New Orleans Begins Confiscating Firearms as Water Recedes
- Thread starter BryanP
- Start date
- Status
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, elmerfudd, but Bush is pro-Bush. Sometimes it means he is pro whatever it is we like and other times, er, not. He has his agenda and we do not necessarily figure into it.
Please note that I'm not saying Bush is bad. What I am saying is that like anyother politician, he has his agenda and the people he serves are often not to be figured into that agenda. Bush is no more and no less a creature of the political machine.
Please note that I'm not saying Bush is bad. What I am saying is that like anyother politician, he has his agenda and the people he serves are often not to be figured into that agenda. Bush is no more and no less a creature of the political machine.
arebindixie
Inactive
Keep Them There
It is my understanding that the National Guard is confiscating firearms and assisting with confiscations performed by law enforcement. If this is true, keep the troops in Iraq where they won't directly threaten citizens of the US.
It is my understanding that the National Guard is confiscating firearms and assisting with confiscations performed by law enforcement. If this is true, keep the troops in Iraq where they won't directly threaten citizens of the US.
So I'm sitting at my puter, lookin at jeeps. In the background I hear Hannity and Colmes. Suddenly I hear ALLEN COLMES! dja get that? ALLEN COLMES, say "Now they are taking peoples guns, theyre property, in clear violation of the constitution". Also a CIVIL RIGHTS lawyer saying what we all have been saying. Ok so before I was pissed. Now I am really scared. 
Yea, aint gonna happen here! my ass! I sure hope LTG. Honore has more character than Wes clark
Yea, aint gonna happen here! my ass! I sure hope LTG. Honore has more character than Wes clarkBUT, this cant happen. I have read on this board, and others that most LE's would walk. Refuse to do this. This just cant be. <sarcasm off>
Look real hard, take it in, learn from this. There are LEO's from all over the nation helping down there. So this is a good litmus test on how LEO's will react to a confiscation order. I have not heard of 1, 1 damn LEO walking off, or saying "I wont do this". Anyone wth a thought process knows this is wrong. I have cruised the other forums, and there are, on one forum, LEO's that are actually supporting/defending this. BIG SURPRISE huh. I dont want to ever hear again that the vast majority of LEO's would walk, not show up, turn in their badges if the order ever came down to seize all firearms. This incident has shown that statement to be laughable.
I challenge everyone, especially LEO's, to write, call, make a personal visit to elected officials. TELL them that this is not right, and they will reap what the sow. IF something is not done to stop this, right the wrong, either side, LEO or citizen will not like the outcome. Not doing something about this, not standing up to this is putting a lit match in charge of dynamite.
Look real hard, take it in, learn from this. There are LEO's from all over the nation helping down there. So this is a good litmus test on how LEO's will react to a confiscation order. I have not heard of 1, 1 damn LEO walking off, or saying "I wont do this". Anyone wth a thought process knows this is wrong. I have cruised the other forums, and there are, on one forum, LEO's that are actually supporting/defending this. BIG SURPRISE huh. I dont want to ever hear again that the vast majority of LEO's would walk, not show up, turn in their badges if the order ever came down to seize all firearms. This incident has shown that statement to be laughable.
I challenge everyone, especially LEO's, to write, call, make a personal visit to elected officials. TELL them that this is not right, and they will reap what the sow. IF something is not done to stop this, right the wrong, either side, LEO or citizen will not like the outcome. Not doing something about this, not standing up to this is putting a lit match in charge of dynamite.
Cowled_Wolfe
New member
Last edited:
XavierBreath
New member
GOA Response
Gun Confiscations in New Orleans
GOA has received reports that the confiscation of legally-owned firearms has commenced in New Orleans. In addition to denouncing this in the press, GOA will also be looking to draft legislation at both the state and federal level to preclude authorities from imposing ANY firearms restrictions during emergency response activities.
This is expected to be a lengthy and arduous process. If you haven't joined GOA yet, please consider going to http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm and doing so to help in this endeavor.
Link
Gun Confiscations in New Orleans
GOA has received reports that the confiscation of legally-owned firearms has commenced in New Orleans. In addition to denouncing this in the press, GOA will also be looking to draft legislation at both the state and federal level to preclude authorities from imposing ANY firearms restrictions during emergency response activities.
This is expected to be a lengthy and arduous process. If you haven't joined GOA yet, please consider going to http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm and doing so to help in this endeavor.
Link
I think it's amusing that so many of you are waking up to the reality of our situation here in American, yet still seem to believe 9/11 was carried out entirely by 19 cave-dwellers... By the time the masses realize what has happened to them, it will definitely be too late. When your mind absorbs what little it can from our friendly media outlets, what does your gut instinct tell you???
It's so much more complicated than that. Imagine two nukes going off in US cities on the same day, perhaps one in Boston, the other in Chicago. Martial Law is declared nationwide, and with 70+ % of our combat troops stationed overseas, your great leader Bush asks for UN assistance in patrolling our neighborhoods. Sounds farfetched, right?
I'm a real republican too btw...not some sheep who can't think for himself and blindly supports anything and everything his party says...
kennybs plbg
New member
I think it's time to reconsider bars on the windows and doors, not for protection from the criminals but from the goverment itself.
note to self: pick up 4 boxes of 00 buck today
kenny b
note to self: pick up 4 boxes of 00 buck today
kenny b
Here's part of the problem with the legal arguments, which Volokh has come up with:
====
The problem with this analysis is that the statute creates more than the power to "regulat[e]" the possession of fireams. It expressly creates the power to "regulat[e]" possession and the power to "control the possession" of firearms. Even if the power to regulate does not encompass the power to prohibit — a conclusion that seems plausible but not obvious, especially in the absence of any cases construing these terms — an order that individuals must give up possession of their firearms does seem to me to fall within the plain meaning of "controlling the possession" of firearms. It's not free of doubt, I think. But on balance, it seems to me that "controlling the possession" of an item in a state of emergency would include the authority for the state to take possession of the item. That is particularly likely because the statute grants the power to control possession in addition to the power to regulate possession; presumably the legislature intended control to be something beyond mere regulation.
=====
So it would appear that arguing on the basis of the law would put us on shaky ground. It would be far better to argue on moral grounds, invoking the fundamental human right to self-defense, rather than arguing on legal grounds when the law itself is immoral.
====
The problem with this analysis is that the statute creates more than the power to "regulat[e]" the possession of fireams. It expressly creates the power to "regulat[e]" possession and the power to "control the possession" of firearms. Even if the power to regulate does not encompass the power to prohibit — a conclusion that seems plausible but not obvious, especially in the absence of any cases construing these terms — an order that individuals must give up possession of their firearms does seem to me to fall within the plain meaning of "controlling the possession" of firearms. It's not free of doubt, I think. But on balance, it seems to me that "controlling the possession" of an item in a state of emergency would include the authority for the state to take possession of the item. That is particularly likely because the statute grants the power to control possession in addition to the power to regulate possession; presumably the legislature intended control to be something beyond mere regulation.
=====
So it would appear that arguing on the basis of the law would put us on shaky ground. It would be far better to argue on moral grounds, invoking the fundamental human right to self-defense, rather than arguing on legal grounds when the law itself is immoral.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
From what I see, everyone needs to sit back and take a real deep breath on this. There were some early reports, yes. And we all saw the video of the elderly lady. But I'm getting zero intel that this is actively happening in NOLA neighborhoods.
I think what we have is the rumor mill, once again being fueled by the incompetent and inconsistent local leaders:
ie: Mayor and one Police official claim that they're forcibly evacuating people. City attorney and governor claim that they're not. NG states as clearly as possible that they are not involved in any such activity. Beat cops state the same.
So, one police spokesman says they're gonna take away all firearms; we see one video of a lady with a handgun being manhandled. Next thing you know there's claims that our regular Military (engaged in no police action at all), cops from around the country and the Mexican Military are all there confiscating weapons.....and someone even escalates to UN Troops not being far behind.
The media is still there, despite the Mayor's claim of a Media Blackout. It sounds to me like you have a small cadre of the Mayor and a few followers, trying to wrest control of the situation from the REAL workers by coming out with a new edict every day.....the workers look at him, shake their collective heads, and go back to their jobs....which they seem to be doing pretty damned well at this point.
Unless we get some real FACTS that this is happening on a broad scale, there's gonna be an awful lot of embarrassed anonymous "handles" on this board.
Rich
I think what we have is the rumor mill, once again being fueled by the incompetent and inconsistent local leaders:
ie: Mayor and one Police official claim that they're forcibly evacuating people. City attorney and governor claim that they're not. NG states as clearly as possible that they are not involved in any such activity. Beat cops state the same.
So, one police spokesman says they're gonna take away all firearms; we see one video of a lady with a handgun being manhandled. Next thing you know there's claims that our regular Military (engaged in no police action at all), cops from around the country and the Mexican Military are all there confiscating weapons.....and someone even escalates to UN Troops not being far behind.
The media is still there, despite the Mayor's claim of a Media Blackout. It sounds to me like you have a small cadre of the Mayor and a few followers, trying to wrest control of the situation from the REAL workers by coming out with a new edict every day.....the workers look at him, shake their collective heads, and go back to their jobs....which they seem to be doing pretty damned well at this point.
Unless we get some real FACTS that this is happening on a broad scale, there's gonna be an awful lot of embarrassed anonymous "handles" on this board.
Rich
Edward429451
Moderator
Gotta love those minimum building code standards. The doors & bars would have to be more than just minimally installed or they'd just pull em right down, just like on "COPS".
What kind of installation would stop a big truck with a pull chain? Nothing would stop them if they were determined. But if you could make their first attempt or two unsuccessful it would buy some time.
Post-Katrina New Orleans is an object lesson in why we have firearms: criminals are causing more problems than usual, and there's the potential for government abuse -- there aren't enough citizens to create popular will that can oppose the government's bad ideas.Eugene Volokh said:
If guns (long guns -- handguns are carried even when society is operating smoothly) are not necessary and not tolerated in New Orleans, when are they necessary and when will they be tolerated? If the government is going to confiscate firearms whenever the SHTF, why buy tactical long guns at all? One AK or mini-14 in the trunk --for emergency intervention in a smoothly functioning society--, and a few hunting and/or varmint rifles -- it seems anything more than that will be confiscated exactly when you need it.
Dave Koppel, "Defenseless on the Bayou"
Defenseless On the Bayou
New Orleans gun confiscation is foolish and illegal
Dave Kopel
In the nearly two weeks since Hurricane Katrina, the government of New Orleans has devolved from its traditional status as an elective kleptocracy into something far more dangerous: an anarcho-tyranny that refuses to protect the public from criminals while preventing people from protecting themselves. At the orders of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, the New Orleans Police, the National Guard, the Oklahoma National Guard, and U.S. Marshals have begun breaking into homes at gunpoint, confiscating their lawfully-owned firearms, and evicting the residents. "No one is allowed to be armed. We're going to take all the guns," says P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police.
Last week, thousands of New Orleanians huddled in the Superdome and the Convention Center got a taste of anarcho-tyranny. Everyone entering those buildings was searched for firearms. So for a few days, they lived in a small world without guns. As in other such worlds, the weaker soon became the prey of the stronger. Tuesday's New Orleans Times-Picayune reported some of the grim results, as an Arkansas National Guardsman showed the reporter dozens of bodies rotting in a non-functional freezer.
In the rest of the city, some police officers abandoned their posts, while others joined the looting spree. For several days, the ones who stayed on the job did not act to stop the looting that was going on right in front of them. To the extent that any homes or businesses were saved, the saviors were the many good citizens of New Orleans who defended their families, homes, and businesses with their own firearms.
These people were operating within their legal rights. The law authorizes citizen's arrests for any felony, and in the past (in the 1964 case McKellar v. Mason), a Louisiana court held that shooting a property thief in the spine was a legitimate citizen's arrest.
The aftermath of the hurricane has featured prominent stories of citizens legitimately defending lives and property. New Orleans lies on the north side of the Mississippi River, and the city of Algiers is on the south. The Times-Picayune detailed how dozens of neighbors in one part of Algiers had formed a militia. After a car-jacking and an attack on a home by looters, the neighborhood recognized the need for a common defense; they shared firearms, took turns on patrol, and guarded the elderly. Although the initial looting had resulted in a gun battle, once the patrols began, the militia never had to fire a shot. Likewise, the Garden District of New Orleans, one of the city's top tourist attractions, was protected by armed residents.
The good gun-owning citizens of New Orleans and the surrounding areas ought to be thanked for helping to save some of their city after Mayor Nagin, incoherent and weeping, had fled to Baton Rouge. Yet instead these citizens are being victimized by a new round of home invasions and looting, these ones government-organized, for the purpose of firearms confiscation.
The Mayor and Governor do have the legal authority to mandate evacuation, but failure to comply is a misdemeanor; so the authority to use force to compel evacuation goes no further than the power to effect a misdemeanor arrest. The preemptive confiscation of every private firearm in the city far exceeds any reasonable attempt to carry out misdemeanor arrests for persons who disobey orders to leave.
Louisiana statutory law does allow some restrictions on firearms during extraordinary conditions. One statute says that after the Governor proclaims a state of emergency (as Governor Blanco has done), "the chief law enforcement officer of the political subdivision affected by the proclamation may...promulgate orders...regulating and controlling the possession, storage, display, sale, transport and use of firearms, other dangerous weapons and ammunition." But the statute does not, and could not, supersede the Louisiana Constitution, which declares that "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person."
The power of "regulating and controlling" is not the same as the power of "prohibiting and controlling." The emergency statute actually draws this distinction in its language, which refers to "prohibiting" price-gouging, sale of alcohol, and curfew violations, but only to "regulating and controlling" firearms. Accordingly, the police superintendent's order "prohibiting" firearms possession is beyond his lawful authority. It is an illegal order.
Last week, we saw an awful truth in New Orleans: A disaster can bring out predators ready to loot, rampage, and pillage the moment that they have the opportunity. Now we are seeing another awful truth: There is no shortage of police officers and National Guardsmen who will obey illegal orders to threaten peaceful citizens at gunpoint and confiscate their firearms.
Dave Kopel is Research Director of the Independence Institute.
http://www.reason.com/hod/dk091005.shtml
Defenseless On the Bayou
New Orleans gun confiscation is foolish and illegal
Dave Kopel
In the nearly two weeks since Hurricane Katrina, the government of New Orleans has devolved from its traditional status as an elective kleptocracy into something far more dangerous: an anarcho-tyranny that refuses to protect the public from criminals while preventing people from protecting themselves. At the orders of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, the New Orleans Police, the National Guard, the Oklahoma National Guard, and U.S. Marshals have begun breaking into homes at gunpoint, confiscating their lawfully-owned firearms, and evicting the residents. "No one is allowed to be armed. We're going to take all the guns," says P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police.
Last week, thousands of New Orleanians huddled in the Superdome and the Convention Center got a taste of anarcho-tyranny. Everyone entering those buildings was searched for firearms. So for a few days, they lived in a small world without guns. As in other such worlds, the weaker soon became the prey of the stronger. Tuesday's New Orleans Times-Picayune reported some of the grim results, as an Arkansas National Guardsman showed the reporter dozens of bodies rotting in a non-functional freezer.
In the rest of the city, some police officers abandoned their posts, while others joined the looting spree. For several days, the ones who stayed on the job did not act to stop the looting that was going on right in front of them. To the extent that any homes or businesses were saved, the saviors were the many good citizens of New Orleans who defended their families, homes, and businesses with their own firearms.
These people were operating within their legal rights. The law authorizes citizen's arrests for any felony, and in the past (in the 1964 case McKellar v. Mason), a Louisiana court held that shooting a property thief in the spine was a legitimate citizen's arrest.
The aftermath of the hurricane has featured prominent stories of citizens legitimately defending lives and property. New Orleans lies on the north side of the Mississippi River, and the city of Algiers is on the south. The Times-Picayune detailed how dozens of neighbors in one part of Algiers had formed a militia. After a car-jacking and an attack on a home by looters, the neighborhood recognized the need for a common defense; they shared firearms, took turns on patrol, and guarded the elderly. Although the initial looting had resulted in a gun battle, once the patrols began, the militia never had to fire a shot. Likewise, the Garden District of New Orleans, one of the city's top tourist attractions, was protected by armed residents.
The good gun-owning citizens of New Orleans and the surrounding areas ought to be thanked for helping to save some of their city after Mayor Nagin, incoherent and weeping, had fled to Baton Rouge. Yet instead these citizens are being victimized by a new round of home invasions and looting, these ones government-organized, for the purpose of firearms confiscation.
The Mayor and Governor do have the legal authority to mandate evacuation, but failure to comply is a misdemeanor; so the authority to use force to compel evacuation goes no further than the power to effect a misdemeanor arrest. The preemptive confiscation of every private firearm in the city far exceeds any reasonable attempt to carry out misdemeanor arrests for persons who disobey orders to leave.
Louisiana statutory law does allow some restrictions on firearms during extraordinary conditions. One statute says that after the Governor proclaims a state of emergency (as Governor Blanco has done), "the chief law enforcement officer of the political subdivision affected by the proclamation may...promulgate orders...regulating and controlling the possession, storage, display, sale, transport and use of firearms, other dangerous weapons and ammunition." But the statute does not, and could not, supersede the Louisiana Constitution, which declares that "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person."
The power of "regulating and controlling" is not the same as the power of "prohibiting and controlling." The emergency statute actually draws this distinction in its language, which refers to "prohibiting" price-gouging, sale of alcohol, and curfew violations, but only to "regulating and controlling" firearms. Accordingly, the police superintendent's order "prohibiting" firearms possession is beyond his lawful authority. It is an illegal order.
Last week, we saw an awful truth in New Orleans: A disaster can bring out predators ready to loot, rampage, and pillage the moment that they have the opportunity. Now we are seeing another awful truth: There is no shortage of police officers and National Guardsmen who will obey illegal orders to threaten peaceful citizens at gunpoint and confiscate their firearms.
Dave Kopel is Research Director of the Independence Institute.
http://www.reason.com/hod/dk091005.shtml
- Status