Victims of gun confiscation during aftermath of Katrina

[Shaman97]

Just what we need...another gun thread.

 

But this one is pretty blatant, if not a one-sided story. I would have liked to have had the NRA publish/broadcast the other side of the story. If I were a LEO, I wouldn't be too happy with a bunch of folk walking around the city with loaded guns, but to actively go to people's homes and confiscate their firearms, then 'lose' them...that's in another realm altogether. First I've heard of this type of activity following a disaster.

 

 

Gun Confiscations video

[lawnchairboy]

I am pretty confident the NRA is more than aware of that situation (I guess obvious from vid). It would have been nice to get a two sided story however.... it is from NRA ILA ...

 

chris

[Whip]

Now why wasn't that givin an Oscar for best Documentary?????????

 

 

 

 

 

 

Power to the people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

Let the revolution begin.

 

 

Whip

 

[Flyer5]

Now why wasn't that givin an Oscar for best Documentary?????????

 

 

 

 

 

 

Power to the people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

Let the revolution begin.

 

 

Whip

 

 

If I ever am forced to leave my home . First thing I would take would be my family then my guns . I would not want to be caught in that situation without a way to protect my family . That is sad how "careless" those guns were handled .Dave

[Flyer5]

I really liked Mississippi's Governor,Haley Barbour . He said all legal gun owners will keep their guns and if you shoot a looter you will not be prosicuted .

[steve.foote]

That is a powerful video. I don't doubt that, at the time, those agency's involved thought that what they were doing was necessary. However, I hope they now realize how wrong it was, and make the necessary corrections to their emergency reaction plans.

[Lawman]

WAKE UP AMERICA!

[Agent_Orange]

I could not watch the whole thing. That is NOT why I spent three tours in RVN. Not good!

 

The unthinkable is in the not too distant future. JMHO

[rob1100r]

Gun registration leads to confiscation...Can you imagine this happened in the Land of the Free? I can rant but it's not worth it anymore...It's getting 'better and better'

[ghaverkamp]

That is a powerful video. I don't doubt that, at the time, those agency's involved thought that what they were doing was necessary. However, I hope they now realize how wrong it was, and make the necessary corrections to their emergency reaction plans.

 

So, you've got a group of people, all inhabiting a locale illegally, and no one here feels the government have reason to take action against them?

 

Ironic.

[Twisties]

That is a powerful video. I don't doubt that, at the time, those agency's involved thought that what they were doing was necessary. However, I hope they now realize how wrong it was, and make the necessary corrections to their emergency reaction plans.

 

So, you've got a group of people, all inhabiting a locale illegally, and no one here feels the government have reason to take action against them?

 

Ironic.

 

Don't feed the trolls.

[Shaman97]

So, you've got a group of people, all inhabiting a locale illegally, and no one here feels the government have reason to take action against them?

 

Ironic.

Greg,

It appears from the video - as one-sided as it was - that the police were confiscating legally owned firearms, without any intention of returning them, ever. In one case, the gun was destroyed. That's taking confiscation to another level.

 

If the owners were roaming the streets with loaded guns and bandolero belts, there would be a safety concern. Having the gun at home, in a case, I don't see that the government's 'safety' concern overrides the individual's ability to protect their home and property.

[velomoto]

I would have liked to have had the NRA publish/broadcast the other side of the story.

... and exactly why would one expect the NRA to behave in this manner?

[ghaverkamp]

It appears from the video - as one-sided as it was - that the police were confiscating legally owned firearms, without any intention of returning them, ever. In one case, the gun was destroyed. That's taking confiscation to another level.

 

If the owners were roaming the streets with loaded guns and bandolero belts, there would be a safety concern. Having the gun at home, in a case, I don't see that the government's 'safety' concern overrides the individual's ability to protect their home and property.

 

I have no idea what actually happened when the guns were seized.

 

However, the police certainly could have arrested the folks and taken their guns, for violating the evacuation order. I don't know what the property seizure laws are for a state of emergency; the police may very well have been within their rights.

 

More than anything, the temperaments of the people interviewed struck me as somewhat excitable. That guy with the slicked-back hair seemed about ready to yell at the camera. Without knowing what happened when the weapons were seized, how do we know whether it was reasonable? In other words, I'm not sure that the folks I saw in the video were the types I'd want wandering around with weapons during a crisis.

[smiller]

I would have liked to have had the NRA publish/broadcast the other side of the story.

... and exactly why would one expect the NRA to behave in this manner?

Probably for the same reason that those on the opposite side of this issue do the same thing.

[Lawman]

I'm not sure that the folks I saw in the video were the types I'd want wandering around with weapons during a crisis.

 

Greg,

What a sucker I am..

You had me goin there for a minute..I actually thought you were serious..till I read that..You are just shittin us right??

[steve.foote]

I would have liked to have had the NRA publish/broadcast the other side of the story.

... and exactly why would one expect the NRA to behave in this manner?

Probably for the same reason that those on the opposite side of this issue do the same thing.

 

Seth, I don't understand your meaning. Could you expand on your thoughts?

[Shaman97]

I have no idea what actually happened when the guns were seized.

 

However, the police certainly could have arrested the folks and taken their guns, for violating the evacuation order. I don't know what the property seizure laws are for a state of emergency; the police may very well have been within their rights.

 

Apparently not. The court ordered the police to stop the seizures and return the guns.

 

More than anything, the temperaments of the people interviewed struck me as somewhat excitable. That guy with the slicked-back hair seemed about ready to yell at the camera.

 

About ready? He looks like he'd make coffee nervous.

 

Without knowing what happened when the weapons were seized, how do we know whether it was reasonable?

Then let's speculate wildly.

 

In other words, I'm not sure that the folks I saw in the video were the types I'd want wandering around with weapons during a crisis.

 

They seemed to be behaving properly until the police showed up to confiscate their guns. Except for the elderly retired woman from Minnesota who showed them 'what for'

[Shaman97]

That guy with the slicked-back hair seemed about ready to yell at the camera.

 

He's an attorney:

Just an excitable boy

[ghaverkamp]

Apparently not. The court ordered the police to stop the seizures and return the guns.

 

Actually, they ordered them to return the guns after the state of emergency was lifted. Louisiana has since changed its emergency operations policies to prohibit taking guns from peoples' homes. However, they were not found to have violated any rights by taking them under the prior existing law.

 

Then let's speculate wildly.

 

I don't have to speculate. I've since gone to get more of the story, so that now I know that police were authorized under Louisiana law to do just what they did.

 

They seemed to be behaving properly until the police showed up to confiscate their guns. Except for the elderly retired woman from Minnesota who showed them 'what for'

 

How do you know how they were behaving? Wild speculation.

[velomoto]

I would have liked to have had the NRA publish/broadcast the other side of the story.

... and exactly why would one expect the NRA to behave in this manner?

Probably for the same reason that those on the opposite side of this issue do the same thing.

Exactly which "this issue" are you referring to? The police following orders and acting under the existing law, the emotion invoked by the video of someone having their guns taken away, grandma pulling a gun on the police and then complaining about the behavior of the police, the knee-jerk reaction of a small percentage of the public when ever the NRA puts out a new piece of propaganda, or one of the many other issues associated with guns and gun ownership?

 

For those who are paranoid of losing their rights to own guns, and also for those who believe "more guns" is the answer to America's ills, I would strongly suggest the standard tithe automatically withdrawn from one's paycheck and donated to the NRA.

[steveknapp]

For those who are paranoid of losing their rights to own guns, and also for those who believe "more guns" is the answer to America's ills I would strongly suggest the standard tithe automatically withdrawn from one's paycheck and donated to the NRA.

 

So for those who enjoy shooting for sport, who don't want to be treated like a criminal just for owning a firearm...what are the choices?

 

Is there some more moderate pro-gun group somewhere? Seems like there are two choices, with many forced to the lesser of two evils.

[Lawman]

For those who are paranoid of losing their rights to own guns, and also for those who believe "more guns" is the answer to America's ills, I would strongly suggest the standard tithe automatically withdrawn from one's paycheck and donated to the NRA.

 

I think that's an excellent idea.. I did just that in fact..As of today I'm good for five more years!

Member # 15162353

[Mike]

Is there some more moderate pro-gun group somewhere? Seems like there are two choices, with many forced to the lesser of two evils.

 

Like so much in the arena of public debate in America, there doesn't seem to any willingness on the part of either side to try to achieve a true solution.

[Fugu]

Like so much in the arena of public debate in America, there doesn't seem to any willingness on the part of either side to try to achieve a true solution.

 

A true solution does not involve compromise, nor does it involve one group limiting the liberty of another.

 

I hope there never is compromise. The NRA is already too moderate, too concerned about how they look to those already dead set against their cause.

 

One does not need to look very far outside the USA to see what comes of compromise on this issue. Meanwhile, we have important cases in the courts, and every year more states pass laws moving in a positive direction.

[Ken H.]

A true solution does not involve compromise, nor does it involve one group limiting the liberty of another.

 

I hope there never is compromise. The NRA is already too moderate, too concerned about how they look to those already dead set against their cause.

 

One does not need to look very far outside the USA to see what comes of compromise on this issue.

Yeah, like a much lower firearm death rate.

[4wheeldog]

I do find it interesting that all these guns were readily available for confiscation. The powers that be would have a difficult time opening a gun safe, (A real one, bolted to the floor), so they would only get the loose one in hand. If you see them coming, there would be little reason to make firearms available to those that would take them.......Whether they represent the law or the lawless. JMHO.

[Shaman97]

How do you know how they were behaving? Wild speculation.

 

Well, of course. It's the stuff DB's and talk radio are built on. No point in changing that now...

[Fugu]

Yeah, like a much lower firearm death rate.

 

Please explain the low murder rate in Switzerland, where citizens have fully automatic weapons in their homes. Finland? 50% of homes have guns, which is pretty close to estimates and Gallup data for the US (which are 40-50%), yet their murder rate is much lower.

 

The causes of murder and violent crime are societal in my opinion. Perusing historical crime data with dates of "gun control" laws in mind is interesting. Violent crime and murder are not impacted by laws restricting freedom and ownership of inanimate objects. They sometimes are (or it appears they are) temporarily, but they tend to return to their trends. The CDC released an inconclusive study on the impact (if any) of the so called Clinton gun ban and both sides claimed victory...

 

And round and round we go, ignoring the causes, focusing on the shiny metal things.

[steveknapp]

And round and round we go, ignoring the causes, focusing on the shiny metal things.

 

Bingo.

 

Curious, anyone know if when the anti-gun movement reports deaths due to guns (http://www.icpgv.org/pdf/facts.pdf for example) do they include self defense related shootings? Civilian and/or police related?

 

Odd in that I didn't find that org's agenda (http://www.icpgv.org/) to be that extreme.

 

I worry a lot more about those willing to break the law, and basic ethic, of not killing other people than I do about the gun related issues.

[Fugu]

The police following orders and acting under the existing law,

 

Louisiana state constitution:

 

§11. Right to Keep and Bear Arms

 

Section 11. 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.

 

So is there statute in Louisiana granting the mayor and a police chief power to abridge those rights the state constitution says "shall not be abridged"?

 

Martial law wasn't declared as far as I know.

 

From Dave Kopel's article in Reason magazine:

 

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.

 

The 'regulating and controlling' sure sounds like it might need a court ruling.

 

If there was a legal basis for seizure (and I'm not saying I think there was), then is it OK for the government to destroy the property of citizens?

[Lawman]

 

If there was a legal basis for the seizure of all citizens guns in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina then Americans no longer have a right to bear arms or any other rights for that matter..

[Mike]

Like so much in the arena of public debate in America, there doesn't seem to any willingness on the part of either side to try to achieve a true solution.

 

A true solution does not involve compromise, nor does it involve one group limiting the liberty of another.

 

Note that you used the word compromise, not I.

 

What do you view as the true solution?

[Mike]

If there was a legal basis for the seizure of all citizens guns in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina then Americans no longer have a right to bear arms or any other rights for that matter..

 

Truer words were never spoken. I can't imagine a time when someone who owns a gun for self-protection would have been more in need; those who were there talked of a total social breakdown. Looting and violent crime were rampant.

 

There are so many levels on which this was wrong, not the least of which was the apparently rampant use of warrantless searches and seizures.

[keithb]

Amen Lawman and Mike.

[Fugu]

Note that you used the word compromise, not I.

 

In the context of your reply to comments lamenting there are no "moderate" gun rights or gun control groups, that's what I thought you meant. What did you mean?

 

What do you view as the true solution?

 

The only true solution would be for everyone to stop thinking about liberty as something to be bartered for today's handful of magic beans.

 

In the meanwhile I'll hope for the Supreme Court to affirm that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, just like all the other rights enumerated (or not diminished by their lack of enumeration) in the Bill of Rights.

[BabyCow]

 

Please explain the low murder rate in Switzerland, where citizens have fully automatic weapons in their homes.

Sorry. You may have to take the Swiss out of the equation.

In 2005, 48 people were murdered by gunfire in Switzerland - about the same number as in England and Wales, which have a population seven times as large. According to the International Action Network on Small Arms, an anti-gun organisation based in the UK, 6.2 people died of bullet wounds in Switzerland in 2005 per 100,000 of population, second only to the US figure of 9.42, and more than double the rate of Germany and Italy

I will leave Finland alone to give you something to cling onto.....but Finland's population is 5.3 million, compared with about 300 million in the USA. There are far fewer handguns, but still an 18-year-old entered a High School in Tuusula, Finland on 7 November, 2007 and killed seven students and the school's principal before killing himself. Here fortunately it is very hard to legally obtain a handgun so......

By 2002/03, Australia's rate of 0.27 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 population had dropped to one-fifteenth that of the United States

Since new legislation involving among other things a Federal gun buy back,in the 10½ years since the gun buy-back announcement, no mass shootings have occurred in Australia where a mass shooting is 5 or more people. The Australian system is not perfect but.......

From 1996 to 2003, the total number of gun deaths each year fell from 521 to 289 and was associated with a faster declining rate of gun suicide and gun homicide

Is this related to the removal of more than 700,000 guns from the community. Here our weapon of choice for violence/crimes of passion/armed robbery etc etc appears to be a knife.

Some citizens of some countries need guns.....to protect themselves from people with guns ! Any country that has a gun culture must be prepared to accept that with that culture comes an enormous cost. . Perhaps one day enough will think that the cost is too high.

[smiller]

The only true solution would be for everyone to stop thinking about liberty as something to be bartered for today's handful of magic beans.

OK, I like that line...

[steveknapp]

Some citizens of some countries need guns.....to protect themselves from people with guns !

 

I don't think the British would have given up if we said please, and I do think some of that runs in our blood. Some say it's clear in the document that define our nation. Tho there is some debate about that.

 

And the modern theory is that if you have a gun, then the crazy person can be stopped by you. It's a bit of a chicken/egg scenario, if you could some how get the criminals to obey the law FIRST, then those who obey the law might follow more readily.

 

I'm curious how Australia rid themselves of guns. In the areas of the US (Chicago for one) which have bans on handguns, they don't seem very effective. They have tried the buy-backs, and registrations. Not working from what we've seen.

[AV8R]

OK some have asked for the other side of the story, so here it is. There is no group that I know of that holds less regard for the rule of law than the government and politicians. They are about power and control. The mayor of N.O. has his own army, less the ones that ran away or themselves became looters. When only one side of a conflict is armed the "Law" is rendered moot. When Dianne Feinstein became Mayor of S.F. one of her first accomplishments was to put through a new city ord. banning handguns. Having had herself appointed an officer of the court she could of course continue to carry. It was never contemplated that she, any of her friends, or her P.D. might be disarmed by the new law. And noone seemed to care that the law countermands the U.S. Constitution as well as California's. And one can always appoint a judge who will say the law does not really mean what it says. The logic being that ordinary citizens are not capable of reading the law, only lawyers can do that. And so liberties are rarely taken away, but instead are usually voluntarily surrendered. Having dealt with the government all my adult life my advice is: When someone comes to you and says "We're from the government and we're here to help you", GRAB YOUR WALLET AND RUN!

[ghaverkamp]

And noone seemed to care that the law countermands the U.S. Constitution as well as California's. And one can always appoint a judge who will say the law does not really mean what it says.

 

And one desperately needs the latter in order to support the former.

[Fugu]

According to the International Action Network on Small Arms, an anti-gun organisation based in the UK, 6.2 people died of bullet wounds in Switzerland in 2005 per 100,000 of population, second only to the US figure of 9.42

 

horribly biased source

9.42 is 52% higher than 6.2!

 

I will leave Finland alone to give you something to cling onto

 

You could admit it proves my point instead. The focus on "mass shootings" is off the mark - would it be better if 5 were killed individually?

 

Despite what the media says, there's no epidemic of anything but pervasive coverage of "mass shootings".

 

By 2002/03, Australia's rate of 0.27 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 population had dropped to one-fifteenth that of the United States

 

It has always been much lower. What happened to homicide rates after the 97 buyback? THey stabilized right on the trend line. Comparing country to country makes my point for me- the USA always has had a higher rate of these crimes. Gun control hasn't changed it.

 

The PA line is Port Arthur killings, right after that the reactionary gun buyback (forced gun buyback - subjects had no choice but to submit to it) occurred.

 

biased source, data from several sources including anti gun source AIC in Australia

 

 

Any country that has a gun culture must be prepared to accept that with that culture comes an enormous cost.

 

You're half right. It's cultural. As for the chicken/ egg situation - if you take guns away, you still have the young and strong, or numerically superior, or knife wielding preying on the elderly, weak, and those who live alone. You think that humans didn't manage to kill each other before guns?

[Fugu]

noone seemed to care that the law countermands the U.S. Constitution as well as California's.

 

The NRA cared and they won, didn't they? I haven't been keeping up but I thought the NRA won, and the ban was overturned.

[BabyCow]

Steve.

1.We had a national system - not just one State - all States which had unilateral political support and saw no use in the general community for semi auto rifles. (Handguns are not easy to obtain here in the first place)....so in the US I suspect you can just go interstate to buy whatever

2.We don't have a large population so not that many legal or illegal guns in the wider community per capita in the first place ( I swear one guy in the subject film clip had 15-20 shotguns/rifles. Wow)

3. The gun lobby/gun industry is not that powerful here

4. As we don't have a gun culture the majority who don't own guns/have an interest in guns wanted something that overuled a small minority

 

Best wishes

[Fugu]

so in the US I suspect you can just go interstate to buy whatever

 

Incorrect. You cannot purchase across state lines if you do not run the transaction through a Federally licensed dealer and submit to background checks, etc. Laws like California's restrict ownership of certain items and you can't legally bring things into CA from other states that are illegal under CA laws.

 

It should be noted that the weapons used at Port Arthur were obtained illegally. After the 1996 "buyback", which was aided by existing registration (registration leads to confiscation, sing it with me), the Monash University shootings were carried out with a legally obtained weapon. In a free society, somebody unhinged & willing to murder others for little to no apparent reason can always find a victim. That's the way it is. Laws will never change it.

 

the majority who don't own guns/have an interest in guns wanted something that overuled a small minority

 

The majority imposing their will on the minority... Democratic tyranny?

 

In 2006, the lack of any measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was confirmed using a statistical method (ARIMA), in a peer-reviewed article in the British Journal of Criminology by academics Dr Jeanine Baker (SSAA) and Dr Samara McPhedran (Women in Shooting and Hunting).

[Lawman]

While I can appreciate the discussion of murder rates and how it may or may not be affected by gun restrictions it seems to me that for the most part it is irrelevant..We could certainly reduce the number of highway fatalities if we outlawed cars and I've been told we could reduce overall violence if we would just eat less meat..

Law enforcement cannot protect us. The government cannot protect us. This thread shows evidence that they in fact may be the enemy. Primary responsibility for my protection lies with me..

[HexHead]

Let me make this simple. Show up at my door to confiscate my guns ala New Orleans, you'd better bring body bags.

[4wheeldog]

Steve.

1.We had a national system - not just one State - all States which had unilateral political support and saw no use in the general community for semi auto rifles. (Handguns are not easy to obtain here in the first place)....so in the US I suspect you can just go interstate to buy whatever

2.We don't have a large population so not that many legal or illegal guns in the wider community per capita in the first place ( I swear one guy in the subject film clip had 15-20 shotguns/rifles. Wow)

3. The gun lobby/gun industry is not that powerful here

4. As we don't have a gun culture the majority who don't own guns/have an interest in guns wanted something that overuled a small minority

 

Best wishes

 

If one wanted to maximize the death toll with an attack on the general population, a gun would not be the first choice. Airplane into a building, rental truck full of fertilizer, car into crowd will all kill more folks than a single person with a gun. There is something else that is a worm in our national apple that makes people want to kill. Lots of things can be used to kill people, but guns are clearly the most useful for personal defense.........Guns just get the focus because much of the world doesn't have them.

If we didn't have them here, I am convinced that crazy people would just get more creative........Oh, wait a minute........They already have!

[Fugu]

There is something else that is a worm in our national apple

 

That's a perfect description.

 

From Reason magazine:

 

Historically, America has had a high homicide rate and England a low one. In a comparison of New York and London over a 200-year period, during most of which both populations had unrestricted access to firearms, historian Eric Monkkonen found New York's homicide rate consistently about five times London's. Monkkonen pointed out that even without guns, "the United States would still be out of step, just as it has been for two hundred years."

 

...

 

The London-based Office of Health Economics, after a careful international study, found that while "one reason often given for the high numbers of murders and manslaughters in the United States is the easy availability of firearms...the strong correlation with racial and socio-economic variables suggests that the underlying determinants of the homicide rate are related to particular cultural factors."

 

 

the entire article: http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

 

 

It also contains some interesting discussion of the origins of gun restrictions in the UK (which had nothing to do with murder, and everything to do with trying to control the citizenry) and how they incrementally and sometimes secretly tightened those restrictions until they passed subsequent laws effectively removing the option of armed self defense.

[DavidEBSmith]

lawman says

Law enforcement cannot protect us.

 

Anybody else see the irony here?