'Landmark' ruling for NO gun owners!
- Thread starter MoW
- Start date
Now, on to the bad part of that...the fact that 1,000 + firearms were given up without a fight. I see that fighting it in court is happening and it looks good, but at what point do we physically fight for our rights? This used to be a country run by the people, it's obviously been said before, but it's not the case anymore.
I keep thinking of the quote from good ole' Benjamin, "When the government fears the people, there is liberty; when the people fear the government, there is tyranny." We obviously fear the govn't if we are just handing them our only defense in a situation like that. People being raped, robbed and murdered and no way to defend ourselves.
I keep thinking of the quote from good ole' Benjamin, "When the government fears the people, there is liberty; when the people fear the government, there is tyranny." We obviously fear the govn't if we are just handing them our only defense in a situation like that. People being raped, robbed and murdered and no way to defend ourselves.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
God Bless the SAF and Mr. Gottlieb! They'll be getting more of my money....
(somewhat related article - Orange Counter Register, Opinion)
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Armed against the next disaster
As we near the first anniversary of the destruction Hurricane Katrina inflicted on the Gulf Coast, it's worth reflecting on events during the days and weeks following the storm, to determine what went according to plan and what needed improvement.
There has been no shortage of hearings, testimony and pontificating about events in New Orleans after the levees broke, and portions of the city were flooded, stranding thousands for days.
Something that took place during the evacuation of flooded areas that didn't get much attention from the major media, but had some Internet bulletin boards buzzing, was the confiscation of firearms by law enforcement personnel. Sometimes such measures might be necessary, but in most cases, legally owned firearms in the hands of private citizens can help, rather than hinder, the keeping of the peace.
Perhaps remembering those stranded folks, Congress acted last month to ensure those cut off from aid are not defenseless in future disasters. On July 20 the House voted 322-99 to approve a bill that bars federal law enforcement officers and most state and local police from confiscating legally owned firearms in such cases. The Senate approved a similar measure earlier in the month. These measures are welcome because they recognize the importance of the Second Amendment and the first law of nature, self-preservation.
Many times, citizens don't have to be evacuated if they have supplies to last them until things return to normal in their neighborhoods. But having supplies makes them targets for looters and if police confiscate their firearms, they lose their best hope for protecting their possessions and their lives. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the bad guys aren't going to willingly surrender their guns; law-abiding citizens must be allowed the same protection.
This is a common-sense approach to disasters that allows citizens to protect themselves in times when police services are tied up elsewhere. While it's disheartening that common sense has to be legislated, we're happy to see someone is doing it.
?This first appeared in the Colorado
Springs Gazette,
a sister newspaper of the Register
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/homepage/article_1245610.php
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Armed against the next disaster
As we near the first anniversary of the destruction Hurricane Katrina inflicted on the Gulf Coast, it's worth reflecting on events during the days and weeks following the storm, to determine what went according to plan and what needed improvement.
There has been no shortage of hearings, testimony and pontificating about events in New Orleans after the levees broke, and portions of the city were flooded, stranding thousands for days.
Something that took place during the evacuation of flooded areas that didn't get much attention from the major media, but had some Internet bulletin boards buzzing, was the confiscation of firearms by law enforcement personnel. Sometimes such measures might be necessary, but in most cases, legally owned firearms in the hands of private citizens can help, rather than hinder, the keeping of the peace.
Perhaps remembering those stranded folks, Congress acted last month to ensure those cut off from aid are not defenseless in future disasters. On July 20 the House voted 322-99 to approve a bill that bars federal law enforcement officers and most state and local police from confiscating legally owned firearms in such cases. The Senate approved a similar measure earlier in the month. These measures are welcome because they recognize the importance of the Second Amendment and the first law of nature, self-preservation.
Many times, citizens don't have to be evacuated if they have supplies to last them until things return to normal in their neighborhoods. But having supplies makes them targets for looters and if police confiscate their firearms, they lose their best hope for protecting their possessions and their lives. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the bad guys aren't going to willingly surrender their guns; law-abiding citizens must be allowed the same protection.
This is a common-sense approach to disasters that allows citizens to protect themselves in times when police services are tied up elsewhere. While it's disheartening that common sense has to be legislated, we're happy to see someone is doing it.
?This first appeared in the Colorado
Springs Gazette,
a sister newspaper of the Register
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/homepage/article_1245610.php
Mad Martigan
New member
I think the cops where I live North of NO would get behind the barricades with us and shoot at the NG. I think we would all like to avoid that, though. I guess you can always tell them you don't have any guns. If you tell them to piss off, are they really going to lay siege to your house?
It's always easier to offer advice from a safe distance. There should be a hurricane up your way soon. Oh, wait, the Congress has addressed the problem, hasn't it?
You're mixing facts there. The confiscation in NO was initiated by a local government, not the state or the feds. It was initiated under a law on the books, that LATER was struck down. It's not apparent how long that law had been in existence. Now, we have a pair of organizations suing the NO mayor and Chief of Police on behalf of those who's weapons were confiscated. The Federal Courts are apparently in agreement that this was a violation.
The fact that people have been raped, robbed, and murdered has little to do with the case. Are there any reliable reports that this occurred after the confiscation? To the people who had lost their weapons? I haven't heard of any. How many people are we talking about? Just because 1000 weapons were gathered, doesn't mean 1000 people lost the ability to defend themselves. There are a lot of people who own a number of weapons.
I believe that New Orleans should pay, bigtime, for the actions of the Mayor and Police Chief. The City should have to pay all expenses for the parties in the suit. They should also be forced to return, or reimburse, for any damaged weapons. Those who's property was damaged should have an expedited method for the replacement. as well. Mayor Nagin, and his Chief of Police should be fined, personally, and jail time, as commensurate for the actions they took, should be awarded, without suspended sentences.
Again, though, why people didn't resist with armed force is a question best left answered by them. None of us were there, and "I would have..." is, at most, a hypothesis. Unless you have some source of information that people who's weapons had been confiscated DID suffer "rape, robbery, and murder", it's just more hyperbole, added to a bad enough situation.
You're mixing facts there. The confiscation in NO was initiated by a local government, not the state or the feds. It was initiated under a law on the books, that LATER was struck down. It's not apparent how long that law had been in existence. Now, we have a pair of organizations suing the NO mayor and Chief of Police on behalf of those who's weapons were confiscated. The Federal Courts are apparently in agreement that this was a violation.
The fact that people have been raped, robbed, and murdered has little to do with the case. Are there any reliable reports that this occurred after the confiscation? To the people who had lost their weapons? I haven't heard of any. How many people are we talking about? Just because 1000 weapons were gathered, doesn't mean 1000 people lost the ability to defend themselves. There are a lot of people who own a number of weapons.
I believe that New Orleans should pay, bigtime, for the actions of the Mayor and Police Chief. The City should have to pay all expenses for the parties in the suit. They should also be forced to return, or reimburse, for any damaged weapons. Those who's property was damaged should have an expedited method for the replacement. as well. Mayor Nagin, and his Chief of Police should be fined, personally, and jail time, as commensurate for the actions they took, should be awarded, without suspended sentences.
Again, though, why people didn't resist with armed force is a question best left answered by them. None of us were there, and "I would have..." is, at most, a hypothesis. Unless you have some source of information that people who's weapons had been confiscated DID suffer "rape, robbery, and murder", it's just more hyperbole, added to a bad enough situation.
Hugh Damright
New member
I'd have more respect if, instead of trying to use this to incorporate/reconstruct the Second Amendment i.e. to have it limit the States when it never has ... I think there would be a lot more integrity in claiming that the confiscations were unconstitutional because the Louisiana Constitution declares that "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged".
Reality check
Speaking of "mixing facts," you might want to check that "law on the books."
There was NO law which authorized the police chief's arrogant declaration that his force was going to seize all the guns. There was a law providing for certain restrictions during emergencies, but it in no way empowered the wholesale confiscation of private property, still less doing so when that property was sorely needed.
The chief shot his mouth off, greatly exceeded his authority, then lied about the confiscations. A plague upon him, all his ilk and their apologists. :barf:
Speaking of "mixing facts," you might want to check that "law on the books."
There was NO law which authorized the police chief's arrogant declaration that his force was going to seize all the guns. There was a law providing for certain restrictions during emergencies, but it in no way empowered the wholesale confiscation of private property, still less doing so when that property was sorely needed.
The chief shot his mouth off, greatly exceeded his authority, then lied about the confiscations. A plague upon him, all his ilk and their apologists. :barf:
No.6, you might want to read the text starting the thread. Let me help.
"According to the NRA, former New Orleans Police Chief Eddie Compass issued orders to confiscate firearms from all New Orleans residents in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, under a flawed state emergency powers law."
Working off of that information, I mentioned just that. I didn't believe it necessary to try to google the actual law, as I was missing critical information to accurately track it down. Your interpretation of what occurred is colorful, but not in evidence. Care to cite a source?
It's statements like that which give ground for his apologists to work from. I believe that I want him in jail, with a healthy fine as well, and mentioned that in my post. I believe that I stand a better chance of seeing some justice done than a pox afflicting him.
"According to the NRA, former New Orleans Police Chief Eddie Compass issued orders to confiscate firearms from all New Orleans residents in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, under a flawed state emergency powers law."
Working off of that information, I mentioned just that. I didn't believe it necessary to try to google the actual law, as I was missing critical information to accurately track it down. Your interpretation of what occurred is colorful, but not in evidence. Care to cite a source?
It's statements like that which give ground for his apologists to work from. I believe that I want him in jail, with a healthy fine as well, and mentioned that in my post. I believe that I stand a better chance of seeing some justice done than a pox afflicting him.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
Yeah, how is it NOT criminal perjury to tell the court initially that "there are no seized guns", to later admit there are over 1,000 seized guns? Nagin and Riley should be cooling their heels in the pokey for about 2 or 3 years each for perjury.
Since you asked.............
Wow - that took a whole 2 minutes using Google - must have been those difficult search terms: "Lousiana" and "statutes;" then "firearms and emergency"....
329.6. Proclamation of state of emergency; conditions therefor; effect thereof
A. During times of great public crisis, disaster, rioting, catastrophe, or similar public emergency within the territorial limits of any municipality or parish, or in the event of reasonable apprehension of immediate danger thereof, and upon a finding that the public safety is imperiled thereby, the chief executive officer of any political subdivision or the district judge, district attorney, or the sheriff of any parish of this state, or the public safety director of a municipality, may request the governor to proclaim a state of emergency within any part or all of the territorial limits of such local government. Following such proclamation by the governor, and during the continuance of such state of emergency, the chief law enforcement officer of the political subdivision affected by the proclamation may, in order to protect life and property and to bring the emergency situation under control, promulgate orders affecting any part or all of the territorial limits of the municipality or parish:
(1) Establishing a curfew and prohibiting and/or controlling pedestrian and vehicular traffic, except essential emergency vehicles and personnel;
(2) Designating specific zones within which the occupancy and use of buildings and the ingress and egress of vehicles and persons shall be prohibited or regulated;
(3) Regulating and closing of places of amusement and assembly;
(4) Prohibiting the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages;
(5) Prohibiting and controlling the presence of persons on public streets and places;
(6) Regulating and controlling the possession, storage, display, sale, transport and use of firearms, other dangerous weapons and ammunition;
Note the complete and utter absence of words like "prohibition," confiscation" and "seizure." While this statute clearly authorizes prohibiting carrying off one's own property, prohibiting sales of guns and ammo, etc., it is a severe stretch of law and logic to argue that it permits the wholesale confiscation of private property in the utter absence of due process.
Wow - that took a whole 2 minutes using Google - must have been those difficult search terms: "Lousiana" and "statutes;" then "firearms and emergency"....
329.6. Proclamation of state of emergency; conditions therefor; effect thereof
A. During times of great public crisis, disaster, rioting, catastrophe, or similar public emergency within the territorial limits of any municipality or parish, or in the event of reasonable apprehension of immediate danger thereof, and upon a finding that the public safety is imperiled thereby, the chief executive officer of any political subdivision or the district judge, district attorney, or the sheriff of any parish of this state, or the public safety director of a municipality, may request the governor to proclaim a state of emergency within any part or all of the territorial limits of such local government. Following such proclamation by the governor, and during the continuance of such state of emergency, the chief law enforcement officer of the political subdivision affected by the proclamation may, in order to protect life and property and to bring the emergency situation under control, promulgate orders affecting any part or all of the territorial limits of the municipality or parish:
(1) Establishing a curfew and prohibiting and/or controlling pedestrian and vehicular traffic, except essential emergency vehicles and personnel;
(2) Designating specific zones within which the occupancy and use of buildings and the ingress and egress of vehicles and persons shall be prohibited or regulated;
(3) Regulating and closing of places of amusement and assembly;
(4) Prohibiting the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages;
(5) Prohibiting and controlling the presence of persons on public streets and places;
(6) Regulating and controlling the possession, storage, display, sale, transport and use of firearms, other dangerous weapons and ammunition;
Note the complete and utter absence of words like "prohibition," confiscation" and "seizure." While this statute clearly authorizes prohibiting carrying off one's own property, prohibiting sales of guns and ammo, etc., it is a severe stretch of law and logic to argue that it permits the wholesale confiscation of private property in the utter absence of due process.
Mad Martigan
New member
I don't know that it would matter if it did, since that would violate the LA Constitution.
Hi Trip20
I'm actually interested in the time line. Did it occur before, when they were supposed to be doing S&R, and civil control functions. To me that would indicate premeditation w/ the intent to disarm the populace. If it occurred after, then I'm guessing it was a response to the sniping.
I guess the follow up question would be: did they stop the confiscations voluntarily, and when?
I'm actually interested in the time line. Did it occur before, when they were supposed to be doing S&R, and civil control functions. To me that would indicate premeditation w/ the intent to disarm the populace. If it occurred after, then I'm guessing it was a response to the sniping.
I guess the follow up question would be: did they stop the confiscations voluntarily, and when?
XavierBreath
New member
Katrina struck New Orleans on Aug. 29, 2005.
The so called sniper incident occured on the Danziger Bridge on Sept. 4, 2005. Unarmed civilians were killed by police on the Danziger Bridge in response to reported "sniper" attacks. To date, police officers have been prosecuted and terminated for shooting alligators, but the unarmed people who were killed intentionally on the Danziger Bridge still await justice. To this day not one New Orleans "sniper" has been seen, caught, or prosecuted. There is anecdotal "evidence" of snipers that augments stories of rape in the streets, freezers full of dead babies in the Superdome, 18 foot alligators cruising the flooded streets, and George Bush planting explosives in the levees. In short, the NOLA sniper stories are simply another tall tale told by workers to make their heroism seem more heroic.
Eleven days after Katrina hit, on Sept. 9, local and out of state police officers began confiscating firearms from civilians in preparation for a forced evacuation of the last holdouts.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District in Louisiana sided with the National Rifle Association and issued a restraining order to stop further gun confiscations from peaceable and law-abiding victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans on Sept. 23, 2005. Ray Nagin, Eddie Compass, Warren Riley and Jack Strain did not voluntarily stop violating the US Constitution. It took legal action to make it happen.
The plaintiffs named in this lawsuit denied possession of the confiscated weapons for months. Only after the NRA and SAF filed a motion on March 2, 2006 to have Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Chief Warren Riley held in contempt of court did city officials miraculously discover that more than a thousand seized firearms were being hidden. To this day, the City of New Orleans is still in possession of over a thousand firearms that they resist returning to their rightful owners. Seventeen firearms have been returned.
It is not lawful to fire on a family crossing a bridge in an attempt to reach safety in a disaster.
It is not lawful to forcibly take a person's only means of self defense following a disaster.
Unsubstantiated reports of snipers do not give the police special powers to fire on innocent civilians, nor does it give them the right to confiscate weapons. What happened in New Orleans was a violation of the US Constitution, and cannot be tolerated for any reason. Least of all unsubstantiated rumors of snipers.
It has been almost a year now. The information is available for those who want to join the fight to preserve the second ammendment.
Shall not be infringed
Everything else Violates the second amendment. Maybe those "snipers" were just people trying to keep their guns from being confiscated. Maybe it was gangs that shouldn't have guns. Events like that just remind me that I need more ammo and a better plan to avoid that kind of situation. If they had rebuilt the levees when it was suggested, It wouldn't have happened, maybe. The bureaucracy failed to do things before, and after.
Everything else Violates the second amendment. Maybe those "snipers" were just people trying to keep their guns from being confiscated. Maybe it was gangs that shouldn't have guns. Events like that just remind me that I need more ammo and a better plan to avoid that kind of situation. If they had rebuilt the levees when it was suggested, It wouldn't have happened, maybe. The bureaucracy failed to do things before, and after.
No snipers were ever confirmed by anyone; local, state, or federal. MSM, on the other hand...buckster said:
The levee issue? Mayhap you missed the "Algore" monster's speech to the Sierra Club shortly after Katrina? Look it up. The luser seemed to miss the point that the morons he was preaching .gov's failure to build better levees was one of the principles in the lawsuit to stop .gov from building better levees.
I love irony.
I curse Algore's name every time I see my 'phone bill. The reason for that is also left as an exercise for the reader to discover for her/him self...
P.