FEMA reconsiders gun ban at trailer park

MassLive.com ^ | 10/12/2005 | KEVIN McGILL

[neverdem]

3:05 p.m. ET Associated Press

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — Under pressure from gun rights groups, FEMA said Wednesday it is reconsidering a ban on firearms at a trailer park established to temporarily house Hurricane Katrina victims.

"We've got attorneys who are looking at that as we speak and they're trying to figure out who wrote the rules, what the intent was," FEMA spokesman Butch Kinerney said.

The dispute involves a nearly 600-trailer encampment that opened last week near Baton Rouge. Katrina evacuees will be allowed to stay there rent-free while they try to find permanent housing.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency said it has been general policy at FEMA for several years to prohibit guns at such parks anywhere in the country. But the National Rifle Association threatened to sue, and another gun rights group, the Second Amendment Foundation, said it, too, was looking at legal action.

"Whether it's a national disaster, whether it's by nature like Katrina, or a flu pandemic or an earthquake, the Constitution can't be thrown out the window," said NRA leader Wayne LaPierre.

He said the NRA was outraged, and he warned that the organization would take its case all the way to Congress and president.

The East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Office had asked that guns be banned at the encampment because the trailers are close together and have thin walls, according to spokesman Deputy Fred Raiford.

"If a gun was discharged in any of those trailers, it probably would go through three or four other trailers before it stopped," Raiford said.

But FEMA spokesman James McIntyre said guns would have been prohibited even without the Sheriff's Office request.

[Thinkin' Gal]

a nearly 600-trailer encampment

They really should look into banning tornados.

[the OlLine Rebel]

(rolling eyes emoticon)

[AdamSelene235]

FEMA's Disaster Cycle

[ncountylee]

The East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Office had asked that guns be banned at the encampment

With the actions of the police that we have seen in LA, I can understand why they want an unarmed population.

[Old Professer]

May as well ban tornadoes while they're at it.

[scouse]

FEMA should be done away with and we should return to the old "Civil Defense" method we had in this Country.

[dead]

The East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Office had asked that guns be banned at the encampment because the trailers are close together and have thin walls, according to spokesman Deputy Fred Raiford. "If a gun was discharged in any of those trailers, it probably would go through three or four other trailers before it stopped," Raiford said.

Can I assume that these same safety concerns will force Deputy Raiford, and all those employed by the sheriff’s office, to leave their own guns outside the trailer park limits when called there?

I didn’t think so.

Bite me, statist.

[kerryusama04]

If you depend on "The Man" to provide for you, you gotta play by his rules. I'm an NRA life member and am outraged by this, but there is a bit of hypocrisy. Nobody said anything when local governments decided to drug test people living in the projects....

[misterrob]

Good thought. If you take cheese then live with the outcomes.

[zeugma]

Nobody said anything when local governments decided to drug test people living in the projects....

Actually some people did. We were ignored as usual though.

[kerryusama04]

True, I suppose there was some good Constitutional ruckus here on free republic. I do remember the ACLU types in a furor over the drug testing, but mysteriously absent here with the 2A issue...

[Wally_Kalbacken]

Time to up-armor the single-wides!

[catmanblack.]

time to take away this sheriffs gun and give him a slingshot-see if he feels safe then-put his office in a trailer

[George Smiley]

They didn't ignore us- they called us druggies, and worse.

[veracious]

The sherrif seems to be implying that everyone would be
safer without firearms than with them. Seems someone ought to ask him to move in to one of the trailers (then maybe he'd reconsider the priorities)!

[drt1]

I find myself torn on this. On the one hand I fully support the 2nd Amendment and very, very much prefer self protection to depending on anyone else, especially the Gov't to support my personal safety.

On the other hand, after seeing the multitudes of 'Evacuees' in NOLA I would feel very unsafe with any of them in possession of a firearm in any proximity to me or my family. My possession of a firearm in such a situation would probably be futile since there are many more of them and they really don't value their own lives enough for my gun to be an effective deterrent.

Bottom line is that I'll do whatever it takes to avoid being in such a trailer camp and, if forced into one would support a complete weapons ban in conjunction with effective policing.

[kerryusama04]

ROFL

[neverdem]

Bottom line is that I'll do whatever it takes to avoid being in such a trailer camp and, if forced into one would support a complete weapons ban in conjunction with effective policing.

Unless the equivalent of divine intervention occurs, effective policing happens after the fact.

[El Gato]

Time to up-armor the single-wides!

Just use Kevlar bats instead of fiberglass or rock wool. It would be just as good for insulation, and would provide good protection too.

[El Gato]

On the one hand I fully support the 2nd Amendment and very, very much prefer self protection to depending on anyone else, especially the Gov't to support my personal safety.

On the other hand, after seeing the multitudes of 'Evacuees' in NOLA I would feel very unsafe with any of them in possession of a firearm in any proximity to me or my family. My possession of a firearm in such a situation would probably be futile since there are many more of them and they really don't value their own lives enough for my gun to be an effective deterrent.

If you aren't willing to let other noncriminal folks have guns, then you don't support the second amendment. In fact the second amendment has no "except for criminals" exception. Until fairly recently convicted criminals had their RKBA restored once they had served their sentences. Most especially in the (not so) Wild West.

BTW, those of the evacuees that you'd need to worry about wouldn't be deterred by any administrative ban, any more than they are by current laws. So there you'd be, surrounded by other unarmed sheep, with a bunch of wolves in your midst.

[El Gato]

I'd like to think that FEMA officials got a call from their higher ups, meaning the political appointees or the POTUS, who were as appalled as the rest of us. But I'd settle for those higher ups just feeling the heat, and getting out of this particular kitchen.

[loboinok]

"On the one hand I fully support the 2nd Amendment"

Then keep your gun in that hand and don't let the other hand know what its doing!

[drt1]

"Unless the equivalent of divine intervention occurs, effective policing happens after the fact."

Agree - That is the primary reason for my lack of reliance on the Gov't for protection. Let's face it, it is a bad situation - Either a bunch of scumbags with weapons and you have one or no weapons at all but with the same scumbags around. A Hobson's Choice if there ever was one but I would take option number 1 - Armed.

[El Gato]

We've got attorneys who are looking at that as we speak and they're trying to figure out who wrote the rules, what the intent was," FEMA spokesman Butch Kinerney said.
...
The Federal Emergency Management Agency said it has been general policy at FEMA for several years to prohibit guns at such parks anywhere in the country

You see the "tinfoilers" were at least partially right about FEMA, they did indeed plan to disarm people and put them in camps.

[lainie]

They always do. You're not allowed to discuss the overreaching merits (or lack thereof) of these types of questions without having your own character called into question.

[GovernmentShrinker]

The difference is that most people living in the projects (and virtually all of the drug users) have never paid anywhere near the amount in taxes that they're taking out in various welfare benefits including the housing. Though there are certainly a number of people in that category in these FEMA trailer parks, there are also a lot of people there who have paid a lot of the taxes that are now being spent to set up and run these parks.

If people are going to make a lifestyle of living on the taxpayers' dime, they've got no right to complain when the taxpayers' government sets and enforces the rules. But people who have worked hard, paid taxes to support federal programs, and now temporarily need the help of those programs when their homes and jobs have been washed away, should not have their Constitutional rights stripped away, as a condition for claiming what's rightfully theirs already.

[Logophile]

FEMA's Disaster Cycle

So, according to FEMA, "Preparedness" leads to "Disaster"?

[kerryusama04]

Well, to sort of debunk my own argument, taking a drug test to get a reduced rent house might be a constitutional infringement but a federal agency prohibiting gun possession is an obvious and blatant infringment.

[kerryusama04]

Well, to sort of debunk my own argument, taking a drug test to get a reduced rent house might be a constitutional infringement but a federal agency prohibiting gun possession is an obvious and blatant infringment.

[Apogee]

While I agree with you in the broader principle, is is right for those who control the strings to deny basic rights due people? I think that is pushing it a little too far.

I wonder at the sheriff's reasoning - is he in favor of banning guns at all trailer parks, then, as they all are densely packed with thin walls separating them? I once spent a summer in a trailer park, I have to admit that precise scenario did bother me quite a bit, but I would not have assented to the idea that we would all be safer by being disarmed.

[GladesGuru]

There is no evidence that criminals value their lives or unpunctured hides any less than do you. Proof is clear in the fact that such criminals prefer unarmed victims.

There is no need for any cognitive dissonance. Stay armed, stay alive.

[spunkets]

I wonder where Gonzales is that they can't find him?

[GladesGuru]

"If people are going to make a lifestyle of living on the taxpayers' dime, they've got no right to complain when the taxpayers' government sets and enforces the rules."

Setting aside the issue of welfare as a life style, to reduce crime in those welfare communities, arm them.

The armed single mother can then keep the 250 pound gang banger from kicking in her door to make her apartment a drug emporium.

Put a bounty on violent criminals and such behavior will in short order become rare.

Bounties - a proven way to reduce predator populations.

[Bogey78O]

You realize the ones you fear will still have guns. You'd accomplish nothing.

[kerryusama04]

My folks still live in the double-wide I grew up in and I can certify it is bullet hole free. Somehow us trailer trash managed to git learned up on fireahms safety.

Beyond this, I don't think kevlar woven Tyvek has been invented yet, so it is safe to say that my conventionally built house is probably not going to stop too many bullets either!

[chuckles]

What they need to be doing is checking who hasn't paid child support, who is wanted or on parole, and who has a record(drug and violent). Filtering these people out of any public housing would get most of the people who don't "need" a gun out of the projects. Anybody that is law abiding and following the rules would not pose a threat to other tenants.

We would also need alot less public housing if we filtered the tenants to just the "law abiding".

[El Gato]

Beyond this, I don't think kevlar woven Tyvek has been invented yet, so it is safe to say that my conventionally built house is probably not going to stop too many bullets either!

Brick, even just a veneer, does a pretty good job against most pistol bullets and shotgun pellets. Unless you shoot at the same spot several times of course. Old fashioned solid brick walls, or even modern poured concrete walls, provide more protection.

Kevlar can be had in blankets, BTW.

[Lijahsbubbe]

If you take cheese then live with the outcomes.

Constipation?

[planekT]

If you can't trust them with a gun, why would you let them out of prison where they could get one?

Some folks make mistakes, bad mistakes. Some learn their lesson. Others repeat their mistakes.

If I've interpreted the Statutes of Texas correctly, a convicted felon gets his 2nd Amendment rights partially restored five years after he is no longer under supervision. But he is only allowed to bear arms in his own home.

Under a Supreme Court ruling, that is not good enough. If the State has only partially restored your 2nd Amendment rights, federal laws still apply.
The case involved a guy who legally bought a long gun under State law. The Supremes decided he was still a criminal for doing that under Federal law since the State had not fully restored his gun rights. The state law was that he couldn't own a handgun, but that he could own a long gun.
The court is wrong of course, but they are loathe to tackle the issue head on of State VS Federal jurisdiction concerning gun laws, because the Constitution does not support their current position. Nonetheless, they stepped out on this shaky limb anyway.
The 4th and 5th Circuit Courts seem to be divided on the question of whether the right to bear arms is an individual right or a collective right. One of these courts needs to look up the definition of people in the dictionary. The so called Lindberg Act was the catalyst of these cases. Lautenberg is the first law to deny civil rights to people accused of misdomeanors, although from what I have read Judges have exercised power anyway to deny 2nd amendment rights. I don't think they actually have that much power though. I don't think something this important should be nor is within one man's power to decide unless it is specified by law and not repugnant to the Constitution. Lautenberg is an illegal law. If for no other reason because it banned legal ownership of firearms for a misdemeanor. The main differential between a misdemeanor and a felony has long been that a misdemeanor did not include as punishment a loss of any civil rights. If Lauatenberg had his way, I have no doubt that he would happily try to disarm you for going 45 in a 55.

[Dashing Dasher]

That would be against Darwin's Theorey of the Survival of the Fittest.

[garandag]

Even if we allow the fallacy that people would be safer in this trailer park if they were not allowed to possess firearms, we would still be giving up essential liberty for safety, something we have been doing far too much of in recent times. When did we become a nation of cowards?

[Freedom_Fighter_2001]

The armed single mother can then keep the 250 pound gang banger from kicking in her door to make her apartment a drug emporium.

Yes, but can she keep out a Wal Mart? Haha

[George Smiley]

FEMA's Disaster Cycle

So, according to FEMA, "Preparedness" leads to "Disaster"?

Although I marvel that someone would have the expectation that government operates according to logic, this is nevertheless a wonderful example of the logical fallacy called "post hoc ergo propter hoc"!

[B4Ranch]

If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

[B4Ranch]

The same way planning leads to war.

[B4Ranch]

"If people are going to make a lifestyle of living on the taxpayers' dime, they've got no right to complain when the taxpayers' government sets and enforces the rules."

If governments are going to make a lifestyle of living on the taxpayers' dime, they've got no right to complain when the taxpayers' sets and enforces the rules.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I'm all for taxpayers setting and enforcing the rules, but not for NON-taxpayers setting the rules for how they use taxpayers' money. I'm not in favor of disarming law-abiding citizens, but you know as well as I do that a large percentage of the people who are homeless due to Katrina, are not only not taxpayers, but also not law-abiding citizens. A lot of them ought to be serving long prison terms right now, and if I was in charge of things, that's where they'd be sent (without their guns!). But in the meantime a lot of law abiding citizens have been tossed into these trailer parks with violent gangsters, and the local LEO (who had this whole thing just dumped on them without warning) are trying to take practical measures to avoid carnage. Personally, I think step one should be separate out the refugees who really have been taxpayers, and put them in different parks, with different rules. RKBA issues are only a small part of why they deserve this.

[Free Baptist]

How can we have more federal government if we do away with FEMA? Are you talking about LOCALLY administered Civil Defense organizations? Do you not realize that there are no brains for this kind of thing outside of Washington DC? Isn't it clear by now that citizens living in specified localities are entirely incapable of thinking for themselves, providing for themselves, defending themselves, organizing themselves?

[Bear_Slayer]

If you depend on "The Man" to provide for you, you gotta play by his rules

The "rules" happen to be the constitution and the government needs to be held to them.