New Orleans Begins Confiscating Firearms as Water Recedes - Page 4

mvpel · September 10, 2005, 09:04 AM

Here's part of the problem with the legal arguments, which Volokh has come up with:

====
The problem with this analysis is that the statute creates more than the power to "regulat[e]" the possession of fireams. It expressly creates the power to "regulat[e]" possession and the power to "control the possession" of firearms. Even if the power to regulate does not encompass the power to prohibit — a conclusion that seems plausible but not obvious, especially in the absence of any cases construing these terms — an order that individuals must give up possession of their firearms does seem to me to fall within the plain meaning of "controlling the possession" of firearms. It's not free of doubt, I think. But on balance, it seems to me that "controlling the possession" of an item in a state of emergency would include the authority for the state to take possession of the item. That is particularly likely because the statute grants the power to control possession in addition to the power to regulate possession; presumably the legislature intended control to be something beyond mere regulation.
=====

So it would appear that arguing on the basis of the law would put us on shaky ground. It would be far better to argue on moral grounds, invoking the fundamental human right to self-defense, rather than arguing on legal grounds when the law itself is immoral.

**Rich Lucibella** · September 10, 2005, 09:53 AM

From what I see, everyone needs to sit back and take a real deep breath on this. There were some early reports, yes. And we all saw the video of the elderly lady. But I'm getting zero intel that this is actively happening in NOLA neighborhoods.

I think what we have is the rumor mill, once again being fueled by the incompetent and inconsistent local leaders:
ie: Mayor and one Police official claim that they're forcibly evacuating people. City attorney and governor claim that they're not. NG states as clearly as possible that they are not involved in any such activity. Beat cops state the same.

So, one police spokesman says they're gonna take away all firearms; we see one video of a lady with a handgun being manhandled. Next thing you know there's claims that our regular Military (engaged in no police action at all), cops from around the country and the Mexican Military are all there confiscating weapons.....and someone even escalates to UN Troops not being far behind.

The media is still there, despite the Mayor's claim of a Media Blackout. It sounds to me like you have a small cadre of the Mayor and a few followers, trying to wrest control of the situation from the REAL workers by coming out with a new edict every day.....the workers look at him, shake their collective heads, and go back to their jobs....which they seem to be doing pretty damned well at this point.

Unless we get some real FACTS that this is happening on a broad scale, there's gonna be an awful lot of embarrassed anonymous "handles" on this board.
Rich

Edward429451 · September 10, 2005, 10:47 AM

Quote:

I think it's time to reconsider bars on the windows and doors, not for protection from the criminals but from the goverment itself.

Gotta love those minimum building code standards. The doors & bars would have to be more than just minimally installed or they'd just pull em right down, just like on "COPS".

What kind of installation would stop a big truck with a pull chain? Nothing would stop them if they were determined. But if you could make their first attempt or two unsuccessful it would buy some time.

**tyme** · September 10, 2005, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eugene Volokh

The problem with this analysis is that the statute creates more than the power to "regulat[e]" the possession of fireams. It expressly creates the power to "regulat[e]" possession and the power to "control the possession" of firearms. Even if the power to regulate does not encompass the power to prohibit — a conclusion that seems plausible but not obvious, especially in the absence of any cases construing these terms — an order that individuals must give up possession of their firearms does seem to me to fall within the plain meaning of "controlling the possession" of firearms. It's not free of doubt, I think. But on balance, it seems to me that "controlling the possession" of an item in a state of emergency would include the authority for the state to take possession of the item. That is particularly likely because the statute grants the power to control possession in addition to the power to regulate possession; presumably the legislature intended control to be something beyond mere regulation.

Post-Katrina New Orleans is an object lesson in why we have firearms: criminals are causing more problems than usual, and there's the potential for government abuse -- there aren't enough citizens to create popular will that can oppose the government's bad ideas.

If guns (long guns -- handguns are carried even when society is operating smoothly) are not necessary and not tolerated in New Orleans, when are they necessary and when will they be tolerated? If the government is going to confiscate firearms whenever the SHTF, why buy tactical long guns at all? One AK or mini-14 in the trunk --for emergency intervention in a smoothly functioning society--, and a few hunting and/or varmint rifles -- it seems anything more than that will be confiscated exactly when you need it.

Wildcard · September 10, 2005, 03:29 PM

Dave Koppel, "Defenseless on the Bayou"

Defenseless On the Bayou
New Orleans gun confiscation is foolish and illegal
Dave Kopel

In the nearly two weeks since Hurricane Katrina, the government of New Orleans has devolved from its traditional status as an elective kleptocracy into something far more dangerous: an anarcho-tyranny that refuses to protect the public from criminals while preventing people from protecting themselves. At the orders of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, the New Orleans Police, the National Guard, the Oklahoma National Guard, and U.S. Marshals have begun breaking into homes at gunpoint, confiscating their lawfully-owned firearms, and evicting the residents. "No one is allowed to be armed. We're going to take all the guns," says P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police.

Last week, thousands of New Orleanians huddled in the Superdome and the Convention Center got a taste of anarcho-tyranny. Everyone entering those buildings was searched for firearms. So for a few days, they lived in a small world without guns. As in other such worlds, the weaker soon became the prey of the stronger. Tuesday's New Orleans Times-Picayune reported some of the grim results, as an Arkansas National Guardsman showed the reporter dozens of bodies rotting in a non-functional freezer.

In the rest of the city, some police officers abandoned their posts, while others joined the looting spree. For several days, the ones who stayed on the job did not act to stop the looting that was going on right in front of them. To the extent that any homes or businesses were saved, the saviors were the many good citizens of New Orleans who defended their families, homes, and businesses with their own firearms.

These people were operating within their legal rights. The law authorizes citizen's arrests for any felony, and in the past (in the 1964 case McKellar v. Mason), a Louisiana court held that shooting a property thief in the spine was a legitimate citizen's arrest.

The aftermath of the hurricane has featured prominent stories of citizens legitimately defending lives and property. New Orleans lies on the north side of the Mississippi River, and the city of Algiers is on the south. The Times-Picayune detailed how dozens of neighbors in one part of Algiers had formed a militia. After a car-jacking and an attack on a home by looters, the neighborhood recognized the need for a common defense; they shared firearms, took turns on patrol, and guarded the elderly. Although the initial looting had resulted in a gun battle, once the patrols began, the militia never had to fire a shot. Likewise, the Garden District of New Orleans, one of the city's top tourist attractions, was protected by armed residents.

The good gun-owning citizens of New Orleans and the surrounding areas ought to be thanked for helping to save some of their city after Mayor Nagin, incoherent and weeping, had fled to Baton Rouge. Yet instead these citizens are being victimized by a new round of home invasions and looting, these ones government-organized, for the purpose of firearms confiscation.

The Mayor and Governor do have the legal authority to mandate evacuation, but failure to comply is a misdemeanor; so the authority to use force to compel evacuation goes no further than the power to effect a misdemeanor arrest. The preemptive confiscation of every private firearm in the city far exceeds any reasonable attempt to carry out misdemeanor arrests for persons who disobey orders to leave.

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.

Last week, we saw an awful truth in New Orleans: A disaster can bring out predators ready to loot, rampage, and pillage the moment that they have the opportunity. Now we are seeing another awful truth: There is no shortage of police officers and National Guardsmen who will obey illegal orders to threaten peaceful citizens at gunpoint and confiscate their firearms.

Dave Kopel is Research Director of the Independence Institute.

http://www.reason.com/hod/dk091005.shtml

**Rich Lucibella** · September 10, 2005, 04:44 PM

Quote:

At the orders of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, the New Orleans Police, the National Guard, the Oklahoma National Guard, and U.S. Marshals have begun breaking into homes at gunpoint, confiscating their lawfully-owned firearms, and evicting the residents.

WC-
What on earth is with you?
Why isn't this being reported by the DOZENS of reporters on scene?

You're bringing us a Right Wing Colorado "Think Tank's" essay as proof of what is happening 1200 miles away on the same day written?
Rich

Redondo · September 10, 2005, 05:11 PM

You guys are missing the little known clarifier to the 2nd Amendment. "The right to bear arms......". "Except during panic mode by the government, after hurricanes". This is an ugly precedent!

Wildcard · September 10, 2005, 05:55 PM

Quote:

WC-
What on earth is with you?
Why isn't this being reported by the DOZENS of reporters on scene?

It is being reported. Just not to the extent that we would like. It is happening, did you see the video on O'Reilly, remember the little old lady getting thrown to the ground. She was removed from her home. Hell, ABC news had a video with the POLICE Chief of NO saying no one would be allowed to have guns except the police. Video footage of people being handcuffed, weapons were seized, people then released. Hell, if you take a persons means to defend themselves in a situation like this, then leave them at the location, you may as well have forced evac them, you have left them no other choice but to evac, so its defacto forced evac. What part of that is hard to understand. The reasons forced Evac is not officially happening is because the microscope is on NO for the firearms seizures.

**Rich Lucibella** · September 10, 2005, 06:08 PM

Quote:

did you see the video on O'Reilly, remember the little old lady getting thrown to the ground.

TWO days ago and not another incident since....that doesn't look like "sweeps" to me.

Quote:

Video footage of people being handcuffed, weapons were seized, people then released.

SOURCE PLEASE, or I'll shut this trash down right now. Turn on FOX or CNN dude; it IS NOT happening; nor is FORCED EVACS....should it happen in future, I'll be right with you. Should Blue Helmets appear on Bourbon St. with full auto weapons and APC's, I'll be right on it. But it IS NOT HAPPENING at this point.

Quote:

Hell, if you take a persons means to defend themselves in a situation like this, then leave them at the location, you may as well have forced evac them, you have left them no other choice but to evac, so its defacto forced evac.

You're right about that. Similarly, if fedgov disarms me they turn me into a potential slave and I have a Right to rebel......but, what if they HAVEN'T DISARMED ME? What if I just saw them take someone's gun and then listened to a whole lot of internet types and THOUGHT THEY'D DISARMED ME?

I'd be pretty much the fool, wouldn't I?
Rich

Rob P. · September 10, 2005, 07:09 PM

With respect to Rich Lucibella, this type situation just makes me PISSED!

ONE cop in charge and ONE gov't official saying what they said is enough. Following though even ONCE is sufficient. Sufficient for what? Sufficient to show that our "leaders" do not respect our rights. Not just our 2d amendment rights, but ALL our rights.

Someone with the NG (I didn't catch who/what rank) was filmed (I saw it) saying that they will follow the orders to force evac and confiscate arms. Good enuf for me to believe that our NG is a bunch of follow-orders sheep. Good enuf for me to believe that our "saviors" in times of trouble have no thought to saving ME - only themselves and their position.

Gentlemen, the 2d amendment is OUR RIGHT and it cannot be rescinded since it was never within the powers of the gov't to give it to us. We specifically withheld that from the gov't in the first place and we forbade the gov't from doing anything to limit or remove that right. The emergency order in Louisana has NO EFFECT on Federal Constitutional Rights.

This not about "cold dead hands" either. It's about all that little thing called The Bill of Rights and what it means. It means that we have the Right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The Right to own property. Right to peaceably assemble. Right to free speach and worship. Right to be compensated whenever the gov't takes our posessions for public use. Right to freely travel. The Right to be left alone (implied in the B of R's by SCOTUS). These are our RIGHTS which we were born with. And they are being trampled and obliterated in the name of "helping" the victims. To the detriment of those victims who need protection and to the benefit of those who have wealth and power enough to not.

At some point, we, as a nation, need to stand up to our government. That point is now. We NEED the NRA to organize a series of demonstrations in every city of gun owners who will PEACEFULLY and CAREFULLY and WITHOUT THREATS protest against the actions being taken in New Orleans against U.S. citizens. Not gun waving or sabre rattling, just peaceful and calm protest. We need this NOW at the first hint of oppression and not after it's "confirmed" as being ongoing. It is easier to stop this stuff before it gets going and has momentum. So what if we look like a bunch of overzealous madmen reacting to a "simple thing". It'll get the point across to not mess with the rights of the people. And it'll get the point across that WE THE PEOPLE are watching and that we will act when we feel the need.

This is where a strong leader will take charge to organize and stand up. Not as gun owners but as AMERICAN CITIZENS. So far all I've seen is political fluffys say wait & see. Seems to me that what they're really saying is wait & see if they get to keep their cushy job and political/social benefits by doing nothing.

**Rich Lucibella** · September 10, 2005, 07:26 PM

Quote:

ONE cop in charge and ONE gov't official saying what they said is enough. Following though even ONCE is sufficient. Sufficient for what? Sufficient to show that our "leaders" do not respect our rights. Not just our 2d amendment rights, but ALL our rights.

Oh, absolutely....and let's look at one lawful firearms owner. Shall we expand from his beliefs to the entire population of firearms owners?
I give you, Tim McVeigh.

Did you think the Media would deliver a report from "one" National Guardsman who might be quoted to say, "I don't know anything about the Mayor. I don't have the time nor the interest to enforce the Mayor's orders. I was asked to come down here and assist in Search and Rescue and that's what I'm gonna do"......snip....."what's that on the cutting room floor?"......"oh, nothing important".

My point is that it's REAL easy for firearms owners to appear as much the nut-case as The Brady Center.....I need only point to threads like this to prove my point.

Thread closed until such time as someone can provide us with current and credible reports that firearms sweeps are going on in NOLA.
Rich

September 10, 2005, 09:04 AM	#76
mvpel Senior Member Join Date: May 18, 2000 Location: Hooksett, NH Posts: 1,847	Here's part of the problem with the legal arguments, which Volokh has come up with: ==== The problem with this analysis is that the statute creates more than the power to "regulat[e]" the possession of fireams. It expressly creates the power to "regulat[e]" possession and the power to "control the possession" of firearms. Even if the power to regulate does not encompass the power to prohibit — a conclusion that seems plausible but not obvious, especially in the absence of any cases construing these terms — an order that individuals must give up possession of their firearms does seem to me to fall within the plain meaning of "controlling the possession" of firearms. It's not free of doubt, I think. But on balance, it seems to me that "controlling the possession" of an item in a state of emergency would include the authority for the state to take possession of the item. That is particularly likely because the statute grants the power to control possession in addition to the power to regulate possession; presumably the legislature intended control to be something beyond mere regulation. ===== So it would appear that arguing on the basis of the law would put us on shaky ground. It would be far better to argue on moral grounds, invoking the fundamental human right to self-defense, rather than arguing on legal grounds when the law itself is immoral. __________________ Not a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of Israel, because the Philistines had said, "Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears!" 1 Samuel 13:19

September 10, 2005, 09:53 AM	#77
Rich Lucibella Staff Join Date: October 6, 1998 Location: South Florida Posts: 10,229	From what I see, everyone needs to sit back and take a real deep breath on this. There were some early reports, yes. And we all saw the video of the elderly lady. But I'm getting zero intel that this is actively happening in NOLA neighborhoods. I think what we have is the rumor mill, once again being fueled by the incompetent and inconsistent local leaders: ie: Mayor and one Police official claim that they're forcibly evacuating people. City attorney and governor claim that they're not. NG states as clearly as possible that they are not involved in any such activity. Beat cops state the same. So, one police spokesman says they're gonna take away all firearms; we see one video of a lady with a handgun being manhandled. Next thing you know there's claims that our regular Military (engaged in no police action at all), cops from around the country and the Mexican Military are all there confiscating weapons.....and someone even escalates to UN Troops not being far behind. The media is still there, despite the Mayor's claim of a Media Blackout. It sounds to me like you have a small cadre of the Mayor and a few followers, trying to wrest control of the situation from the REAL workers by coming out with a new edict every day.....the workers look at him, shake their collective heads, and go back to their jobs....which they seem to be doing pretty damned well at this point. Unless we get some real FACTS that this is happening on a broad scale, there's gonna be an awful lot of embarrassed anonymous "handles" on this board. Rich __________________ S.W.A.T. Magazine Weapons, Training and Tactics for the Real World Join us at TFL or at AR15.com or on Facebook

September 10, 2005, 03:29 PM	#80
Wildcard Junior member Join Date: February 10, 2001 Location: midwest Posts: 782	Dave Koppel, "Defenseless on the Bayou" Defenseless On the Bayou New Orleans gun confiscation is foolish and illegal Dave Kopel In the nearly two weeks since Hurricane Katrina, the government of New Orleans has devolved from its traditional status as an elective kleptocracy into something far more dangerous: an anarcho-tyranny that refuses to protect the public from criminals while preventing people from protecting themselves. At the orders of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, the New Orleans Police, the National Guard, the Oklahoma National Guard, and U.S. Marshals have begun breaking into homes at gunpoint, confiscating their lawfully-owned firearms, and evicting the residents. "No one is allowed to be armed. We're going to take all the guns," says P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police. Last week, thousands of New Orleanians huddled in the Superdome and the Convention Center got a taste of anarcho-tyranny. Everyone entering those buildings was searched for firearms. So for a few days, they lived in a small world without guns. As in other such worlds, the weaker soon became the prey of the stronger. Tuesday's New Orleans Times-Picayune reported some of the grim results, as an Arkansas National Guardsman showed the reporter dozens of bodies rotting in a non-functional freezer. In the rest of the city, some police officers abandoned their posts, while others joined the looting spree. For several days, the ones who stayed on the job did not act to stop the looting that was going on right in front of them. To the extent that any homes or businesses were saved, the saviors were the many good citizens of New Orleans who defended their families, homes, and businesses with their own firearms. These people were operating within their legal rights. The law authorizes citizen's arrests for any felony, and in the past (in the 1964 case McKellar v. Mason), a Louisiana court held that shooting a property thief in the spine was a legitimate citizen's arrest. The aftermath of the hurricane has featured prominent stories of citizens legitimately defending lives and property. New Orleans lies on the north side of the Mississippi River, and the city of Algiers is on the south. The Times-Picayune detailed how dozens of neighbors in one part of Algiers had formed a militia. After a car-jacking and an attack on a home by looters, the neighborhood recognized the need for a common defense; they shared firearms, took turns on patrol, and guarded the elderly. Although the initial looting had resulted in a gun battle, once the patrols began, the militia never had to fire a shot. Likewise, the Garden District of New Orleans, one of the city's top tourist attractions, was protected by armed residents. The good gun-owning citizens of New Orleans and the surrounding areas ought to be thanked for helping to save some of their city after Mayor Nagin, incoherent and weeping, had fled to Baton Rouge. Yet instead these citizens are being victimized by a new round of home invasions and looting, these ones government-organized, for the purpose of firearms confiscation. The Mayor and Governor do have the legal authority to mandate evacuation, but failure to comply is a misdemeanor; so the authority to use force to compel evacuation goes no further than the power to effect a misdemeanor arrest. The preemptive confiscation of every private firearm in the city far exceeds any reasonable attempt to carry out misdemeanor arrests for persons who disobey orders to leave. 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. Last week, we saw an awful truth in New Orleans: A disaster can bring out predators ready to loot, rampage, and pillage the moment that they have the opportunity. Now we are seeing another awful truth: There is no shortage of police officers and National Guardsmen who will obey illegal orders to threaten peaceful citizens at gunpoint and confiscate their firearms. Dave Kopel is Research Director of the Independence Institute. http://www.reason.com/hod/dk091005.shtml

September 10, 2005, 05:11 PM	#82
Redondo Senior Member Join Date: August 19, 2001 Posts: 287	You guys are missing the little known clarifier to the 2nd Amendment. "The right to bear arms......". "Except during panic mode by the government, after hurricanes". This is an ugly precedent!

September 10, 2005, 07:09 PM	#85
Rob P. Junior member Join Date: September 7, 2005 Posts: 467	With respect to Rich Lucibella, this type situation just makes me PISSED! ONE cop in charge and ONE gov't official saying what they said is enough. Following though even ONCE is sufficient. Sufficient for what? Sufficient to show that our "leaders" do not respect our rights. Not just our 2d amendment rights, but ALL our rights. Someone with the NG (I didn't catch who/what rank) was filmed (I saw it) saying that they will follow the orders to force evac and confiscate arms. Good enuf for me to believe that our NG is a bunch of follow-orders sheep. Good enuf for me to believe that our "saviors" in times of trouble have no thought to saving ME - only themselves and their position. Gentlemen, the 2d amendment is OUR RIGHT and it cannot be rescinded since it was never within the powers of the gov't to give it to us. We specifically withheld that from the gov't in the first place and we forbade the gov't from doing anything to limit or remove that right. The emergency order in Louisana has NO EFFECT on Federal Constitutional Rights. This not about "cold dead hands" either. It's about all that little thing called The Bill of Rights and what it means. It means that we have the Right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The Right to own property. Right to peaceably assemble. Right to free speach and worship. Right to be compensated whenever the gov't takes our posessions for public use. Right to freely travel. The Right to be left alone (implied in the B of R's by SCOTUS). These are our RIGHTS which we were born with. And they are being trampled and obliterated in the name of "helping" the victims. To the detriment of those victims who need protection and to the benefit of those who have wealth and power enough to not. At some point, we, as a nation, need to stand up to our government. That point is now. We NEED the NRA to organize a series of demonstrations in every city of gun owners who will PEACEFULLY and CAREFULLY and WITHOUT THREATS protest against the actions being taken in New Orleans against U.S. citizens. Not gun waving or sabre rattling, just peaceful and calm protest. We need this NOW at the first hint of oppression and not after it's "confirmed" as being ongoing. It is easier to stop this stuff before it gets going and has momentum. So what if we look like a bunch of overzealous madmen reacting to a "simple thing". It'll get the point across to not mess with the rights of the people. And it'll get the point across that WE THE PEOPLE are watching and that we will act when we feel the need. This is where a strong leader will take charge to organize and stand up. Not as gun owners but as AMERICAN CITIZENS. So far all I've seen is political fluffys say wait & see. Seems to me that what they're really saying is wait & see if they get to keep their cushy job and political/social benefits by doing nothing.