NEWS: New Orleans Begins Confiscating Citizens' Firearms

In a move which has gun ownership advocacy groups "up in arms", law enforcement in New Orleans has begun confiscating all firearms, including legally owned and registered weapons, the New York Times reports. As reasoning behind the controversial policy, authorities cited negating the risk of violent confrontation between law enforcement and citizens who are being forcibly evacuated.




Gun ownership groups have started quite a buzz over this story, which so far is only being reported on by the NYT. Gun registration and possible confiscation is also a major focus point for Constitutionalists and militia groups.

www.theconservativevoice.com
"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.

[edit on 2005-9-10 by wecomeinpeace]

Don't Americans have the second amendment..The right to bear arms against the government of the day.

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.

Oh my gersh!



Not right.

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.

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.

It seems if you are not a crook, the government is intent on making you one.

One now has to be a liar to keep their weapons.
And then the government will charge you with perjury for not giving up your second amendment right?

Now that they are taking weapons, it makes more sense that America is in more danger of falling than first thought.

Imagine the magnitude of the outcry when gas and commodities get scarce.

Oh! I forgot. Very few people will have the weapons to make the necessary changes to ensure our system works.



\

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.

I thought the U.S. Constitution was the Supreme Law in the U.S. That all laws must be pursuant to the Constitution, otherwise they are null and void, even if enacted by the legislature or directed by the Executive Branch. Does martial law include the suspension of the U.S. Constitution? If not, then any gun confiscation is unlawful and illegal, no matter the circumstance, and no matter whether martial law has been declared or not.

I think its time to sell our registered guns and exchange them for illegal guns... Let this be a lesson for the future.
The government is abusing our gun rights-n-privacy; martial law or no martial law the lines have been drawn...

I can see a spike in the underworld gun movement because of this. Time to join the band wagon .....

This would bother me if it took place anywhere other then new orleans, because the people there have been proven incapable of controlling themselves, and don't deserve guns. There are mass rapings, murders, looting, and armed gangs taking supplies, and now the police have given up and started looting too. Unfortunetly, people who refuse to leave are going to get violent, and they can't have it, nor can they have people shooting rescue workers down or in the face because they don't want to leave there now worthless house. I'm sure I'll be flamed for this so let me say, IMO.

Gosh, I hate to say I told you so.

The Second Amendment is a Constitutional right. Until the Constitution is revised, and the Second Amendment revoked, it will remain a Constitutional Right. However, the USA currently has a President who has shown consistent disrespect and disregard for the American Constitution and Americans' Rights - so why should this particular right be any different from the rest, if it happens to get in the way of what he wants? Which right now, just happens to be individual Americans' property rather than Iraqi. Please don't say you're surprised by this totally predictable turn of events.


.

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.

Mayet, as usual, I think you've said everything I wanted to say and said it better.

This has got to result in lawsuits against whoever ordered this move. I'll be surprised if someone doesn't get killed during the process.

Soficrow, the president had absolutely nothing to do with this action.



[edit on 10-9-2005 by Astronomer68]

Originally posted by Astronomer68

Soficrow, the president had absolutely nothing to do with this action.

With all due respect, the President is the Commander in Chief of this nation: He is finally responsible for everything, especially during national emergencies. ...IMO - the USA is being destroyed because there is no one at the top willing to take final responsibility for anything.

Legally, the 2nd Amendment is pretty flexible as far as the Supreme Court has ruled...personally, I'm against just disarming people but would support forcibly removing people from their homes (which would include disarming them) if necessary for public health...in short, this is a very complicated issue.

I can't get too excited about this one based on the little I know so far.

People being forced out of a fecal stew. Oh the humanity. All the diseases that they are guaranteed to get are treated with government money. Some are old and aren't thinking clearly. If your house is a public hazard anywhere, it can be condemned anywhere already. When police close a crime scene, they also tend to remove the guns that they find. Shocking I know.

Having empty residences with guns in an unprotected wasteland isn't really a great idea. What are people supposed to do, drag all their guns around while they wait in lines? I'm not sure civilians are supposed to cary their guns onto government transportation, let alone travel with armed forces.

It's a government secured area. Of course the guns are going to be locked down. Who didn't know this was going to occur? Believe me, the status of guns is doing fine everywhere else. Visit DC if you don't think so.

This is far less shocking IMO than say the handgun laws of Chicago.

And to the armchair judge a few posts back:

The people of New Orleans looked like they handled everything pretty well given the circumstances: no shelter, no food, no water, dying bodies, confusion, the ungodly heat down there, fear, injury, sickness, etc. What crystal ball tells you any other city would be any different after being dropped underwater? It's sad you feel that much superior and feel that telling others about it serves some sort of public service. That comment isn't even worth being flame-worthy.



Spelling edits for sleepiness



[edit on 10-9-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]

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?

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.

I don't really disagree with any of those motivations being somewhat valid but:

1. Taken far enough away so they won't be able to go back? Where are they going? Siberia? I know the motivation and it's an emotional one. But this defend vs. trust and leave goes back and forth because there are points on both sides. If I was 84 years old, I'd probably want to stay too and die where I wanted to.

2. Currently, the land is worthless. Not everyone owns the places where they live at any given time. It's a mess and everyone hates courtrooms, but that's where this is headed. And, these people have most of the country on their sides.

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?

I don't know about the "land grab". I know there was no evacuation. The danger has not passed. It's essentially a zone primed for lawlessness. What's the answer anyway? I don't know.

And, with buildings inevitably burning down, firemen are ALWAYS concerned about exploding shells.

I'm pretty much into this here more than I wanted to and don't want to run with either side on this one. These were just my thoughts to the contrary.

[edit on 11-9-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]

I wonder how many people heard of this and what the majority of the public would think
I believe that if I had property there and had a weapon to defend my family,life,and property from others going to do harm, I'd be damned if someone took my tool of defence away fom me.
But I'm not there. All I can do is read about whats going on in shock
wondering how much more will happen that just doesn't seem right, in my eyes.

Evilbat:

My thought here is what will happen when various crews and workers are going about fixing and securing and rebuilding with no protection in a huge urban ghost town?

On a different topic, are we sure its even worth rebuilding? The hurricane predictions for the region aren't thrilling, and I don't support billions of tax dollars going to rebuild a city that will get knocked down every other decade, the city is under sea level, it needs to be either flooded and made into a port, or let the people who lived there rebuild without federal aid, and then if it happens again, they can rebuild as often as they wish. No other beachfront property is federally rebuilt or even insured by private insurance, because of the risk, and no insurance company will ever insure N.O. again because of the known risk, so I don't see how there justifying the expense, when there are other perfectly good cities willing to take and board the people of that city, if they don't wish to rebuild there house. My uncle in LA said that there are quite a few people who are seeking housing around the state and are trying to adjust to there new environments, which is what they should all be doing if they can't rebuild. The same thing happens in the keys, and I don't recall tax money rebuilding there mansions.

Ruggeder:

That's some good food for thought. All I figure, and I'm no businessman or politician, but that state sure does control a lot of business what with the oil and shipping.

I guess we'll wait and see what companies get the contracts. How's Haliburton doing these days?

The sad thing is, people want to help the survivors. But there is going to be a lot of inevitable and uncountable "situations" as this unheard of number of people enter new communities. It won't all be shiny and happy when budgets are affected.

wecomeinpeace

Under U.S.C. 16 a what might be called law can be written, titled, worded, and signed but unless it reflects the same principles as outlined in the Constitution it is not law.

Of course we have an administration taking pre-emptive measures, basically saying we will do this and worry about the consequences later.

Of course these people that are the victims have no money to buy lawyers to go to court to regain what they have lost. In some cases, one cannot seek damages for violation of Constitutional Rights.