Posted on 09/10/2005 1:33:08 PM PDT by publiusF27
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
I don't know what role they have in this, but there was a report that a special squad of BATF had gone to New Orleans. I would not be surprised to find out that indeed they are part of the gun confiscation scheme; certainly, it seems hard to imagine that they are there to enforce alcohol or tobacco laws.
Who the F**K gave them permission to suspend the Constitution and confiscate registered, private-property firearms???
This is sll SUCH b.s.; akin to Abdul walking through the metal detectors at the airport unmolested while I get wanded and stip-searched.
Here's one article about the BATFE special squad's exploits; I didn't see anything, though, about confiscation:
KATRINA'S AFTERMATH: Michigan squads lay down law in the South: Agents help round up shooters
I read a report that the BATF is assisting NOPD and LASP in the gun roundups, and that BATF may be put in charge of it.
It concerns me that there is more outrage over this, on DU, than we have managed to express, so far.
Don't we remember how to get really pissed off, these days?
The DUers are pissed about gungrabbing? I thought they liked gungrabbing? I'm confused.
"The DUers are pissed about gungrabbing? I thought they liked gungrabbing"?
I can see checking the guns, maybe, but other than those of convicted felons (including juvenile convictions!), return them when the folks left the 'dome, or when they left subsequent shelters. But those raped, assaulted and even killed in the Dome would really have liked to have been armed, don't you think. If anyone had a CHL, let them carry, they are certified good guys, and would have been a great help to the police (assuming any were there) and the Guard.
The comparable provision in the Louisiana Constitution is much clearer,
"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." Article 1, Section 11.
but apparently no body gives a rat's patootie about any stinking Constitution .
"The Lord made all men but Samuel Colt made them equal."
It doesn't apply to federal agents, only federal military. Elian's abductors were INS agents, IIRC. Of course when "agents" wear body armor, Kevlar helmets, and carry either submachine guns or assault rifles, the difference between them and a standing army is pretty academic.
Anyone who thinks this is only about guns had better start paying attention.
Only if the removal of firearms rights was an explicit part of the sentence, is the "due process" criteria satisfied. Can you imagine the howling if they couldn't speak their mind, or publish their opinions? If they couldn't worship at the Church of their choice? Or if they lost their 4th and 5th amendment rights, even after their time, including any probation, is served? Some rights are just more equal than others I guess. The only other "right" they lose, voting, wasn't even considered a right until after the Civil War, but it's not explicitly protected in the Constitution either, unless the denial is for a limited number of reasons, i.e. sec, race, previous condition of servitude.
No such thing as "registered" firearm in LA. They have no registration of firearms, no permission to purchase, nor license to possess. They do have a CHL system, and prohibit unlicensed *concealed* carry, as permitted by their state constitution.
Well, it that specific instance the P.C.A. would have prevented needless and massave bloodshed from u.S. troops being crushed attempting to defend prez C. against a inundating cataclysmic stampeding torrent of millions of virulently pizzed off TEXANS on their way to DC.
So I ask you what is the proper response when an agent demands your gun? What are the choices? Are there any choices?
Dave Kopel is not an unbiased source for this kind of information and in this specific instance I can testify first-hand that the facts have been "massaged" to convey the image he wants you to have.
I am a member of the Oklahoma National Guard and I am in New Orleans right now. I'm working in the Headquarters for Task Force Orleans and I have access to the J-3, J-2 and the PAO for confirmation on all this.
Three have been, and to my knowledge still are, confiscations of firearms going on. As we enter buildings, when firearms are found they are removed from the premises.
Here's what Mr. Kopel isn't telling you.
One of the events early on in this city was a great deal of looting and one of the commodities most sought was firearms. In every case were we find firearms (and many were found, not in homes, but simply in the streets) they are being collected and turned over to the ATF.
ATF is running traces on all the recovered weapons. When their legal owners are determined, the weapons will be returned to them.
This is far more a matter of firearms restoration than of confiscation...but that doesn't fit Mr. Kopel's agenda.
Our job, as National Guardmen, is to support the local authorities. The orders for this came from local law enforcement. The federal authorities could not have given such an order, and if they had, we would not have been bound to follow it. This is the consequence of the Posse Commitatus Act.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.