Firearms confiscated but not returned.

Me | July 4, 2008 | JD

[Righter-than-Rush]

Hurricane Katrina moved Louisiana's government to suspend the second amendment when it declared a state of emergency. Firearms were confiscated by force of law and military power. When the state of emergency was lifted, the second amendment was not restored, and the people's firearms were not returned.

A Federal district court ruled that guns confiscated would not be returned to their rightful owners. We're talking about legal firearm owners here. Common sense dictates that removing firearms from legal owners leaves only the criminals in possession of firearms, emergency or no. The Associated Press reported that some police officers asked if they could borrow guns from citizens, explained that they were outgunned during running street battles with armed criminals.

I know from experience that property siezed at airport security, and property siezed at the border out of a suspicion of activity, is never returned, and winds up in a government surplus sale. But fundamentally, I question why the second amendement was not restored with the lifting of the state of emergency. Ideas? Have other states responded similarly to states of emergency? What are the implications of this Federal ruling to us as legal firearm owners who will not give up our rights to protect ourselves, families and property when we know criminals will not face confiscation and when the government cannot protect us?

[wendy1946]

I know from experience that property siezed at airport security, and property siezed at the border out of a suspicion of activity, is never returned, and winds up in a government surplus sale. But fundamentally, I question why the second amendement was not restored with the lifting of the state of emergency. Ideas?

The state of emergency should have been immaterial to a basic right like the 2'nd ammendment. The constitution and our basic form of government would not have come into being without the gaurantee of those rights. "Rescinding" one of them is not legally possible; it amounts to reneging on a contract and in theory should break the contract.

[TornadoAlley3]

http://www.gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=newsroom&tmp=detail&articleID=248
Louisiana has been and still is under a state of emergency since Katrina

[Righter-than-Rush]

I see. As it is in the state government’s purvue to decleare and retract states of emergency, is it true that nobody in the entire state, whether or not affected by Katrina, may legally own a firearm?

[cowboyway]

The state of emergency should have been immaterial to a basic right like the 2'nd ammendment.

You need your firearms more than ever in a state of emergency.

Florida recognized that after the post hurricane looting a few years ago and changed the law giving citizens the right to use deadly force to protect property.

[Unknowing]

“Firearms were confiscated by force of law and military power.”

I submit that the confiscations were under “color of law” and not through the force of actual law.

[TornadoAlley3]

http://www.guncontrolkills.com/44/guncontrol/new-orleans-gun-confiscation-is-blatantly-illegal/

[autumnraine]

If you ask me, in a State of Emergency when dissaray of people and rioting/looting is going on... that when I want my gun the most.

[Righter-than-Rush]

My question is not about Louisiana’s law. It’s not even about the Federal court’s ruling against the second amendment, when challenged by the NRA and others. My question is about a national state of emergency when a nuke lights up somewhere in this nation, the President declares a NATIONAL state of emergency and inposes martial law ‘for our own protection.’ Can anyone cite and/or post the law stating the President can suspend the second amendment during martial law or a state of emergency?

[TornadoAlley3]

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3647

You need your firearms more than ever in a state of emergency.

I agree.

[Logical me]

No State has the right to confiscate legal registered firearms unless used in violation of the law. Undoubtedly the State has violated the law here in some cases. Confiscation of property.

[TornadoAlley3]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17078

try this, I do not know the answer to your question, my point in posting LA law was that if you read the law, New Orleans did not follow it.

[Turret Gunner A20]

I submit that the confiscations were under “color of law” and not through the force of actual law.

And what do you think happens when someone comes to your door and demands something "under color of law" and you say NO?

[Righter-than-Rush]

>>I submit that the confiscations were under “color of law” and not through the force of actual law.>>

To citizens, they are one in the same. The law is the law, whether spoken by a legislator in writing or a cop pointing a gun in your children’s faces.

[Righter-than-Rush]

Unless someone can document my conclusion as unfounded, I contend the President, whether through powers of legislation or powers of unilateral decision (executive orders, see declaration of national emergency 9/14/01), may create laws taking away firearms and weapons of any kind, from citizens in all states, without consent or regard for state law. All the President needs is the opportunity. Someone please prove me wrong.

[Kirkwood]

It was impossible to know who was in charge at that time. NOLA lost 1200 officers almost immediately out of a force of around 1400. Many police officers came in from out of state and proceeded to terrorize citizens who were trying to protect their homes. This was especially true of the police from Michigan and California who answered to no one. Thee were others as well - some could never be identified because they didn’t wear standard issue uniforms. Only when the National Guard came into the area did the cops start to back off on preying on the people. Everyone should read the book “The Great New Orleans Gun Grab” to see what happens when cops go out of control. http://www.amazon.com/Great-New-Orleans-Gun-Grab/dp/0970981333

[RFEngineer]

“Unless someone can document my conclusion as unfounded, I contend the President, whether through powers of legislation or powers of unilateral decision (executive orders, see declaration of national emergency 9/14/01), may create laws taking away firearms and weapons of any kind, from citizens in all states, without consent or regard for state law. All the President needs is the opportunity. Someone please prove me wrong. “

I don’t think it’s a matter of proving you wrong. This scenario - Government seizing power above that for which they have consent from the governed - is exactly what the 2nd Amendment was created to prevent. I’m not sure I know of too many folks who would willingly hand over their firearms during a time of great peril.

I would like to believe our military generally would recognize this as an unlawful order and refuse to comply.

as for Law enforcement, maybe they are dumb enough to try it in New Orleans - but I not so sure they’d try it in most other areas of the country.

So I don’t think we’ll find any way to disprove what you are saying - it’s already illegal - but of course, that didn’t stop the New Orleans travesty, and probably won’t stop big-city police forces from doing the same in an “emergency” in some cases.

[meyer]

Firearms were confiscated by force of law and military power.

People could rightfully have fired upon these storm troopers, but didn't.

[Unknowing]

A grim result indeed.

[Wallace T.]

If a disaster is about to hit your town, and you have the time, you need to get out ASAP and go as far away as you are able, taking as much of your valuables, firearms included, as you can. Also, stay away from emergency shelters, even those set up by private groups such as the Red Cross, if you can afford to do so. The same police abuses as seen in New Orleans have been recorded in flood damaged areas of Iowa recently, without the excuse of out of state lawmen. Back during the Los Angeles riots in 1992, Korean storeowners had to use their firearms both to ward off looters and to prevent the police and National Guard from confiscating their weapons. When Greensburg, Kansas, was destroyed by a tornado, state and local officers stole valuable firearms from homeowners who left them as they abandoned their homes, sometimes replacing them with junk weapons. The dangers from out of control LEOs and FEMA bureaucrats are as great as those from looters. The old saying that a man's home is his castle no longer applies.

[Judith Anne]

To the best of my knowledge, Red Cross shelters do not allow firearms of any description inside.

Living in an urban area is the worst place to be during a disaster of any kind, imho.

[Wallace T.]

Of course, it is better to flee if you have advance warning, such as is often the case with hurricanes and floods. However, for those disasters that come too quickly to flee, as is the case with tornadoes or earthquakes, it is also better to leave town if it is a major disaster if you can do so. In the past, people could defend their homes from looters with their personal weapons. However, as the New Orleans hurricane and the Iowa floods have recently shown, out of control LEOs and FEMA bureaucrats will take away your weapons and force you into government shelters. When a state of emergency is declared, you lose whatever civil rights you have left. The bottom line is: don't trust government, especially during disasters.

[Righter-than-Rush]

Wallace T.,

I have seen my share of moderate emergencies. Northridge quake... Landers quake... LA riots. Northridge, I was part of a Red Cross response team to treat injured people in and around Cal State Northridge. Landers, I was in Yucca Valley and assisted people to avecuate after roads were impassable to all but my 4x4. LA riots, I was driving down the 101 through downtown watching blacks and mexicans burn the palm trees; when I got to my destination in Hollywood, the only thing keeping those same people from breaking into the building I was in were the firarms stashed in the walls by the owners, and their willingness to get up on the third-story roof and light up the sidewalk to chase off those people armed with illegal guns and vehicles to ram the building. No police in sight for hours.

I will not give up my right to protect my own, and am quite serious when I tell you I will be dead before they take that right from me.

[Vinnie]

Florida recognized that after the post hurricane looting a few years ago and changed the law giving citizens the right to use deadly force to protect property.

My son lived in S. Dade county and endured hurr. Andrew.
He was w/o power for 10 days. Wore a .45 auto on his hip during that ordeal.

[Screaming_Gerbil]

People could rightfully have fired upon these storm troopers, but didn't.

Such a course of action requires some well-planned out tactics, and the means to execute them.

I would assume the storm troopers' response would be to converge on and surround the shooter's house so that he/she/they could not escape and then pour a heavy volley of fire into the house to either kill the shooter or make him.her/them keep their head down, and if the shooter(s) did not surrender, eventually set the house on fire.

So any firing on the Storm Troopers has to take into account the probable response.

It seems to me that unless it's a general uprising against the storm troopers, with fire coming from at least several different locations, or you are able to engage in a running gun battle where superior forces cannot pin you down and destroy you in detail, you would be making a "last stand". And the press would report it as "Lone gunman dies after murdering police."

[Blood of Tyrants]

The city was sued for violating the citizens’ rights. Nagin ordered teh chief of police to lie about the confiscations and lie about them being in the possession of the city.

Eventually SOME of the owners got their guns back but some still have not claimed their firearms.

[Righter-than-Rush]

Correct. However, between the confiscation and conclusion of the lawsuit, unarmed people lose their ability to protect property, and thereby lose that property to someone who cares nothing about legal means of protection. The question remains, is there any limitation on the President to create laws at a whim to confiscate firearms and permanently deny their return? Alot can happen between the illegal confiscation and the court ruling... alot of loss. Loss I would not willingly allow.

[Wallace T.]

People can deal with looters the old fashioned way, and have done so in this country for a very long time. However, when the government turns against the law abiding citizens, as it did in New Orleans with weapons seizures; in Mississippi, as regards FEMA stupidity in blocking private sector supplies helping the hurricane victims; and in Iowa last week, with cops seizing weapons, throwing people out of their homes, and arresting them if they look crossways at them, what recourse is there? Neighbors might be able to take on some cowardly looters, but not the National Guard or fully equipped LEOs. Then there is the issue of FEMA, which seems more interested in controlling the devastated victims of a tragedy than helping them.

To be blunt, there are plenty of FR posters and others who fancy themselves as conservatives who are reactive supporters of government workers and LEOs, irrespective of whatever abuse they engage in. Look at the rabid pro-government types who applauded the massive raid on the FLDS ranch in West Texas and were very disappointed when the courts overturned the actions of the social workers, cops, and the local district court.

We are not in an environment that is friendly to the concepts of self-defense, self-help, personal freedom, and limited government. It is very painful to admit this on the 232nd anniversary of our Declaration of Independence.

[rgplusr]

There is one Louisiana hurricane that has been forgotten. It happened shortly after Katrina. The name was “RITA”. It was every bit as destructive and powerful as Katrina. Rita wiped out almost the entire lower half of Cameron Parish. One never hears about Rita and the aftermath because people on the southwestern end of the State of Louisiana went and still are going about quietly rebuilding our lives. Also, there were no shenanigans like what happened in New Orleans.

The local authorities immediately blocked access from Interstate 10 and other highways to these communities, except in some cases for residents returning to assess and mitigate damage. The local Sheriff's Dept. and Police did an outstanding job of patrolling and protecting property. One department took the night shift and one took the day shift. At night, helicopters were overhead with night vision equipment. Consequently there weren't many problems. The problems that did occur were dealt with swiftly.

I was allowed in to secure my property. I had all of the equipment necessary...generator, chainsaw, food, water, tarps, etc.

You better believed that I was armed...45 auto on my hip and 12 gauge shotgun nearby. After what happen in New Orleans, we were not taking any chances. After the streets were cleared and the local police were able to better patrol, no attempts were made to disarm citizens. I remained armed and had police wave and smile at me as they drove by.

As a side note, the Ohio National Guard came to assist. For the first few days, they were heavily armed. I imagine they were thinking about the crap that happened in New Orleans. After those first few days, a seldom saw a Guardsman armed with M4s or M16s...they appeared more relaxed. I think they realized that southwest Louisiana was not going to be another New Orleans.

As far as New Orleans goes, I feel badly the way honest armed citizens were treated. I feel the New Orleans government is useless...you can have New Orleans. I'll never go there again.

[Blood of Tyrants]

“If someone is so fearful that, that they’re going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!” -Congressman Henry Waxman May 14, 2001

[supercat]

And what do you think happens when someone comes to your door and demands something "under color of law" and you say NO?

You will likely be murdered or kidnapped.

[supercat]

People could rightfully have fired upon these storm troopers, but didn't.

I wish legislatures would pass statutes to make explicit that people have a right and duty to shoot such crooks.

[endthematrix]

I can prove you right.

Bush issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people.

On September 19th, 2006, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted that the 2007 Defense Authorization Act contained a “widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order WITHOUT the consent of the nation’s governors.”

Also in Public Law 109-364 “John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007” states that “the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of (”refuse” or “fail” in) maintaining public order, “in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection,domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.”