FEMA: Not even cops can have weapons


October 5, 2005, 10:05 AM
The short version: Phoenix fire/rescue teams have been suspended from FEMA-managed activities because they were taking armed police escorts for protection on search-and-rescue runs.


Apparently they expect EVERYBODY to be easy prey in disaster areas.

If you enjoyed reading about "FEMA: Not even cops can have weapons" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
October 5, 2005, 10:14 AM
On one hand I could say. level playing field...nice LIEberal statement. On the other, it shows how virulently anti-freedom, and totilitarian FEMA is, how paranoid about it's precious power and control.
I hope I never ever have FEMA in my area, I don't think I want them "rescuing" me....I'll handle it by myself, thanks.

October 5, 2005, 10:15 AM
Fema - they are doing a heck of a job.

Hey, remember when the Sec of Transportation fought so hard against armed pilots?

Remember that the new Iraqi constitution makes Islam almost supreme and bans unlicensed arms possession.

All brought to you under the administration of guess who?

I'll sign the AWB if it gets to me!!

October 5, 2005, 10:19 AM
Can someone explain the reasoning, if any, behind the disarmament policy?

I mean, I saw no real need for people coming in to help in this area after Charley to come with armed escorts, but it would not have bothered me a bit if they did. I was just glad they came.

October 5, 2005, 10:51 AM
Can someone explain the reasoning, if any, behind the disarmament policy?
I guess the officers didn't wear white hats and couldn't demonstrate an ability to shoot guns out of bad guys hands.


October 5, 2005, 10:54 AM
This is a shining example of how "political correctness" has gotten out-of-hand. Guns are "evil" is the liberal view. I commend the Phoenix Police Department for standing up to FEMA!

I was in law enforcement (LAPD) for 31 years. Before that, I was in combat for 13 months (1967-1968). The "evil" guns that I carried throughout those years were NECESSARY tools-of-the- trade and SAVED my rear-side, and utilized to save countless other people! If FEMA had told me to disarm before going into a disaster area, I would have taken that as an "Unlawful order"!

I hate to "cop out" on myself, but during one point in my law enforcement career, I violated a departmental policy that ended up with me getting a 5-day suspension. At the time, suspended officers were required to turn in their issued firearm during the suspension time, and not carry a concealed weapon while suspended. Heck, I had put a LOT of bad guys behind bars, and had even been the subject of two "contract hits"! Disarm for having committed a non-criminal violation of a department policy? The "cop out" aspect is that, after surrendering my issued firearm, I walked out to my car and committed ANOTHER violation of the department policy....by arming myself with an "unauthorized" Colt .45 auto for the 5-day suspension! Had I been caught, it probably would have cost me as much as 14 days suspension!

(P.S.: I took my wife out to dinner one night when I was suspended, and after ordering our meals, another couple sat down in the booth behind my wife. The male was someone I had arrested for a VIOLENT felony crime! Fortunately, he merely knodded to me after recognizing me. Of course, he didn't know that I was a "non-police officer", on suspension time! Yes, I felt MUCH more comfortable after eating and leaving that restaurant! By the way, the LAPD has changed their suspension rules, so that officers CAN remain armed while suspended).

October 5, 2005, 11:07 AM

Analysis by G. Edward Griffin, updated 2005 September 30

There has been widespread criticism of the response of US officials to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005.


So what is going on here? Were agents of the federal government trying to kill American citizens? Were they trying to obtain the maximum death toll and the highest level of human suffering? It would seem that way at first, but I would like to suggest that this incredible behavior stems from something else - something equally unsettling.

The only legitimate function of government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens. In New Orleans, however, it was clear that the primary job of the military, FEMA, and Homeland Security was, not to protect citizens, but to protect the government and keep it functioning. It can be argued that, if government does not protect itself first, it may not be able to protect its citizens, so that should be its first obligation. However, the government was not in danger in New Orleans. Aside from one or two snipers, its forces were never under attack, and its ability to function was never threatened; so the self-preservation argument is not valid in this case.

It was clear from the start that the goal of FEMA and Homeland Security was, not to resue people, but to control them. Their directive was to relocate families and businesses, confiscate property, commandeer goods, direct labor and services, and establish martial law. This is what they have been trained to do. The reason they failed to carry out an effective rescue operation is that this was not their primary mission, and the reason they blocked others from doing so is that any operations not controlled by the central authority are contrary to their directives. Their objective was to bring the entire area under the control of the federal government - and this they succeeded in doing very well.

October 5, 2005, 11:29 AM
Oops... I just noticed there was already a thread on this.


If you enjoyed reading about "FEMA: Not even cops can have weapons" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!