Another refugee community behind a gate and patrolled by police
No guns were allowed to the inmates here either
Posted on 10/11/2005 7:17:42 AM PDT by LA Woman3
A Second Amendment group is expressing "shock and disbelief" that people seeking refuge at a FEMA compound outside Baker, La., may not bring their firearms with them.
According to a report that aired on the Lehrer News Hour on Thursday, displaced New Orleans residents are being allowed to move into a trailer and RV compound called "FEMA City," but the conditions for residency include a ban on firearms.
"This is not acceptable." said Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb. He noted that the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association recently filed a lawsuit in New Orleans, winning a temporary restraining order against the confiscation of firearms by police in both New Orleans and in nearby St. Tammany Parish.
"It doesn't matter whether this refuge community is behind a gate, or whether it is patrolled by police and security guards," Gottlieb said. "This restriction appears to be illegal under Louisiana law and the state constitution, as well as under a federal court ruling some years ago that protected firearms owned by residents in a federal public housing facility in another state.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Another object lesson in the importance of self-reliance.
Another refugee community behind a gate and patrolled by police
No guns were allowed to the inmates here either
Guns are legal federally. Guns are legal state-wide. Guns are legal city-wide.
Where's the leglity of the ban?
The federal government is in control of the property in question. It can ban guns there just as legally as it bans guns from federal courthouses.
A mobile-home trailer-city set up by the government in Baton Rouge to house people whose homes were destroyed in a hurricane is a long, long, long way from Nazi death camps, and any comparison is specious at best.
I strongly disagree with law-abiding American citizens being prohibited from having guns, and I hope the lawsuit is successful, but those people can walk out of the door of that place any time they want, and no one is shoving them into ovens.
Nonsense. Not when the conditions are illegal and unconstitutional.
Funny no mention of banning marijuana, cocaine or methamphetamines.
Oh yea?
I thought "WE" were the government?
By your logic, the feds would not be able to ban weapons from federal courtrooms or even the local Social Security office. But they do.
The key point is, don't put yourself in a position to need housing from the feds, because you accept their terms, just as a landlord can set terms for a lease.
Maybe two centuries ago...
But back then, FEMA wouldn't be setting up trailer parks for hurricane victims, either.
Nonsense. My point being that the journey to slavery and death isn't instantaneous, but moves forward a step at a time. Disam those there. Confiscate these guns here. etc. I'm sure you've heard the expression "the longest journey begins with a single step." Gun confiscation, and forceable removal of people from their homes are two steps down a road we shouldn't be traveling.
Given the long existance of the legal concept of "ab initio", as in 'void ab initio' meaning void upon passage of the particular rule or law due to violation of Constitutional guarantees, I suggest that the FEMA rule may not automatically be valid.
I agree that gun confiscation and forceable removal of people from their homes are two steps down a road we shouldn't be traveling.
However, comparing reactionary security measures taken at FEMA City in Baton Rouge to Nazi death camps in Germany is like comparing police misconduct at "Freaknik" in Atlanta to aparthied in South Africa.
Specious, at best.
I understand your logic...but I respectfully dissagree.
These people "live" in these trailers....they don't "live" in federal courthouses.
Also, I find it confounding that the federal government can impose such restrictions by decree and without marshall law...
As in screaming fire in a theather, I also agree that firearms in a courtroom must be restricted....it's common sense.
Hey, I don't like the rule myself.
These people "live" in these trailers....they don't "live" in federal courthouses.
However, the trailers are under the jurisdiction of the federal government. So they can set the terms. If you don't want to live there, find an apartment that allows guns. Of course, that apartment will have other restrictions.
And, once again, at the time of the Founders, we would not have had FEMA setting up housing. That concept would have been completely alien. So this is what happens when the Fedgov slips the leash. They create extra-constitutional housing and then that gives them the property rights to restrict guns within that property. The Constitutional solution would be to not even have the federal government creating the trailer park in the first place, because then the fedgov could place no restrictions on them, since they don't control them. But no one wants to hear that right now.
Also, I find it confounding that the federal government can impose such restrictions by decree and without marshall law...
Since this is federal property, no martial law is required. Martial law would be required to take guns away from private citizens in their own omes.
As in screaming fire in a theather, I also agree that firearms in a courtroom must be restricted....it's common sense.
Common sense ain't got anything to do with it. Liberals don't make a lick of sense but they still have the right to protest. This edict doesn't make a lick of sense but the government does control the property in question.
I think you replied to the wrong message. I was quoting dirtboy.
Can the federal government ban guns in cars on interstate highways?
You missed the point - completely. That is the end of the path that these steps lead to. I don't know how else to say it so I won't try.
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.