New Orleans Begins Confiscating Firearms (merged w/ "You're all gonna love this one")

[Bulldozer]

Where are the other civil rights groups in this? OH, some rights are more important than others....

This just confirms what I suspected a long time ago. We have an illusory freedom and liberty.

Letters getting written, but Clinton and Schumer (my Congress critters) will do nothing.

 

[c_yeager]

The beer was still cold, thanks to a working generator, and hopes for customers were strong as the flood-ravaged city fills with thirsty soldiers and emergency workers.

Sounds like these guys were doing just fine.

Not that it matters:

But on Wednesday night, Guidos said, armed federal agents identifying themselves as U.S. marshals confiscated her weapons and ordered her and six friends to leave by noon Thursday.

This right here is all the authority they need:

"When you get 15 M-16s pointed at you and they line you up against the wall, it's kind of scary," said Guidos, 55.

Guidos is %100 correct. More than any other reason this right here is why we need to have firearms in the first place.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Interesting...presuming the forcible disarmament is somehow related to the governor's power to compel evacuations, (and that has not been asserted) this CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/08/martial.law.qanda/index.html) points out that

Failure to evacuate is a MISDEMEANOR, which limits the amount of force that may be employed.

Louisiana law appears to make a violation of the order a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum $500 fine or a maximum six month prison term in the parish jail.

Obviously, only the force permissible to make a misdemeanor arrest would be allowed, he said.

Last time I checked,

A) misdemeanors did not authorize the use of deadly force
B) pointing guns at people, or threatening to do so, is deadly force.

Furthermore, I think the video showing the homeowners being cuffed and forcibly disarmed and SUBSEQUENTLY ALLOWED TO STAY is enough to invalidate any theory that the forcible disarmament is pursuant to compulsory evac.

 

[Gwar]

Several letters sent.

 

[beerslurpy]

You guys are sending email letters or snail mail letters?

 

[pax]

beerslurpy ~

Both.

pax

 

[cuchulainn]

Heck, send faxes too.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Faxes are best, IMO. Fast paper.

 

[RealGun]

No matter what you decide to do about this, be guided by calm and reasonable thinking.

First you have to be pissed. Then something happens.

 

[armoredman]

Ditto to your state elected critters.

 

[beerslurpy]

Is there some place that lists fax numbers and email addresses of congresscritters?

 

[RealGun]

Near as I can tell, citizens would have just a much right to disarm the police.

 

[DelayedReaction]

Letters should be sent to:

A) My Senators
B) My Congressman
C) NRA
D) ACLU
E) President
F) Governer of LA

I'm already in the process of doing so.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

What RealGun said.

 

[confed sailor]

here's a question:

if you are a 01 or 03 FFl holder, arent all the firearms in your bound book required to be in you possesion?,

so as a 03FFL holder if my weapons are confiscated, i have a inventory already, thats +1.

but if they take those guns, can i report them to the ATF for stealing them? perhaps even a violation of 1968 NGCA?

hmmm a federal felony would look great on some schmucks record

 

[hillbilly]

As soon as I get a few minutes today, I will be composing short letters to which I will attach copies of the NY Times story.

I will be sending these letters to the President, my congresscrittes, and even the governor of my state.

hillbilly

 

[DontBurnMyFlag]

i know its a little late to chime in on this conversation. However, there were reports on the news on how well civilian firearm ownership worked. There were stories on people defending themselves and others against looters. This was a victory for 2A rights and the news was reporting it. How come all of a sudden NOLA changes its mind about the rights of the innocent and confiscates guns? Why dont they realize that the police and citizens are in more danger and the looters and straglers are in less danger? Forgive me if this was covered in the post already, but its just a question that burns a hole in my handsome head.

 

[alpineman]

Now I'm interested in seeing just to what degree we really mean "From My Cold Dead Hands". This slope has gotten slippery real quick. Do we mean FMCDH - unless my inept Mayor says otherwise? FMCDH - unless my state's Governor, who seems incapable of effective decisionmaking, says otherwise? FMCDH - unless my city's Police Chief says he's confiscating my guns for my own good?

How much respect can we - regardless of the state in which we live (e.g. California) - afford the law, when such laws run contrary to the nation's Constitution and common sense? Previous replies on this thread have advocated using legal means to appeal confiscation. After watching how well that has worked in California, now I see why that's being said. They'll make their decision based on laws that allow them to confiscate your firearms. Your LEGALLY OWNED firearms, which you're using to protect yourself, since the police WOULDN'T/COULDN'T/DIDN'T do it.

I can't disagree that armed resistance would probably make us look like a bunch of pseudo-revolutionary wackos ... especially considering how it would be portrayed in the media. The "news" has no interest in the Bill of Rights, much less the human right of self-protection, when shootouts and a consistent human-interest tear-jerking tale make for such good ratings. Besides, those of us on THR are in the minority. Don't kid yourself. Most people watch the "news" and believe it. When they're shown guns only in the context of crime, they internalize that. If we do anything at all to fight back, we will not come out as winners - the "news" will see to that. Beyond that, the remaining options - hide the guns and pray, or let them be confiscated and sue - make me nauseous, and also won't work. Your guns will be found (and they don't do you much good buried in the back yard for "safe keeping"), and if state law allows confiscation, then you'll waste your money going to court.

This just makes my blood boil.

 

[goalie]

Crap, I didn't even think about my FFL. I can't let someone just "confiscate" my guns.

:banghead:

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Just an interesting aside, but in the international communist revolution handbook has always been the strategy that in order to topple a government, you must create chaos first. To this, the government will respond by cracking down on civil liberties, to which the people will respond with full scale revolution. Now, of course, the commies wanted to be in charge of that revolution, as they were in a multitude of countries, but it seems to me that cracking down on fundamental liberties by the government is exactly the wrong thing to do if you want to restore order. History has shown that it just riles people up even more, and creates converts to revolutionary organizations. It is a downward spiral from there.

 

[RealGun]

Having violated the mandatory evacuation order, do those remaining holdouts even have the legal right under NO or LA law to possess a firearm? - JohnBT

What if the LEOs did not have control and denied any responsibility for your safety? That would be where the rule of law had broken down and all bets were off. The real problem is prior restraint again. You shouldn't lose your guns until you do something bad with them. If LEOs are concerned about their own safety, then they are abliged to arrest you on reasonable grounds and then have reason to disarm you. Taking your guns and walking away is pretty outrageous, right? Oh, I forgot. The Constitution is just a piece of paper.

I said days ago that everyone remaining in NO after a mandatory evacuation should be declared under arrest. Further action against them would have been entirely lawful, I think. The caveat would be that complete order would have to be restored or such was an excellent prospect, and the police would need to be capable of protecting private property, removing a property or business owner's reasons for staying behind (armed). That's not going to happen in the real world.

The other possibility for legitimacy would be a bona fide declaration of martial law, wherein citizens don't have to like the outcome or the process and have no legal recourse.

If someone is protecting their property or caring for pets, as opposed to roaming the streets (or the water) with a gun, why can't they just be left alone after making an offer for a ride out?

If someone is evacuated, are they supposed to leave their guns behind? That's a question I can't answer to my liking and think of it as in any way practical for those trying to help. I would rather be able to take my dog along. Can't do that either.

No easy answers here.

 

[DontBurnMyFlag]

what if this goes smoothly. What if nobody resists. Maybe the govt will think that the gun owners were just a paper tiger and that there would be no resistance if they confiscated guns nationwide. They might think we were all talk and just decide to move on to new states.

 

[TallPine]

We're all gonna die sometime...

I guess the only question is whether you die "free" and honorably or enslaved and helpless...?

 

[RealGun]

Maybe the govt will think that the gun owners were just a paper tiger and that there would be no resistance if they confiscated guns nationwide.

Well, there is the difference here of being offered a ride out of a bad situation. But taking the guns and walking away is not justified.

 

[GunGoBoom]

I just finished sending letters to the President, both of my senators, and my congressman.

Everyone else please do the same! Nothing less than the integrity of the Republic is at stake.

+1

Can any of you silver-tongued devils please make up a good 3- or 4-paragraph, one-page summary letter that is generic enough for everyone including me, to cut and paste and send to:

1. Local papers
2. Federal congresscritters
3. POTUS
4. state congresscritters

I'm semi-eloquent but also very busy, and I'm so outraged that I can't think of anything other than 'kill the bastages'.

Guys, let's please focus, focus, focus, on cranking out this volume of mail, especially to local papers in places sympathetic to gun ownership. The people who are THERE, not us, must make the choice of resist or not, so that is something not in our control, and therefore irrelevant. Let's team up and pool our resources (minds) to come up with an outstanding but concise point by point letter outlining this outrage and how it flies in the face of the 2A and basic liberty (being able to stay if you choose to), and how martial law doesn't even exist without an act of congress, etc. Let's focus on doing something (action), not words. First things first, let's outline a list of 5 or 10 basic POINTS the cut-and-paste for the masses letter out to hit: L'il help please!!!?