Posted on 05/16/2008 10:17:49 AM PDT by neverdem
It’s not often you watch a video where a frail, 98-pound grandmother is slammed into the wall by a burly police officer, handcuffed and dragged from her home — all because she refused to surrender her firearm and leave her home.
She was not a felon, drug dealer or other miscreant but was a homeowner in New Orleans immediately after Hurricane Katrina.
This somewhat brushed-over bit of history is reappearing in discussion on talk radio and other locations as we await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on the District of Columbia’s wholesale ban on handgun possession. In following the arguments and questioning by the justices in that case, I’ve found there are some unsettling similarities and actions by local government in New Orleans that clearly demonstrate the overused lawyer’s phrase of “a slippery slope.”
Perhaps the first ever wholesale government seizure of firearms in the modern age took place as municipal authorities were in the process of evacuating survivors of Hurricane Katrina and forcing many from their homes. What began as a confiscation of weapons from empty residences flowed to a removal of firearms from evacuees headed toward shelters and became an order to disarm the populace in the name of public safety.
Many in New Orleans at the time were attempting to protect themselves from looters and criminals taking advantage of an overstretched police presence. Some felt the police were not doing enough to protect them and they may have had a point. In October of 2006, the city fired 51 police workers for abandoning their posts during the hurricane and its aftermath; more officers had resigned.
It is not hard to see why some of the citizens felt they needed personal protection. This leads us to our grandmother, Patricia Konie, who was being filmed by a television crew explaining her decision to try and remain in her home and holding a rather antique looking revolver by the cylinder. We then see a large police officer lunge into the frame, slam her against the wall and take her into custody.
Now, the lack of the officer’s public-relations awareness is frightening enough. But instances of this sort prompted a lawsuit to be filed in federal court by the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation, alleging that the mayor, the superintendent of police, the sheriff and various unknown deputies engaged in a pattern or practice to deny the citizens their constitutional rights under the Second Amendment and equal protection under the law.
This lawsuit resulted in a consent order and injunction from the court, ordering the defendants to stop confiscating lawfully possessed firearms and to return those that had been confiscated to the rightful owners. This incident prompted the state of Louisiana, as well as a number of other states, to pass laws preventing their state and local governments from across-the-board seizures of firearms from people otherwise entitled to possess them in times of emergency. In October 2006, President Bush signed the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act into law.
Poor planning and a lack of leadership often lead to desperate measures. The District of Columbia also has been in a tempest of crime and in 1976 enacted the nation’s most repressive gun ownership ban, banning handgun ownership outright for everyone but law enforcement officers, and forcing the owners of long guns and shotguns to render them functionally useless for self-defense.
This measure was in place as Washington became the murder capital of the United States, which makes the connection between the regulation and its purpose extremely weak.
So now we wait for the first comprehensive ruling on the meaning of the Second Amendment since a 1939 case that sidestepped the personal-rights issue altogether. When we get that, maybe we’ll know a little more clearly if elderly women have a right to possess firearms to protect themselves.
Thank you. It seems to have worked.
I meant to type ‘you’, I corrected but I don’t know if you saw it.
Meant to say “Filo, just page Henry Bowman. He’ll help you out.”
Given Katrina, had marshall law been declared in that area at this time? If so, then with all due respect to the woman, its possible that law enforcement officials could justify their actions. Our constitutional rights are not absolute in all cases, in my opinion.
“No pit in Hell is deep enough or hot enough for brutish thugs like that.”
She should have sent him there. It would have sent a very clear message to the wannabe commando weekend warrior thugs.
Congratulations!
You think reading it is bad...I saw the video and the cop slammed her against a wall unbelieveably fast at the sight of the revoler in her hand which was in the safe position no bullets, the barrel open in her fingers...by the way the cops were imported cops...I beleive the one who slammed her was from CA you can read thier shoulder tabs.
She said I am in a non flodded area and i have all the food i need i don’t want to evacuate and I have my defense, she showed her gun and that’s when they guy slugged her.
I will never forget it. The guns of the people were never returned.
“Before you can shrug and say if the old woman wants to die, then let her, be aware that her surviving relatives can then sue like rabid wolverines for letting the “poor, helpless old lady die like an animal” in a flood.”
Please show me where “Mandatory Evacuations”, except for military emergency, have ever had the sanction of the law under our Constitution.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/537336_2
Not all law is found in the Constitution. Almost all laws are derivative from the Constitution. Granted, a lot are not, and instead are based in non-legal extrapolations, which means they should be repealed.
Until they are, by amendment, referendum at the State level, new law, judicial decision, or statutory neglect, they are legal.
My apologies. I got the link from Google, which allows you in, but when directly linked, it defaults to a sign-in.
Here is the Google link. It is the first linked page.
All based on the conceit that the state knows better than you what is good for you.
Hopefully, we will eventually put that concept to rest, but I have my doubts, when 50+ percent of the population *want* to be treated like little children.
I would like to note that there is a far worse fate than mandatory evacuation, something also mentioned on the link. It is mandatory quarantine, being forced to stay, even when you would be willing to leave everything else behind.
It is also a far worse fate that may be at issue, and soon, because of the avian flu pandemic threat.
There is no more authoritarian government agency than the public health service, in *any* country, when push comes to shove. And in the case of avian flu, even the government of North Korea is humble and obliging to its public health authority—while at the same time ignoring other epidemics in their cities.
The public health can, as needed, disallow all human rights. And if the situation warrants, they can even ask the US president for nuclear release. They can imprison, for life if necessary, without charge. They can prohibit free speech. They can involuntarily inject you with experimental drugs, or otherwise medicate or even perform surgery on you as they see fit.
They can order the destruction of aircraft in flight, ships at sea, and going back to the original point, they can turn your home into a prison, including giving police or soldiers the authority to shoot you on sight if you attempt to leave.
Whatever is necessary.
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.