It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"Simply outrageous!" That was the reaction from Erich Pratt, Director of Communications for Gun Owners of America, after learning that the city of New Orleans had begun confiscating legally-owned firearms from its residents.
"By what authority can the mayor order these confiscations?" Pratt said. "You can't legitimately suspend the God-given rights of American citizens who have committed no crimes.
"Unfortunately, we have yet to learn the lessons from previous dark episodes in our recent history," Pratt said. "We need to remember those lessons, such as the riots of Los Angeles more than a decade ago."
Ohioans For Concealed Carry - www.ohioccw.org
This is a double edged sword in a sense. While government sponsored disarming of Americans is unacceptable, some would argue that New Orleans is sometimes just as dangerous as some insurgent infested areas of Iraq.
Does that justify taking firearms since you're evacuating the people to a safer area, or does it embolden the argument that citizens need those firearms to defend themselves against the lawless?
Disarming evacuees might be understandable in such limited and extreme cases if certain "return" guarantees were met, but the fact remains that these confiscations are not being applied uniformly at all, and that reveals the true discrimination in New Orleans.
Martial Law: from Wikipedia
Usually martial law reduces some of the personal rights ordinarily granted to the citizen, limits the length of the trial processes, and prescribes more severe penalties than ordinary law. In many countries martial law prescribes the death penalty for certain crimes, even if ordinary law doesn't contain that crime or punishment in its system.
In the case of registered gun owners and those who are not running around waving their weapons, but the fact is they declared Martial law, giving the military the power to do essentially whatever they please.
Originally posted by Mayet
This goes against the consitution then and is entirely illegal and should be stopped now. The people have rights, they are being destroyed day by day now.
This is a terrible move legally ethically and constitutionally.... Lets hope that everyone starts yelling loudly over this one.. Do not let them take your guns.
Originally posted by Astronomer68
Soficrow, the president had absolutely nothing to do with this action.
Originally posted by soficrow
Most of those people are thinking clearly enough to know a) they will be taken far enough away that they won't be able to get back; and b) that they will lose their property if they don't defend it.
Which is one of the reasons the Second Amendment exists. As far as health issues go - it is being used mainly as the rationale for a land grab. As I've said before - there was NO evacuation when it was needed, but now that the danger has passed, evacuation is suddenly essential. Why?