Realistically what would you have done...

[geekWithA.45]

High Planes Drifter:


I think you see my point:

In the one circuit that holds 2A to be an individual right,

In a state that has a strong, individual RKBA guarantee*,

In the complete absence of any lawful power to do so**,

Knowing full well that disarmed citizens faced the imminent danger to life and limb in the form of widespread, criminal lawlessness,

Officials of the City of New Orleans unlawfully ordered the systematic confiscation of personal arms, and such orders were systematically carried out through the vigorous application of the threat of lethal force, in defiance of the protests of the people thus victimized.

THIS NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED, AND YET IT DID.

This was an unprecedented event in the history of our Republic, and it has been swept under the rug.

We have yet to hear a full accounting of these events, and there has been no Congressional inquiry.

Judicial redress came too late, and and even restitutional remedy has still yet to be effected.


Frankly, honest people, under those circumstances would have been fully justified, ethically, morally, and legally in meeting the official abuse of force with force.

That they did not I think is due to any of a number of mitigating circumstances, most notably the lack of global knowledge of what was going on due to the power being out, and the general unwillingness of men of good character to resort to arms in ambiguous circumstances, especially in the face of authority.

If we, the gunerati of America, who are well versed in the underlying topics of rights, powers, and the Lockean basis of our Republic do not come to the concensus that in circumstances of imminent danger and the impossibility of immediate judicial relief and redress, that meeting the official abuse of force, with force is valid, no one will.




* 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.

** I stand by my original assertion that there was NO AUTHORITY, even under emergency powers

 

[Derek Zeanah]

You ASSUME that all law enforcement officers will attempt to take your guns.

You ASSUME that our Armed Forces consist of mindless drones who will willingly trash the Constitution.

No, not all of us. Some of us are assuming that there's a thinking, caring, feeling person who's coming to our door. We hope that, if given an opportunity to really think about what they're doing and the potential reaction they face, especially if presented in a rational and clear manner, they'll choose to do the right thing.

If not, it alleviates some of the burden on one's conscience, because you gave them an opportunity to prove they were human before you acted.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Powderman:

You ASSUME that all law enforcement officers will attempt to take your guns.

I think people are responding to those officers who DID follow their orders, perform dynamic entries, cuff citizens to the curb, and take their lawful personal arms.

Some did not get such orders.

Some, I'm sure, found ways not to comply with such orders.

Some complied, grudgingly, and felt bad about it.

Others complied with gusto.

Unfortunately, the bottom line is that enough of them DID comply, that we can no longer trust the intentions of such officials under those circumstances.

And that sort of third world nonsense is a damned, crying shame in America.

 

[rab357]

What guns?

I'd play hide and go seek. I would be positively friendly to the NG and police. I would even offer them a glass of lemonade. But they can't take what I can't remember where I put it.

I see no difference between New Orleans and the LA Riots. When civil order breaks down only count on yourself. I remember Regenald Denny and that brick. Don't you?

 

[Low-Sci]

Nobody's arguing that the confiscation was right...

The question is how you would handle the situation. Of course it was wrong, and it was a blatant abridgement of human and civil rights. But that's totally beside the point. The point is, it happened, proving that it indeed can happen, and what would you do if placed in that same situation?

There is certainly a large body of very principle-driven people who would much rather die than be disarmed. While I understand this, I don't sympathize with it and it doesn't make logical, tactical sense.

Of course you have a duty to resist when your rights are being taken away. However, you're doing yourself a disservice if you think the only way to resist is to shoot back. Hiding a firearm is resisting unlawful confiscation. There is a middle road between knuckling under and dying for your beliefs, and that's civil disobedience. Maybe it doesn't have the romance of a gun battle, but it may very well be much more useful.

What does make sense from a survival standpoint is hiding your firearms. This way you at least have a decent shot at retaining them for future use, which satisfies the need for protection. If you manage to succeed in hiding them, then you've also resisted an unlawful and unconstitutional decree with no loss of life required.

Fighting back only promises that they'll take not only your weapons, but also the weapons of anyone who might have been in your care, and you won't be around to protect them anymore.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

However, you're doing yourself a disservice if you think the only way to resist is to shoot back

I guess we're seeing this differently. I don't see myself as advocating a gun battle. I see myself as saying, in a clear and reasoned way, "no, and there are serious consequences if you decide to force this matter, so please think this through thoroughly Mister Jackboot." The ball is totally in the other dude's court, and to be honest I don't believe most cops/soldiers would choose to pursue that course of action once given the option as I have stated above.

Having said that, I think you've overestimating the ability of a handful of cops when faced with the prospect of assaulting a prepared position. Point one: assume the primary and secondary approaches to the home are covered by interlocking fields of fire...

 

[Low-Sci]

Sort of...

I didn't mean to say you in particular, Derek, were advocating a gun battle, although there is certainly an element here that does.

You're right, I may very well be overestimating the ability and willingness of local police to prosecute a situation like that. I've never put much faith in police marksmanship or training, so maybe I'm putting too much faith in it now. On the other hand, what if this isn't the cops, and it's the National Guard? That has to factor into the situation.

It would be nice to just be able to tell them to move along amicably and have them do it, but I just don't trust them to do it. I think that's where the real disagreement lies.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I think through the whole katrina fiasco, if just one person would have met force with force, every LEO and guardsmen there would have told the police chief and mayor to off. For most I'm sure it was bad enough that they were violating the constitution to carry out an unlawful order, it would have magnified it 10x to have had to kill an american just trying to defend their constitutional rights.

I would probably have been that one to do it.

 

[gunsmith]

I was in th NG and my brother is a cop

I was in the guARD in the 70's when it was full of drunks, liars and junkies.
And us enlisted men were not much better

Anyway, I would never have obeyed an order to confiscate, I would have knocked on doors and said

you aint got no guns here right? yup no guns here.
my brother would do the same.

now what would I do if I'm the one getting confiscated?
before katrna I would have been in the hide some give some camp.
but .gov has proven it didn't plan on returning them by first saying they never had them, and now it's making it impossible for large groups of gun owners...you know that private sales , no paperwork EBR? you can't prove it's yours so they keep it.

if they come for mine before I get out of town I do not answer the door.
if they break the door down then I start shooting.

.gov proved it was willing to steal my guns by it's actions in the katrina.

before katrina I would have probably coperated to some degree, now that they have shown their true colors???

no way!

I am single, I don't have any children , I don't have a really have a lot to live for except my freedom, which I need to thrive.
if you take my guns you are crippleing me financially and emotionally.
I would react like a cornered well armed wolf.

 

[nomadboi]

"John Wayne's got nothing on you except a couple pounds of brain, and you move faster without it."

Okay, so maybe it wasn't nice or appropriate, but I for one found it hilariously phrased.

I don't think in an emergency situation like that the infrastructure and communication would still be in place for them to look up who owns how many of what gun from FFL records or anything, so I'd probably be in the 'hide one' camp. Here in Seattle it's the next big earthquake we have to worry about, which means no advance warning. I don't live in the best neighborhood, not by choice but because that's all I could afford for my family. Then again, if it comes to it, I've got a decent collection of non-firearm weapons...

 

[jashobeam]

Low-Sci,

Let me first say that I enjoy your well-written arguments and that I appreciate your point of view. Either compliance or resistance MAY work satisfactorily with everyone ultimately keeping his life and property. NEITHER will work if the disarmament effort is more than just a loosely coordinated sweep by roving bands of LEO/NG, and is instead a highly coordinated agenda to remove all citizens from a given zone. While in the case of Katrina LAPD and CHP were most likely brought in due to a lack of local manpower, do not be surprised to see the same tactic employed in the future where out-of-state LEOs (and possibly UN troops ) are utilized for the purpose of employing enforcers who cannot relate to or identify with those placed under their charge.

You say that those who resist to the point of bloodshed do themselves and their families a disservice; but might not your compliance encourage the morale and efforts of those who are doing the disarming, whereas stories of resistance might give them pause to reconsider the justification for their actions, and the consequences thereof?

At what point will your compliance end?

What if the next band of LE brothers to come by your house treats you and your family with extreme disrespect or brutality simply because they believe, due to your former unwillingness to stand up for yourself (as perceived by them), that you are weak and that they can push you around?

I have been told that in prison any act of submission to a bully will only result in greater demands from the bully. Other inmates will only help you as long as you are helping yourself; in other words, as long as you are resisting a bully others will 'have your back'. Once you make a mistake and give in or show any weakness, you are on your own and it is up to you to stand up and refuse to comply with further demands. Failure to do so will essentially result in your being owned.

Isn't the same true with organized crime? Once you agree to let them 'help you' in your business you will never be able to refuse again.

What if, after the first wave of cops/soldiers comes and confiscates whatever firearms you admit to owning, a second wave of cops/soldiers comes through and informs you that due to armed bandits it is entirely too unsafe for you to remain in the area without a means of self-protection and that, consequently, you and your family/household will now have to be escorted to a refugee (detention) camp for your safety?

 

[1911Tuner]

Realistically...WWYD?

First shots fired between American and British troops, on April 19, 1775. The British chose to march to Concord because it was an arms depot, and the the garrison had been ordered to seize all arms, powder, and shot. They were only following orders, mate.) The colonists knew that they didn't stand a chance against British regulars...but they took a stand anyway. They lost, and they lost badly...but they delivered a message with that "Shot heard 'round the World." It took a long, bloody war for the British to come to understand the full measure of that message.

I guess you can mark this date in American history as the first organized gun grab. I can't see much difference between that event and the disarmament of peaceful citizens holding out in what was left of their homes in the aftermath of Katrina...I really can't. I'm sorry...but anyone who tries, plans, or even wants to disarm me is my mortal enemy. An enemy who would leave me at the mercy of a sociopathic element without so much as an air rifle to fight back with...because they were following orders. I don't think so, brother.

And so, Mayor Nagin, (Or however the hell you spell your name) I will NOT bygod be disarmed at your whim, or anybody else's. Not while I'm alive.
Mark that well.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

1] There's no fighting them unless there's a semi-organized effort (ie neighbors and others participating). You wouldn't want a confrontation infront a home or when they are expecting it. You'd want to organize, then ambush them on their confiscation route. Get them in the open with a massive hail of gunfire. Then run or evade. The longer range, the better. Think Lexington/Concord - but more guerilla style than even those battles.

2] You don't have a choice as to whether or not you'd "give" them a particular gun.

WAKE UP.

You aren't giving squat - THEY'RE TAKING.

You will be handcuffed infront of your home like a criminal while they ransack your home to find any arms that they can. The premise of the thread starter's post is that there's a cooperative nature to this. There is not. This is a forced confiscation. They are the master, you are the bitch. End of story.


3] If you thought about fighting back without an organized plan, you'd lose, because the 2-3 cops who banged the doors down had an entire platoon of National Guardsmen with fully automatic weapons fresh from Iraq. If you shoot the cops, they NG on your street will shoot back and take you out with their freshly acquired urban combat skills. They will saturate you and your home with firepower. If you've seen raw footage of what our guys do in Iraq, trust me, you don't want to go up against that. At least the Iraqi's have full-autos, RPGs and 2ft thick solid concrete wall contruction virtually everywhere for cover. You have semi-autos, no explosives or rockets, and wooden or cinderblock homes, and worst of all - no experience. Good luck.


Amazing, the cops are the badguys, but the brainwashed nationalists condemn any negative statement about the NG, despite their participation to guarantee the of authority of the police via physical presence of force which makes them 100% complicit in the crimes. As if anyone is impuning their Iraq service. It is the participation of *some* NG in the confiscations that makes them the enemies of freedom. Sorry, had to throw that in.


Since all of these options look bleak. The best idea is to not keep all your eggs in one basket. Way before any disaster, one should hide rifles and ammo in different locations that will not be easily found by confiscators. Let them take what they can find, then later on it is your choice what to do - at least you'll be armed. You can dig up your arms, and use them for defense against looters and to stay low, of if a "movement" rises up, join them and get a little justice later on.
__________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson


Don't Tread On Me had it right. When it comes right down to it, you give them something to placate them. A rifle, a pistol, a shotgun, whatever. Then, you take your reserve stock, and use that. If it's like they did in NOLA, then they'll move on, and you can do more or less fairly well.

If it is at all a massive confiscation effort, you need to light them up late in a guerilla action with massive firepower. A "bushwhacking" if you will. Nothing else will suffice.

 

[Soybomb]

because his buddies are gonna light me up like a dutch brothel, and they'd be right to. They came bearing me no ill will

I'm not completely sold on that, young guys just following orders perhaps. But disarming people and leaving them defenseless in a dangerous environment has to show some ill will doesn't it? Ultimately you're responsible for your own actions and perhaps a little thought on what they would be effectively doing would have been good.

I actually don't see how it would have been an issue...
jbt: "do you have any guns"
me: "of course not those things are dangerous"
jbt: "ok good, places to go, people to disarm"

I guess if you were sitting out on your porch with a gun or voluntarily showed them your safe...even then its locked and bolted down. Say its full of old underpants and your uncle has the combination, how much time would realistically be spent trying to open it?

Gun registration of course adds a wrench to the plans but just say a relative fleeing the storm took them with him to keep them dry...

 

[Joe7cri]

Hey mordechaianiliewicz, when I said "give them" a couple of guns, I meant leave some in the closet or a place where they can be found easily, and hide my good ones behind wall panels or in attic so after they find a 3 or 4 guns they'll figure they found them all.

 

[browningguy]

"From my cold, dead hands"

That says quite a lot doesn't it.

This was not simply a "mistake" by the people in charge, this was a planned and thought out assault on our civil liberties.

When Houston was being evacuated some months later my wife and I stayed put. We had a couple of weeks supply of water and food, generator with gas to run 6 hours a day for two weeks, and I even checked my ammo supplies.

First let me say that if "they" knocked on my door, I would very politely ask for a copy of their court order or warrant identifying me personally. If they didn't have one I would wish them a good day and close the door. They would have every opportunity to walk away.

If anyone tried to break down my door then at least the first few through the door would have gone to see the diety of their choice. Yes, in the end, SWAT/NG/LAPD/UN Peacekeepers would kill me. But the government would then know that some people are still willing to give their lives to resist tyranny.

For those not willing to risk your lives to stop illegal government confiscation of your firearms, what else are you willing to allow the government to do to you or to others?

Confiscate your food and water for emergency providers?
Relocate your family to a shelter against your wishes?
Send "undersirables" to special camps (homeless, unemployed, wrong religion)?

And no, I'm not a survivalist but any stretch, not even a right wing extremist, heck I'm pro-choice and don't mind gay people. The fact is the authorities in NO willingly, knowingly and with malice, followed orders they knew to be illegal and unconstitutional.

As far as I'm concerned when they choose to knowingly perform illegal/unconstitutional acts then they are just goblins in a uniform.

You have to wonder why no one has had any Federal charges brought against them for violation of civil rights, or abuse of power. Where are all the attorneys when you really need one?

 

[Joe7cri]

You have to wonder why no one has had any Federal charges brought against them for violation of civil rights, or abuse of power. Where are all the attorneys when you really need one?

My Thoughts Exactly

 

[repo]

I'd stick some brady campaign and PETA stickers on the windows, and when they ask if I have any guns... I'd point to the sticker and say in my best lisp "GUNTH??... EWWW YUCKEEEEEY"

And if that don't work.. "HABLA ESPANOL SENOIR??"

 

[hso]

what I would have done if I lived in N.O. and the national guard came to confiscate my guns.

I have an unhelpful comment about those that stayed in light of all the warnings to leave.

But supposing I had stayed, I would have lied about what I had. Considering that there would be no recovering any of them or they would be worthless when you got them back due to abuse and neglect I would have gotten witnessed receipts for each one I provided and then have filed the information away for the future. After they had gone on their way leaving me and my family helpless and defenseless I would a few of the ones I didn't tell them about.

 

[Low-Sci]

Trying to be objective...

A lot of people here with points that disagree with mine are very right. In principle, its of course right to resist tyranny. Even at the cost of one's own life, even if that cost is the inevitable price of resistance.

I guess the point that I'm not convinced of that lends me the attitude toward the situation that I have is the point that states this was a carefully calculated confiscation for the purpose of causing harm to the people the weapons were to be confiscated from.

The mayor probably had the misguided goal of protecting people by getting some guns away from potential criminals (no, I don't happen to agree with such a method) and didn't intend for the disarmed people to be devoured by the looting bands of criminals. Doesn't make it right, but it also doesn't mean that he intended malice towards anyone.

 

[1911Tuner]

Malice

Quote:

>The mayor probably had the misguided goal of protecting people by getting some guns away from potential criminals (no, I don't happen to agree with such a method) and didn't intend for the disarmed people to be devoured by the looting bands of criminals. Doesn't make it right, but it also doesn't mean that he intended malice towards anyone.<
******************************

Maybe...and maybe he saw an opportunity to get rid of some guns...and justified it in the name of "State of Emergency." I guess we'll never know.
We can look at his past record and his stance on gun ownership...things like that...but I doubt if a straight question would get a straight answer.

Meanwhile, the Right Honorable Mayor of N.O. should go and study up on the Bill of Rights until he understands what "Shall not be infringed" means while we all hope that the good people of Louisiana fire him come next election.

 

[Joe7cri]

Some people here are of the belief that the only guns that were confiscated were from people who were likely to use them against law abiding citizens. But I've read somewhere that a news crew taped the confiscation of a handgun from an old lady who was in her kitchen. Supposedly the woman refused to turn over her Handgun and knife so the NG or NOPD or both subdued her, and arrested her for disorderly conduct, etc, etc, etc...

Unfortunately I did not see the news article or News report so this is only hear say, but it doesn't seem unreasonable from what I've read on other Forums. If I can find the post on the other forums, I'll attach it below.

 

[Low-Sci]

Naturally...

Its really in everyone's best interests that the mayor be removed. I don't disagree at all that confiscation of any kind was wrong to order, whether the mayor knew that or not, and it is very clearly not the people's duty to put up with that kind of crap, its their duty to resist it.

But I guess one thing I think we should all take away from this particular question, no matter what your opinion of the matter is, is that should a state of emergency arise, a confiscation may be ordered. If it is, then as in all other situations involving firearms from range practice to trigger locks to military combat, how you conduct yourself with the weapons in your posession will have a very close and immediate correlation with your lifespan, so be wise, and don't stop thinking until you're dead.

 

[1911Tuner]

Confiscation

Quote:

>I've read somewhere that a news crew taped the confiscation of a handgun from an old lady who was in her kitchen.<
***************************

Slammed her into a wall is more like it. The guy's biceps were about as big as her waist, and he man-handled her like a bouncer on a belligerent drunk. There was absolutely no justification for that, whatsoever.

Lo-Sci said:

>But I guess one thing I think we should all take away from this particular question, no matter what your opinion of the matter is, is that should a state of emergency arise, a confiscation may be ordered. If it is, then as in all other situations involving firearms from range practice to trigger locks to military combat, how you conduct yourself with the weapons in your posession will have a very close and immediate correlation with your lifespan, so be wise, and don't stop thinking until you're dead<

Amen to that. It's not a matter of "IF"...it's a matter of "WHEN" a natural disaster will strike somewhere...and the actions taken in The Big Easy will probably be repeated, at least on some level. The time to plan is now...not after it starts. Have supplies on hand so you won't have to forage, and plan on keeping a low profile...and figure a place to store some of your goods away from your home base...even if you have to have a pre-dug hole to bury them in.

 

[geekWithA.45]

I've read somewhere that a news crew taped the confiscation of a handgun from an old lady who was in her kitchen.

Her name is Patricia Konie. The cops bounced her off the floor like Mexican wrestlers, breaking her collar bone. She hooked up with Ashton Dwyer, an attorney who appeared on TV armed promising that there "will be gunfire" if they came to collect his guns.

No one took him up on his promise, and now they're suing the behebus out of all parties concerned.

I have lots of video archived here:

http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2005_09_04_geekwitha45_archive.html#112624153325128502

Also in this video archive are confiscation victims from all stations in life, rich, poor, didn't matter. I distinctly remember two guys out in front of their quite nice home, which was clearly not in a "troubled" area, so the poster who suggested it was only the poor zones didn't have the complete picture.

As for motivation, I recall at the time that the confiscation orders was largely in response to some people's refusal to evacuate. With food, water, arms and other supplies, folks had chosen to ignore the evac order (a misdemeanor offense, btw, which means that lethal force would not be justified to enforce) in order to protect their property and interests.

The impression was that the confiscation's purpose was to enfeeble those who remained, and inspire them to leave.

We never learned much more after that, as the whole thing skidded to a halt in pretty short order.