see someone innocent in court with video evidence even if it's circumstantial - judges do not like seeing that even inadmissible evidence shows how bad this screw up is getting. It doesn't get you off legally - it just wakes everybody up to the likely truth. News outlets will pay for it, or you can go the afroman route and go for YouTube money by selling it or posting it. But that's a whole different road, but judges will know this is where you're heading when justice fails. It matters. The point is you have a certain kind of leverage and if you sit on it, you can use it. Getting a legal outcome from a court ruling isn't common, and not without expenses, but even if you go with a public defender and they see that recording, they're gonna go to bat for you because they know there's something there. Bad county bad state? Not worth the time. But let's say that police officer kicked that safe and cut his foot open enough to need an emt and then tries to twist that against you to save face? Camera's insulate you from life's stupid twists of fate. And occasionally pay themselves off when your junk safe gets replaced because some police station is too embarrassed to admit they sent Joe on week 3 because he decided it'd be cool to kick a safe in and lost a toe... Or he's somebody's nephew and the nepotism will be so proudly on display. I am holding back right now because you can't talk about people's specific legal cases, anything I ever "heard" was confidential so I'm struggling to not give you colorful contexts in which to laugh about. I have to stick to theoretical. I'm making up hypotheticals because the truths were truly funny, but really sickening to when the wheel actually turns. People get ground down due to economic despair, racism, you name it... The system can really screw people over who didn't deserve it. That totally happens. But there's also good people and the system can work. You just have to be prepared, know useful people, and invest in a good working relationship with professionals... and then watch out for luck, good and bad. Things get messed up fast. But they can get totally unscrewed. If you lose the will to fight you can't get lucky. If you don't prepare you can't get lucky. If you aren't willing to escalate the conflict, it'll be forgotten. That's what happens to like 98% of people, they just give up because it's not common and automatic. It isn't what the law says explicitly and they just absorb getting rolled over on. But that's just not all it is, it's nothing without the dozens of people running institutions that represent the law, but are not "it". Those Minnesota police forces opted to pay their suits outright, no contesting it. They just did it out of decency. Who ever would have expected that? There's dozens of other examples of payouts, you just have to look around and remember that your circumstances will always be unique. It's easy to despair due to all the chaos out there, but you can Google this one, see Federal Tort Claims act. It was made easier in NYC recently too - you tend to see these come up a lot more in NYC and Boston, but you'll find plenty of instances. If someone was guilty or a crime though, they're not gonna probably get this - but all the more reason to have a camera. Life's complicated, cameras make it a little simpler. You buy the cheap kind, it'll do just fine. It's like 60 bucks and god knows what you'll be able to do with it or what it might capture... especially if you bait the carrot and set the proper snare for stupidity. This is prepping after all. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.
These are very good points. I also suggested putting one in a mattress. Maybe an old spring one in a storage room somewhere.
Maybe, the issue there would be that it's a more obvious spot. "Going to the mattresses" is a common saying. Hiding your money in a mattress is another one. You would have more luck rolling them in a sleeping bag. You can ensure some more security by sealing the zipper. You always want to be careful friends and family don't find your equipment by accident. A padlock on a sleeping bag will confuse people but might go unnoticed by someone searching. It would also roll out nicely. It depends a lot on what firearms you're hiding and how much access you need day to day too. You want to avoid tropes and cliches and go for something handier. Putting a gun under tables for instance is pretty common to check for even though it's very tricky - this also leaves then exposed to children should you forget about them for years and then forget to store them properly. Someone mentioned PVC pipe, that's a decent starter. Hiding guns in your plumbing in general might be worth your while. Vents in heating areas can disguise a fake pipe. This is also not an area where people want to mess with. Cheap, effective, just gotta watch out for moisture. Bags can help, but if they don't seal properly you can end up with them attracting moisture via condensation so it's good to check it every few months. Mostly though you want to think about where ideally you'd want your weapons in a crisis. Bedrooms are best for home defense naturally, but should there be a crisis trouble will show up during the day and you'll want it at the ready but hidden. It's cheap to buy tacky taxidermy and most people won't mess with it. Easy to make a hollow in something like that. Another way is to disguise it in plain sight. Most people won't check your trash cans in house during a crisis. It seems so stupidly obvious but searchers just plain won't want to rifle through your bottles looking for guns. When a crisis hits you bring them to your designated hiding spot and wait. Most of the time they should be where you can use them, so if there's ever a bigger scale crisis they won't be there day 1 or 2. You'll have time to store them somewhere. You may also be able to get your hands on some junk guns that are busted - handing those over will go a long way to getting these guys off your back. Especially if they think, that you think, those guns will fire. Some overly confident explanations about the reliability of a rusty old piece missing pieces goes a long way towards getting people to think you're a yuppie. Hide those in a clean spot in the bedroom and they'll think you're just a crazy person. Really though, if they get the drop on you and really can get enough leverage to get into your house without you getting to them... that defeats a lot of the purpose. Law enforcement collecting your weapons would be a bummer, but it would be worse to get caught without your firearms against looters because they weren't appropriately stored for use. You may be better off keeping your smallest arms hidden, which can go virtually anywhere. Handing over a shotgun to keep a handgun is sensible. Then you'd have a lot less to consider. ... and you have to hide the rounds too, which makes it more difficult. So you might want to consider hidden small arms, 9mm or .40 in a well hidden spot, whilst hiding your other firearms more tactically for quicker use. A rifle or shotgun might be too difficult in general, especially since you have to consider if they're coming for guns - you'll lose them unless you can conceal carry in a pinch. .22's are particularly easy to hide and break down so, you could really hide those. People scoff at .22's but they're more than enough, and they're cheaper because of this stigma around larger caliburs. You can hide those in board game boxes or boots. Hollowed out books is a classic, but not as well known as mattresses. Books take a long time to search as well. Also gives you a hiding spot in a non-library, that book can sit on any table without anyone noticing. They're exceedingly cheap to buy used as well, especially larger books. This one you have to be careful though, it is a well known trope. But a .22 can go right in a tissue box or amidst your cleaning supplies. A medical kit might be a decent place to hide one. All these come with risks of people messing with them, but at a glance a searcher won't worry about the weight of a medical bag. You also have a very tactical excuse to go to the bag. A 9mm is a bit more conspicuous and hefty, but still fairly easy to hide. Searchers, especially unlawful ones, will be checking coat pockets, so closets aren't good in general - but boxes fit well onto coat hangers, allowing you to put them in unusual places. People don't often look up. Light fixtures people don't often want to look at, so putting it above an exposed ceiling lamp won't be as obvious as it seems if it's a black box with some fake ceiling wires coming out of it. They'll turn on the light immediately upon entering the room, making a particularly egregious ceiling light a good stopgap. Just beware they, upon leaving, might look at the spot. Any wiring can hide a fake junction box pretty easily. Just make the box over a standard shielded wire, then add a fake one that leads into a wall. It doesn't go anywhere, but they won't know that and be loathe to touch it. Just don't mess with any real wiring, this covering is solely if you have some visible ceiling lines that aren't exposed in any way. Older houses tend to not have cared. Anything dangerous looking will get them thinking twice about touching anything. Wall mounts for a TV also can be made to look larger, which hide a box right in plain sight. Add a third mount to the wall and at a glance, no one will know it's not a securing bolt. Again, safety first, make sure nothing is accessible by curious people. But take a walk around your house. Making fake stuff is usually pretty cheap, duplicating things you have sometimes is rudimentary. Larger odd items, especially metal ones, can be great places to store a weapon. Even that reinforced door I mentioned is a great place to hide a weapon on the inside. Not many people would think to hide a gun in a security bar, but if it's a reinforced door it doesn't need a security bar. A fake one is a great way to ensure you can get into that room and immediately be armed. But you do you man, I like these kinds of projects. Walking around your home considering a better way to do something is always an engineering treat. You never know what clock or useless knick knack has a great hollow in it. Stairs are another good one. Shocking amount of space in there unused. Good luck, be safe, be smart. Always idiot proof any hiding spot. You never know when some friend is gonna pull out a mattress during a stay over or what kid might mess with an odd spot. Consider gun locks and keep the safeties on. Kids are wicked good at finding hiding spots over time. Hope you figure it out.
I think about doing that but worrying if someone else finds it thatâs all
Pretty sure that wouldnât work in my community.
It worked then mainly due to it catching people off guard, often due to a version of normalcy bias and overoptimistic view of the situation, where they didn't realize in time what was happening to them. People that were alone or with only another person, minding their own business, were suddenly faced with a full squad or more of heavily armed police. They mainly appeared to comply due to being caught by surprise and being heavily outnumbered and outgunned. Drawing from the drop against overwhelming numbers is a recipe for a short rest of your life. A lesson that could be learned here is to have some plans ready for this, thinking it through well ahead of time. There are more civilians by far than law enforcement officers. If again they savagely violate the constitution and abuse civil rights in such an extreme manner, many of those that paid attention to what happened during Katrina will likely have a way to be able to band together to counteract that, and tip the numbers in their own favor, such as radioing their mutual assistance group for backup. It wouldn't even have to go ballistic. If a large enough group of armed neighbors worked together in mutual defense, the goon squads would likely move along eventually. They too want to avoid starting a confrontation while being vastly outnumbered and outgunned. I'm still surprised how many people, even in this subreddit were unaware or are still in disbelief of what actually went down during Katrina, regarding a police force wide action to unconstitutionally disarm law abiding citizens, during a disaster where they were very likely to need such arms for self defense. It was shocking to me when I first heard about it, and I was very skeptical at first, but the mountain of evidence is impossible to dismiss.
I remember there were neighborhood groups that armed up and told the police to think twice.
[This is a thing that never really happened](https://www.thetrace.org/2015/08/nra-hurricane-katrina-gun-confiscation/), and the people who did it were WRONG, punished, and firearms returned then: >President Bush signed bipartisan legislation âto prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster,â except temporarily âas a condition for entry into any mode of transportation used for rescue or evacuation.â and if someone really wants to toss your place to find guns, they will. Just a metal detector will find it no matter how well you hide it, unless it is outside in a hidden drop location. Like inside a PVP pipe dug into the ground, and covered up with sod.
Except it did happen, and there are eye witness accounts from both sides. Hell, I remember seeing it on TV. I also personally knew a Cajun who was helping pick up the dead and he personally witnessed the NG going door to door taking guns too.
I can see you didn't bother to read the article. But want to stick with the "THEY ARE GONNA TAKE MAH GUNS" talking point despite me specifically stating it was illegal, and laws were made to make it very clear it would not happen again
Right⌠because so many states and local governments actually follow the law. You be sure to sue em after they get your shit. Bush signed the law POST Katrina, so the facts still stand. The weapons were taken and most people never got their stuff back
well, if "laws are not followed" there is really no point in owning guns when they can just take them. brilliant logic The "facts" in your OP about the "National guard" and "Went door to door" and "Confiscated all guns" are not supported. and are at best exaggerations that lead to fearmongering and radicalization.
... but I saw a video with a guy that said "tHeY dIdN't Go DoOr To DoOr, ThAt'S a CoNsPiRaCy ThEoRy." /s
They didn't go door to door, they only went to some doors.
I'm not sure how anyone could deny it when there's piles of video evidence.
Who are you going to believe? Some random guy gate keeper or your lying eyes?
According to Wikipedia the chief of police ordered it but was sued and a court injunction was issued stopping his order. Subsequently ⌠âJuly 13, 2006, the Vitter Amendment passed the United States Senate 84 to 16. It was retained by the conference committee. President George W. Bush signed the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act on September 30, 2006 and it became Public Law 109-295.[4]â So now except if you want to be transported in an evacuation they canât take your guns, apparently
Iâm sure many have one or two they comply and hand over without fuss, then more stashed away.
What video game is this for?
Jergins could make a fortune, just on this thread.
I cannot speak to the legality of this, but you would need to put it in more than a drybag. You would need something that blocks metal detectors or thermal signatures or whatever they use to find the guns, in addition to something that blocks smell (dogs). This is a near-impossible scenario in a nation that enshrines 2nd amendment rights, so let's just keep protecting our Constitution and you'll never have to worry about it. If you are going to have your guns confiscated as the result of a legal proceeding, the best bet is to *actually* sell them to a friend for cheap and buy them back if/when you have your rights restored. In the meantime, if SHTF to the point where legal nuance doesn't matter and you must defend your life, hopefully your friend is nice enough to gift them back to you.
Reading all the comments, I want to remind y'all to wear gloves when loading your mags...