To the best of my knowledge the last time martial law was declared in the USA was in Alabama, 1961.

Let's look at the real world for recent examples of "martial law," We recently experienced a destructive fire and we were within a mandatory (not really mandatory) evacuation zone> I would have left anyway - it is my customary procedure when directly downwind from an advancing fire.

Entry into the zone was restricted in order to retard looting and looky-loos. Later on, national Guard troops were activated and manned principal check points to supplement the local police. Life went on as normal as possible. The Constitution was not suspended and no one was shot on sight, nor did anyone have to surrender their supplies to feed the troops. I suspect that owners of heavy equipment might have seen some "hasty rentals," but I dare say they were duly compensated.

In a related incident, someone set an arson fire very near our house. Early the next morning, two firemen were mopping up. I inquired if they would like a cup of coffee. The answer being yes, I brewed them a pot. It was the least I could do to show support and help out.

There was never a formal declaration of ML, although is the situation had become more extreme, there might have been, the details of which would have depended upon the circumstances of the incident.

My supplies are not all stored in one location, but actually burying perfectly usable items with the hopes that they will remain undiscovered and in good shape, smacks of survivalist hogwash.

Live life, be aware, and adjust to ever changing conditions

Whilst the above is an interesting report of a real life incident, it is not in my view an accurate picture of what could happen in the much more serious situation of martial law being declared.
Turning out the national guard to assist in any large scale emergency is the sensible thing to do, and a long way from martial law.

Here in the UK, the armed forces were called to assist the civil forces during severe flooding. A sensible and appropriate response and not comparable with martial law.

Here in the UK the government can if need be declare a "state of emergency" which is not martial law, but does give the government greater powers and with less scrutiny than would be the case under normal conditions.

There have been two UK states of emergency in my lifetime, but no martial law.

To the original question, you do what they tell you. As with any law enforcement interaction, follow instructions, do not resist. If you have any issues with what or how they did it, take it up later with a lawyer.

I was stationed in at Clark AFB, Philippines when martial law was declared by Ferdinand Marcos in 1972... I was downtown at an establishment that served adult beverages, and upon leaving, sometime after :0030L, and not knowing that a curfew had been ordered, was courteously transported to the Tri Agency Patrol facility and remained there until the curfew expired at 0600 (IIRC)...at that time the Philippine government was very appreciative of the US utilization of base facilities in their country, and the Philippine Constabulary (national military style police) treated American service personnel very well for the most part... after the initial incident violating curfew, I observed the imposed limitations, and even when living down town, my daily routine did not change... married friends lived in "compounds" and had their own private security, but I was never affected... just made aware that the jeepney (cab service) would stop running about 1/2 hour prior to curfew, and needed to head back to main gate if I wasn't staying in the ville

Let's just say that the UK and USA are different political entities, sharing wonderful traditions, but with perhaps somewhat different practices.

Last month my son was doing a research project for US History and discovered that martial law was implemented in our town in 1917 over labor disputes involving the WOBBLIES. The workers at the mills and mines of the area at that time were mistreated, jailed and not being paid, so several union groups became involved. The wobblies gained power at that time.

http://www.historylink.org/File/7363

The Federal, State and Local Governments made it illegal to be a member of the union and hunted down members all over the country.

So if you weren't a member or sympathizer with that group, you weren't likely effected much. Otherwise illegal behaviors were carried out by the Government and their private accomplices to members of the union.

"To the original question, you do what they tell you. As with any law enforcement interaction, follow instructions, do not resist. If you have any issues with what or how they did it, take it up later with a lawyer."

That is assuming the law enforcement or accompanying corporate entities are not trying to outright kill you, as in past marshal law enforcements.

There has of course been examples, in living memory, of European martial law where the military were literally excluded from any legal limitations on their behaviour.
World War 2.
The nazis specifically excluded their troops from any legal redress by civilians in the invasion of the soviet union. Similarly the Red Army ran amok when it counter invaded Germany.
As did the japanese in WWII.

The British paramilitaries in the Irish War of Independence
were allowed to make up their own rules.

I don't think this is what people mean by declarations of martial law though. They seem to mean declarations by ones own government. Not an invading army.
Technically you could say that is what the British were doing in the war of independence. Ireland was legally part of Britain. Again it's a war, not a sudden dictatorship though. And as an Irishman I of course, don't see the British presence as legitimate.
The balkans is a more recent example. Where muslims certainly had no legal right facing the Serbs.
But the idea that in an advanced western nation the government is going to declare tyranny. And the government departments would carry it out. Has no evidence to support it.
An obvious point in the USA. Who is going to carry it out? You've had the Democrats in power for 8 years this century. And the Republicans for the rest. If they really are faking all these gun attacks and building these concentration camps for the day. Why do they never do it?
qjs

"That is assuming the law enforcement or accompanying corporate entities are not trying to outright kill you, as in past marshal law enforcements."

That , of course, is a very bad position to occupy, but it is worth pointing out that in the United States, while generally constitutional rights have been upheld, that has not always been the case - does "Emmett Till" ring any bells?

Unfortunately, there are all too many examples of "law enforcement or accompanying corporate entities" engaging in highly questionable, if not abjectly illegal behavior. I would just point out that historically this behavior has not necessarily been tied to the imposition of martial (or marshal) law. Bad dudes don't need proclamations.

It might be helpful to define precisely what "martial law" is, for the context of this thread. I suspect it varies a bit, depending upon the nation and the era....

Trying not to be political....

The history of martial law in Spokane as I know.

First declared at city level.
The City of Spokane banned public speaking in 1909, hoping to stifle the various worker’s movements.

Then State Level using forces OKed by the US war department.
A brief military occupation of Spokane by the National Guard and a declaration of martial law by Governor Ernest Lister. They arrested anyone belonging to the IWW.

Some of what I learned from all this was that the conflict spread and appears both sides had supporters who escalated things beyond what the leadership wanted and there were casualties on both sides. Some blame the uneven application of martial law, IE protecting only one side of things with law enforcement.

From an equipped standpoint, it would seem getting good information about current events would be important for preparing for such unrest.