Confiscation

Including taking umbrage at what you consider a "veiled threat". It was not.

But, you make my point for me. You're willing to post such statements on a site that is sponsored by me; Me, using my REAL name. And somehow YOU feel "threatened" when I ask you how you'd feel if you were as above board as me? What does that make me in your mind? Canon Fodder? And you're insulted?

So, how 'bout you make this right and take me off the hook for your statements on this board. Simply Step Up and provide a REAL name to go with your statements and counsel to others. To do less renders your statements little more than internet bravado to those of us who take Personal Responsibility for our statements.
Click to expand...

BTW, Rich, though modified, this is still a rhetorical trick.

The issue, properly analyzed, is not whether your position is bolstered by your identity being public, while another's position less legitimate because they are posting more or less anonymously. The issue is that your position is safe and comfortable being parallel to the "correct" government position that the proper response of non-violent, law-abiding citizens is to seek redess through the courts, rather than "judging the law for themselves" and "engaging in vigilante action."

Contra, the opposing position is edgy and un-politically-correct, and might subject the person holding the opinion to active scrutiny by agents of the very government whom (s)he obviously believes transgressed constitutional and moral limitations on its actions, thereby placing said agents outside the legal deference one usually assumes that representatives of the government are supposed to be given.

Therefore, your "hypothetical" says little except that people who claim that government agents sometimes pursue illegitimate actions and that doing so removes them from the protection of legitimacy have more to fear from governments than people who hold opinions that the government is likely to approve of.

Dex
firedevil_smiley.gif
 
Last edited:
Dex-
You miss my point, which is quite simple really.

We all have our lines in the sand. Only a fool announces publicly where he draws that line, when it comes to murder. Less egregious, though equally nauseating, are those who tell others where a "Real Man" draws such line, from the supposed safety of internet anonymity.

I simply pointed out that those in the latter category are hardly willing to volunteer to join the former category, pretty much invalidating any claim to credibility for their statements. It was also an object lesson to those who would advocate the murder of Government Agents to carefully rethink just how bomb-proof their anonymity really is. Got a few people nervous, didn't it? ;)


Object Lesson: Think Twice, Post Once.


Rich
 
You miss my point, which is quite simple really.

We all have our lines in the sand. Only a fool announces publicly where he draws that line, when it comes to murder. Less egregious, though equally nauseating, are those who tell others where a "Real Man" draws such line, from the supposed safety of internet anonymity.
Click to expand...

I readily concede that your point, as stated, is perfectly correct.

However, the original poster did not boast, “I would have shot the rotten bastards”. He completed a thought: "How could this happen in America?" "… because they were too chicken to shoot the cops that were violating the constitution."

Although an implied boast can possibly be read from the context, still the point is no less legitimate simply because it was not phrased in the more formal sense of, "How could this happen in America?" "Because, as Americans, we have fallen morally to the point that even in the face of blatantly unconstitutional actions by government agents, persons possessing the means to defend their rights meekly surrender them to the government rather than disputing them by force. If we, as Americans, still possessed the courage of our forefathers, the police wouldn’t be showing up at the doors of law-abiding citizens confiscating guns because they would expect to die if they made such an utterly outrageous demand."

New Hampshire still has "Live Free or Die" as their state slogan, and on their state license plates. The Culpepper flag says, “Don’t Tread on Me” over a picture of a rattlesnake. Neither sentiment is directed toward anything except a "legitimate" government’s actions, as an assertion that the people, not the government, hold the right and duty to determine the legitimate limits of government authority, and they retain the right and duty to enforce that opinion by cold, naked, violence.

Perhaps they were fools, indeed, for publicly stating where their line was drawn in the sand.

But, have we become so debauched and debased that we are now not even supposed to feebly mouth the words that our g’-g’-g’-g’-g’-grandfathers fought a revolution for?

Dex
firedevil_smiley.gif
 
Last edited:
Point well taken.

Nor do I consider V4 or Marlboro to fall into either of the above categories. I just wanted to remind them of the upcoming precipice. ;)

For my own part, I can state that illegally confiscating my weapon will result in swift and decisive reaction. The lawsuit will be in the works before the sun goes down and I doubt you'll ever have any certainty that you've disarmed me permanently. ;)

When the Courts uphold massive "gun sweeps" and the UN Troops parachute in, Red Dawn style? Well, like any other violent confrontation, I'd be a fool if I were to claim certainty of my reaction in advance. In short, I'll fight to prevent that before the fact, with my dollars and my vote, and react to it after the fact in my own manner.
Rich
 
What a wonderful vidoe, I smell 42 USC 1983 all over the place in a favorable Circuit with a chance to get the 2nd in front of SCOTUS....

WildwaitingforanearthquakeuphereAlaska
 
OTOH: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchas...-evacuated.php
The Mayor's mandatory evacuation order, issued through the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, declares:
1. A mandatory evacuation order is hereby called for all of the Parish of Orleans, with only the following exceptions: essential personnel of the United States of America, State of Louisiana and City of New Orleans; essential personnel of regulated utilities and mass transportation services; essential personnel of hospitals and their patients; essential personnel of the media; essential personnel of the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff's Office and its inmates and essential personnel of operating hotels and their patrons. Unless covered by one of the aforementioned exceptions, every person is hereby ordered to immediately evacuate the City of New Orleans or, if no other alternative is available, to immediately move to one of the facilities within the City that will be designated as refuges of last resort.

2. In order to effectuate the mandatory evacuation, at the direction of the Mayor, the Chief Administrative Officer, the Director of Homeland Security for the City of New Orleans or any member of the New Orleans Police Department, the City may commandeer any private property, including, but not limited to, buildings that may be designated as refuges of last resort and vehicles that may be used to transport people out the area.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, did you miss something here? Where exactly does it state you can do what you want by the rule of law? Besides the point that the Governor would be the 1 who could issue a manadtory evacuation as well. I would have to assume that by the "letter" of the law and not how YOU interpret it's meaning, they did indeed have the right to forceibly remove someone. As soon as YOU can show me a written law which backs your claim, then I will admit that it is indeed the case. Till then, if I'm in LA and they order a mandatory evacuation, I will not refuse to leave because Rich told me I didn't have to.:rolleyes: :D
 
Sigh.

Try this on for size:
C. Each parish and municipality shall make provisions for those citizens who refuse to leave when a mandatory evacuation is ordered, which provisions shall respect the rights of personal liberty and freedom of all citizens, while protecting and preserving law and order.
Click to expand...
http://www.state.la.us/osr/emr/06010EMR018.htm

Soooooo, if it's illegal to stay, why does the Governor of Louisiana specifically recognize that right?

You've obviously not lived in Evac Areas and clearly have never been thru a Mandatory Evac. Some of us have. Listen and learn rather than beating the rather moribund horse you've dragged in here.
Rich
 
From PND----
Any sense of relief on the part of Gulf Coast officials was short-lived. By the morning of the 26th, Katrina was again a Category 1 storm and, according to a bulletin from the National Hurricane Center, moving on a track that would bring it ashore just east of New Orleans — the worst-case scenario that public officials and regional planners had long feared. Exercising her authority, Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco responded by declaring a state of emergency in Louisiana, and in Washington, D.C., the process of deploying federal troops to the region was initiated.

By the afternoon of August 27, with Katrina now a Category 3 hurricane, New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin began calling for a voluntary evacuation of the city. Meanwhile, in the Gulf, Katrina grew stronger, becoming a Category 4 hurricane shortly after midnight and a deadly Category 5 storm by daybreak on the 28th. Saying he was "very concerned about the storm's impact," President Bush urged Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin to order a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans, which they did before noon.
Click to expand...

From Volokh----
Water was receding across this flood-beaten city today as local police officers prepared for a mass forced evacuation of the several thousand residents still living here. Authorities also began confiscating firearms from civilians.
. . .
The city's Police Department and federal law enforcement officers from agencies like the United States Marshals Service will lead the evacuation, Mr. Compass said. Officers will search the city house by house, in both dry and flooded neighborhoods. No one will be allowed to stay, he said.
Meanwhile, the city is confiscating firearms from civilians, including legally registered weapons, Mr. Compass said. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said.
Click to expand...

I'm still not seeing the part about staying if you want to?:confused: :rolleyes:
 
You've obviously not lived in Evac Areas and clearly have never been thru a Mandatory Evac. Some of us have. Listen and learn rather than beating the rather moribund horse you've dragged in here.
Click to expand...

As usual---wrong again---since I've been born and raised in Florida for 42+ years now. Buh Bye!:D
 
Sure Rich nutshell hangover ridden birthday answer: Granny goes in, USDC, files an action under 42 USC 1983 alleging multiple causes of action for violation of her 2nd am RKBA by the State and locals, its almost a pure question of law since it seems undoubted that her firearm was confiscated by state agents acting under colour of state law, therefore, the District Court MUST make a finding, either pre trial or trial, that the 2nd amendment is or is not an individual right, either way sooner or later it either hits SCOTUS or there is at least another Emerson style determination (or anti Emerson) for future arguing.

WildnowdontmakemedothatagainmykeyboardissmokingAlaska
 
I'm still not seeing the part about staying if you want to?
Click to expand...
That's because you're busy posting NEWS ARTICLES of illegal government actions and reporting this as "Law" when you could be READING actual Exec Orders that have been posted for you.

MoW-
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Not Gray Area wrong; flat out, Black and White, embarrassingly wrong. Cut your losses, please.
Rich
 
So when they come to your door in a mandatory evacuation(LA) what law will you be citing that says I can stay if I want? I know as they remove you and take your guns they will certainly be citing the law to you!;)
 
The Exec order that I quoted said absolutely nothing in there about staying if you want---in fact just the opposite.

OTOH: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchas...-evacuated.php
The Mayor's mandatory evacuation order, issued through the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, declares:
1. A mandatory evacuation order is hereby called for all of the Parish of Orleans, with only the following exceptions: essential personnel of the United States of America, State of Louisiana and City of New Orleans; essential personnel of regulated utilities and mass transportation services; essential personnel of hospitals and their patients; essential personnel of the media; essential personnel of the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff's Office and its inmates and essential personnel of operating hotels and their patrons. Unless covered by one of the aforementioned exceptions, every person is hereby ordered to immediately evacuate the City of New Orleans or, if no other alternative is available, to immediately move to one of the facilities within the City that will be designated as refuges of last resort.

2. In order to effectuate the mandatory evacuation, at the direction of the Mayor, the Chief Administrative Officer, the Director of Homeland Security for the City of New Orleans or any member of the New Orleans Police Department, the City may commandeer any private property, including, but not limited to, buildings that may be designated as refuges of last resort and vehicles that may be used to transport people out the area.
Click to expand...
 
Wild-
Wouldn't the Court tend to sidestep by claiming that it was an action under the State of Emergency which was not provided for in that law and was thus illegal. This would avoid any argument as to the place of the Second in the scenario?
Rich
 
Not familiar with La law so can only say that your argument would definately be raised in a Rule 11 (if my numbers are right) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a cause of Action, but hey, if my recollection of Monroe v. Pape is correct, 1983 covers Exective decisions.....

Query: State of Emergency Order providing for locking up all black folks...bet you'd have that enjoined under 1983 in a heartbeat?

WildwoozyAlaska
 
I think you're missing my point, or I'm missing yours. My argument goes this way:

Authority for the confiscations were not granted under the Executive Order of the Governor. But these powers were assumed to be granted, by those at the local level. In acting, they overstepped the bounds of that Executive Order and their actions are hereby declared illegal. No discussion of Second Amendment guarantees need be heard.

Or, have I clumsily answered my own question?
Since the EO provided no such authority, it wasn't the EO that was violated, but the Second Amendment?

Rich
 
Still Monroe.

State will always claim a lack of authority in the actions of their agents. Monroe will preclude a pretrial determination on the issue, since the issue becomes one of fact, not just pure law, ie what was actaully directed either verbal or written.

Asssuming SOMEONE told the police to do it, or the police assumed THEY had the authority, the colour of law objection fails. Equally, and I dont know if this has been decided, if the police USE their authority to do something they have not been specifically directed to do, that authority still flows from state law

WildneedsfoodAlaska
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top