You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
2

[–] uvulectomy 1 point 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

"...according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

The UCMJ requires military personnel to obey lawful orders. While there's little time to consider legal implications in the field, it has been ruled that if the order is clearly unlawful, and could be determined to be unlawful by the biggest idiot around, then there is both a duty and an obligation to disobey said order.

WRT to confiscating guns from civilians, that would be unconstitutional. And it has also been ruled that unconstitutional orders are in and of themselves unlawful, therefore the soldier can and should disobey.

Will they still get dragged into a court martial? Probably. But when it's argued that the order they disobeyed was unlawful, the heat then gets focused on the one who gave the order.

0
2

[–] midnightblue1335 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Yes, we have a duty to follow LAWFUL orders, but at the same time we have a duty to DISOBEY unlawful orders.

We even have a system in the Marine Corps for when a superior officer tells you to do something that you know is illegal: "request mast". Essentially, you get to speak to a higher ranking officer and inform them of the order you were given. If that officer also says "do it", you can keep climbing the ranks, all the way to the Commandant if necessary. I'm pretty sure each military branch has something similar to this.

1
2

[–] thelma 1 point 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Well, they did confiscate guns.

So can you rely on them to perform their oath?

No. How do we know?

Because none of them were disciplined for violating their oath when it comes down to disarming citizens.

And yes, there was a court case about these confiscations (most people did not get their guns returned though..even after winning the case).

Don't trust soldiers to do their duty...they would have killed to execute their order to steal property.