[Mamzelle]

Well, "commandeering" in times of emergency is not new. Nor is it pleasant--but picture the man with a bulldozer refusing to let rescue workers use that bulldozer temporarily when a house falls down...or asking scalper's rent to do so. Keep in mind that the city must face the lawyers after the fact--I don't know if this story is "hell in a handbasket" without the other context of government seizing property in other ways.

Exploitation of eminent domain is not going without challenge. Many states are passing laws protecting property as we speak--inspired by the New London and Justice Souter. A jury found for an abused property owner in Greenville, SC just last year in a very important case where the city seized the riverfront property of a citizen, only to turn it over to a private developer. The city lost...huge.

[preacher]

EXECUTIVE ORDERS:
Bonfire for the Constitution

http://www.apfn.org/THEWINDS/archive/government/eobf6-97.html

[ChildOfThe60s]

"commandeering" in times of emergency is not new

No, and it's sometimes necessary in genuine, large scale emergencies. Problem is that the government has demonstrated absolutely no restraint so often when dealing with private property rights. Or just about any other personal freedoms that inconvenience the bureaucrats.

As far as guns are concerned. If you are not commiting a crime, then they have no business taking your gun. Period. Particularly in emergency situations where there is little law enforcement available. I remember Andrew (Miami). Lot of people there had to protect their property with firearms.