***CHP are NOT under orders to confiscate firearms

[RealGun]

What's with this "evacuation" thing

Once again, they are going house to house to house to enforce an MANDATORY evacuation order.

While at the same time the talking heads are reporting people and business owners returning. My take is that areas intended to be condemned and seized by the City are being evacuated. Something doesn't add up with this "for their own good" nonsense.

 

[Spot77]

Artherd,

I hope your buddy gets through this with his mind and body intact.

It must be an extremely confusing time for many of the rescue workers.

I suspect the psychological impact will be tremendous upon those there who are forced to make unthinkable decisions.

 

[ID_shooting]

I smell bovine based plant growth additive.

"Houses will be entered if the doorbell is answered or if the door is open. If the door is closed and knocks are not answered they are moving on"

It is pushing 100 degrees, you have no power, humidity is way up, ya, my front door and all my windows would be open. That still gives no one the right to come in my house.

"The CHP is under no orders to confiscate legally owned firearms"

Didn't we just see video of the CLEO saying "only the cops could have guns"

"It is a misdemeanor to refuse to obey the mandatory evacuation order."

We are all one law away from being felons. IF Sen. Clinton becomes POTUS and urges a law to be passed that anything holding more than 6 rounds is not for sporting purposes and must be turned in, and we refuse, we just became criminals. Same thing applies here, just because it is law, does not make it justified or right.


Forced disarmament and abandonment is something completely different! This is NOT what the CHP are doing, nor are they under any orders to do so.

If they are not under orders to do it, why did they? I smell "damage control" or "spin doctoring" whatever you want to call it. Your buddies team may not have torn doors down, but other squads did. It is all in of the same, they all have the same orders that came down from the same command structure.

Until I see a the gov, mayor, or CLEO returning people to thier homes WITH WEAPONS, I won't buy it, not one little bit.

 

[beerslurpy]

1) The CHP is under no orders to confiscate legally owned firearms, infact later that day they encountered houses full of guns and wished the residents well. They are not disarming people withought other extenuating circumstances.

2) The CHP is under orders to remove people from the area designated for MANDATORY evacuation. This is ostentiobly a legal act, authority to do so has been grated and the CHP is taking orders from the NO State Police who are under the Governor, who is under the direction of FEMA. They have been Federalized, and the feds may mandate an evac. It is not clear if they are infact FORCING people to leave, or entering and "STERNELY ADVISING" them that they are to leave.

3) Houses will be entered if the doorbell is answered or if the door is open. If the door is closed and knocks are not answered they are moving on

4) The issue of the old lady is still cloudy. However, HER DOOR WAS OPEN, so the CHP entered her house. We did see her sweep the cameraman with her revolver. It is not clear wether she pointed it at the cops or not, nor is it clear how in command of her faculties she was. In any event, she was NOT left defenseless, but evacuated. I do not know if she was arreasted or merely sent on her way, this is where the cell connection got spotty and dropped.

1) Then why are they doing it? Why are they escalating situations to the point where people are waving firearms and telling them to get out of their houses?

2) The legality of this, and whether the cops are local/federal/whatever will have to be settled later.

3) The 4th amendment is still in effect. Unless someone invites you in and doesnt ask you to leave, you have no business entering. Martial law has NOT been declared, and even if it had, the 4th amendment must still be obeyed.

4) This is totally BS. She WAS left defenseless and she WAS removed from the safety of her home.

 

[Shweboner]

Im looking through the phone book this morning, looking for the number to "BS" ... I think I need to call it.

 

[geekWithA.45]

No doctrine allows police to enter a home without a warrant merely because the resident answered the door, unless they see evidence of a crime in plain view from the door, like a mountain of crack piled up on the foyer floor.

I would like to get some clarification as to what level of force is authorized for misdemeanor arrests down there. I'm suspecting it's something like they can issue a summons, and that's about it.

 

[publius]

All I can come up with is, vest the authority to COMPELL evacs with the CDC alone and exclusively. The slimey NO officals should not have that ability.

No way. Just because the feds are slightly less slimy than Nawlins officials does not mean they are less slimy than my state and local officials. My local authorities would not order me out without a darn good reason. I can't say that for anyone else. Leave it at the local level, and if Nawlins is ruled by scum, too bad.

 

[Molon Labe]

Wether these guys are welcome in her home or not, they have statute authority to remove her.

And she had authority to defend herself against the JBTs. It's a shame she didn't exercise it.

 

[Master Blaster]

Houses will be entered if the doorbell is answered or if the door is open. If the door is closed and knocks are not answered they are moving on

Horse Manure

I just sat and watched film of about 8 law enforcement folks of some type presented on MSNBC. They were heavily armed and dressed in bullet proof attire, using a battering ram to break in locked doors of houses where there was no answer. They commentator interviewed one of them and they said:

They were breaking in locked doors to check if anybody was home or if there were any dead bodies. They were doing this because the MAYOR ordered them to do a house to house search. So if the looters left your house alone, count on the pilice to break in your door and leave your house wide open to make the next looter's job easier.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I hope your buddy gets through this with his mind and body intact.

I hope his mind, if not his body, are radically changed by this experience. I have seen video footage of the police chief in New Orleans stating that only law enforcement will have guns in New Orleans. Then I have seen multiple news reports and video footage of police actually confiscating weapons.

I think what they are doing, and what they are saying, have now become two different things.

It is my understanding that martial law is not in effect. It is my understanding that the order to disarm the stragglers in New Orleans has come from the Mayor and Police Chief, not the governor, president, or federal bureaucrat.

I do not believe the Mayor has the authority to suspend the Constitituion and demand guns be confiscated.

I do not believe law enforcement have the authority to enter homes, without being invited in. Entering a home just because the door is open is still an illegal entry, and even if the police found something illegal inside, I don't see how it could be used as evidence since the search was illegal.

I believe police officers from at least several agencies are following illegal orders en masse.

If I was in New Orleans, barricaded in my own home, with my own weapons inside to protect me, and the California Highway Patrol entered my home, and demanded my weapons, I would surrender them. I don't want them to murder my family over guns. I am not going to make wild internet claims that I would yell "molon labe" and then engage in a shootout with 5 or 6 armored soldiers with fully automatic rifles. That would just get me killed, and in the news I would be labelled a crazy gun nut who left the police no choice but to kill him. However, I would do everything in my power to achieve justice in the court system.

I realize though, this is not how the founding fathers would have handled the situation, and simply surrendering to police who are violating your rights is not the morally correct thing to do. Rights are granted by our Creator, or so I have read. Mortal man should be allowed to strip away these rights, even under extreme circumstances. God-given rights should be defended with deadly force.

If the law enforcement officers who are collecting guns (and I have no doubt that is being done) were met with a hail of gunfire everytime they tried, I think their enthusiasm for violating the Constitution would soon decline.

This should not be misconstrued as advocacy for violence against law enforcement officers. In fact it is quite the contrary. Officers following the letter of the law, and allowing the Constitution to stand, should be supported in all ways. Officers who violate the Constitution are criminals, and do not necessarily deserve the same treatment.

 

[HankB]

I would do everything in my power to achieve justice in the court system.

I understand your point - liberty isn't worth spilling blood or risking your life, and OF COURSE the courts will compensate you.

I also believe many German Jews felt the same on Kristallnacht.

If the law enforcement officers who are collecting guns (and I have no doubt that is being done) were met with a hail of gunfire everytime they tried, I think their enthusiasm for violating the Constitution would soon decline

As long as it's done by someone else, eh?

This is a seriously bad situation - as I've written on another thread, even if I had been dumb enough to buy a below-sea-level home protected by Cat 3 levees, I would've left as soon as I heard a Cat4/5 storm was coming. And I wouldn't be camped out in a home soaked in that toxic brew.

But IF I had a home untouched by flood waters, and IF I had provisions . . . I WOULD stay put.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I understand your point - liberty isn't worth spilling blood or risking your life, and OF COURSE the courts will compensate you.

Hank, I don't see a reason to engage in a fight that I know I will lose. It is not a matter of "risking your life". It is guaranteed death if you try to fight 6 armored men with fully automatic rifles, and unlimited backup.

Before you ride off on your high horse, please remember that our Founders did not intentionally engage in fights they knew they would lose. If patriots had, one at a time, gone up against a platoon of Red Coats, there would have been a whole lot less patriots around when it really mattered, and that would have ended our Revolution rather quickly.

What I am saying, and what you are not understanding, is that suicide does not defend liberty.

But IF I had a home untouched by flood waters, and IF I had provisions . . . I WOULD stay put.

Even if you were forcibly disarmed? Would you surrender your weapons if asked? If not, are you willing to die?

 

[RealGun]

This should not be misconstrued as advocacy for violence against law enforcement officers. In fact it is quite the contrary. Officers following the letter of the law, and allowing the Constitution to stand, should be supported in all ways. Officers who violate the Constitution are criminals, and do not necessarily deserve the same treatment.

If LEOs are breaking the law, all bets are off. If you can figure out how to survive a show down or to have a chance, you should be shooting. You might surrender pistols and come back as a sniper or in force with other patriots using rifles. You will not be the one who started it. You would be in the right. The reason you have the right to bear arms is to resist exactly this sort of situation.

What's the difference between an illegal insurgency and a patriotic uprising? Where you have a problem is that the Constitution has not been upheld to mean what it says and what was obviously intended. You're screwed. RKBA is a fantasy. It won't mean anything until it's too late.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Spoken by Coronach:

It's worth nothing that everyone here is, as usual, going automatically with the worst-case scenarios

This is the best answer I've seen to all of this. We've seen edited videos from the press, who we constantly rip into as being innacurate. We constantly attack the press as being sensational.

When did we decide to take everything the press does as gospel?

I suspect when this is all over you won't be able to find a single NO resident
that had their firearms taken without justification that would have existed even outside of an emergency.

I had to leave one forum I USED to frequent because of all the "calling for the head" of NRA, GOA, FEMA, NOPD, whoever. Funny now that the stories begin to come out, turns out there was nothing there.

Most important lesson to learn here?

As usual, don't trust the press. We should have known that all along.

 

[Robert Hairless]

I am deeply disturbed by the statement that law enforcement will enter an American's house "ONLY if your door is open or if you answer it." Must we now hide in our own homes, keep our doors locked, and not answer?

That statement also is evidently untrue. The ABC News Report video of September 8, 2005, shows officers and guardsmen armed with assault weapons breaking into a locked house.

It will be easy to spin such incidents into acts "for the public good" or "for their own good, and even to deny the incidents as in the above quotation. But ordinary people can see past the spin to the visible facts: that state and local governments have joined together to abuse law abiding citizens at gunpoint.

These acts are outrageous. Each and every participant in them should be punished.

 

[RavenVT100]

There was a blog linked earlier of a retired NOPD officer. He suggests simply complying with the confiscation/eviction order while collecting the names/badge numbers of everyone involved. After the whole Katrina incident is over, the next step is to sue for violation of civil rights. I am sure something would be done if enough people filed suit, and I fully expect lawsuits to occur given that many of these homes that are being broken into appear to be dry homes that belong to wealthy individuals.

Keep in mind that the individual officers involved can be sued for this, if indeed it is illegal (and it seems very obviously so).

For the sake of those officers who were "detaining" that old woman on national TV, I hope the raw footage that was shot shows their actions to be justifiable (if it even can). Because if it does not, I am sure that it can be subpoenaed as evidence in a civil suit. If it were my house, and if someone came in and did that to me or my wife, in front of my kids, you can rest assured I'd be looking to collect in the courtroom--as a matter of principle. No violence need enter into the equation.

 

[F4GIB]

We did see her sweep the cameraman with her revolver

Not in any if the 3 TV clips I viewed. She was holding it by the frame (unshootable position) and pointed to in a "safe" direction.

She clearly said:

"I don't want you in here."

"After the takedown, "You son of a b***H."

She was old, slow talking, angry, Southern and black. Which do you think convinced the CHP officers that she had "diminished capacity?"

If that's their test, I'm in trouble because I'm old, slow talking, Midwestern and white, and I'd be very, very ANGRY when they violate my Fourth Amendment rights and refuse to leave when ordered out.

IMHO your CHP buddy (1) has been fooled by his own guys or (2) is lying as part of an agency cover up of what they did to her.

 

[F4GIB]

My take is that areas intended to be condemned and seized by the City are being evacuated. Something doesn't add up with this "for their own good" nonsense.

You heard it here first, the real estate industry is going to "gentrify" those areas with concrete condos (Hurricane proof) and bring in affluant persons (mostly white) to this beautifully reconstructed, Frence influenced city. The developers and local construction industry will make billions off the feds. Some dollars will flow to local officials and everyone who IS everyone will be joyous at the reconstruction.

The original residents will be somewhere else, out of sight.

 

[K-Romulus]

which lady did you see?

The "old lady" video making the rounds shows what looks (to me, at least) like an older "white" woman being roughed up . . .

(link to photos)

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=1904660&postcount=72

 

[WT]

CHP may not be under orders to do so but The Times Picayune newspaper of New Orleans says that CHP officers ARE confiscating weapons.

 

[TallPine]

I suspect that they were under the impression that she had diminished mental capacity upon contact with her, either due to senile dementia or, more likely, complications of dehydration.

Oh yeah, just as soon as anyone disagrees with the "official" wisdom, then they are automatically labelled a mental case ...

Very convenient


Now, just to get this straight... did or did not the NO chief of police (or whatever he is called down there) state publicly that no one but police would be allowed to have weapons in NO...?

(I don't watch TV so I am going on printed quotes from the NY Times, or misquotes as the case may be)

 

[Gunpacker]

In the beginning of the video, the cops were talking to the lady through the window. I am guessing that she didn't say "hi guys come right in." It was obvious that she did not want them in her house from the beginning. My question is, why were they in there. She probably told them the same thing thru the window, yet they escalated. Additionally, she was not pointing the gun at anyone thru the window. As for sweeping folks with guns, just look at some of the gun handling of the cops and military.

 

[RavenVT100]

Now, just to get this straight... did or did not the NO chief of police (or whatever he is called down there) state publicly that no one but police would be allowed to have weapons in NO...?

They showed a clip of him saying that on TV, yes.

 

[migoi]

I've got it now...

"We're not forcing anyone to leave except crazy people for their own protection. If you want to stay you have to be crazy. If you're crazy we will force you to leave for your own protection."

Didn't someone write a book like that?

migoi

 

[Robert Hairless]

WT -- CHP may not be under orders to do so but The Times Picayune newspaper of New Orleans says that CHP officers ARE confiscating weapons.

Not to worry. That's what they do in California. It's a genetically transmitted reflex: "See citizen. Citizen have gun. Gun bad. Take gun." The reflex ensures the supremacy of the California Highway Patrol, which would be threatened if the reflex were: "See criminal. Criminal attack citizen. Criminal have gun. Citizen not have gun. Take criminal."

Is anyone else wondering about the effects of these actions by law enforcement and National Guard on their reputations for serving and protecting the people of this country? Do you think that a lot more people will trust and urge support for these courageous men who overpower elderly women and respectable citizens in their own homes? And for their own good, of course. Or do you think that they look sort of like jack booted thugs in action?