Military/Law Enforcment illegally confiscating firearms in N.O

[JackTucky]

i need to find a copy of the video that was on oreily last night and good morning america this morning of two national guardsman taking a 70 year old, 90 lb woman to the ground in her own home to disarm her, and then cuffing and detaining her..without due process or a warrant..

I saw this.  Still have it on my Tivo.  They did subdue her, after she showed them her revolver.

I'm a gun owner (just recently since I moved to IN), and a law and order person.  I don't think they should be able to take our guns, but if there is an order to leave the city, then the police have the right to enforce that order and keep themselves safe at the same time.

What I'm questioning, is, what right does the mayor/governor have to make me leave a city?  IF they have that right/power, then I need to lay down my arms and comply.

If, on the other hand, the order was given by a government that I consider wrong, then I become a rebel, and I fight.

SO, I think, in this case, since it isn't Hitler or Mussolini telling me to move, I would turn in my gun and move.

That would make me mad though.  I just got the darn thing.

Art

[NoOne=NBA=]

what right does the mayor/governor have to make me leave a city?

None whatsoever--regardless of whatever law they THINK they passed.
States CANNOT pass legislation that will supercede the Constitution.
They have done so with respect to the 2nd Amendment only because the public has allowed it to this point.

The 4th amendment is quite clear in its wording, and they are currently violating EVERY portion of it.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The police cannot enter your house LEGALLY, without a warrant.
They can't GET a warrant without signing an affadavit (in front of a judge) telling that judge EXACTLY why they need to search your house, what they expect to find by doing so, and who they intend to arrest in the process.

They can make up whatever laws they want, but they can't LEGALLY enforce them.
I am hoping when this is all said and done that there are charges filed against any, and all, willing participants in this.

IF they have that right/power, then I need to lay down my arms and comply.

The smart money is on getting out of Dodge BEFORE it comes to something like this.

[NoOne=NBA=]

OK, I've contacted all my Congressional delegates.

I suggest you all do the same, unless you don't value anything our forefathers fought/died to give you.

Having served in the military, and currently in the process of applying to my local Sheriff reserves, Constitutional rights violations are something I just absolutely cannot tolerate.

[JCL]

OK, I've contacted all my Congressional delegates.

I suggest you all do the same, unless you don't value anything our forefathers fought/died to give you.

Having served in the military, and currently in the process of applying to my local Sheriff reserves, Constitutional rights violations are something I just absolutely cannot tolerate.

I applaud your attitude. Especially considering that law enforcement is often the people who most want to ignore rights when it is expedient. I wish you the best of luck with your endevour.

[crashwg]

OK, I've contacted all my Congressional delegates.

I suggest you all do the same, unless you don't value anything our forefathers fought/died to give you.

Having served in the military, and currently in the process of applying to my local Sheriff reserves, Constitutional rights violations are something I just absolutely cannot tolerate.

I second that!

I have done my part.  Contacted my representatives and expressed my severe disgust with what is happening in the south.

Who will be next?  We must make ourselves heard if we are to make any change!

Are there any wordsmiths on these boards?  Would someone be willing to assemble some sort of petition that we could perhaps use in our communities to make it easy for those who aren't quite sure how to make themselves heard? 

[paigeoliver]

What valid reason WOULD a person have to be roaming around a ruined city (that was ordered or evacuation over a week ago), carrying a firearm.

There is no valid reason.

[Grasshopper]

What valid reason WOULD a person have to be roaming around a ruined city (that was ordered or evacuation over a week ago), carrying a firearm.

There is no valid reason.

The first rational comment in this thread.

Surely people also have the right not to have their property looted and that is primarily why New Orleans is being evacuated. It's going to be pretty difficult to 'persuade' a potential looter to leave if you can't confiscate his weapons.

[markrvp]

What valid reason WOULD a person have to be roaming around a ruined city (that was ordered or evacuation over a week ago), carrying a firearm.

There is no valid reason.

The first rational comment in this thread.

Surely people also have the right not to have their property looted and that is primarily why New Orleans is being evacuated. It's going to be pretty difficult to 'persuade' a potential looter to leave if you can't confiscate his weapons.

If that were the case then the local police would be arresting and/or evacuating the looters, not taking elderly women to the ground. 

The people we are concerned with are the lawful gun-owning homeowners who are defending their property against the looters.  This is typical of government - disarm the lawabiding public and ignore the gun-toting criminals.

[TheVengeance]

What valid reason WOULD a person have to be roaming around a ruined city (that was ordered or evacuation over a week ago), carrying a firearm.

There is no valid reason.

The first rational comment in this thread.

Surely people also have the right not to have their property looted and that is primarily why New Orleans is being evacuated. It's going to be pretty difficult to 'persuade' a potential looter to leave if you can't confiscate his weapons.

If that were the case then the local police would be arresting and/or evacuating the looters, not taking elderly women to the ground.

[missioncontrol]

so I can exchange my human arms for bear arms.....

cool....

[Zakk]

Not to start a flame here, but let me get this straight: You all watched the horrors of Katrina on the TV, and chatted about it here and there, but really didn't do too much (in general), but when you hear of someone trying to take away someone's guns, you're writing your congressmen and throwing fits?

How about putting some of that energy into making sure that leaders don't ever let a travesty like this happen again.  THAT'S what you should be writing about. 

Like I said, not a flame, and of course I come from a country where we don't feel the need to fight for our right to own guns, but still, it really seems your priorities are misplaced! 

(and no, I'm not an anti-gun freak by any stretch, just trying to figure out the rationale).

[markrvp]

Not to start a flame here, but let me get this straight: You all watched the horrors of Katrina on the TV, and chatted about it here and there, but really didn't do too much (in general), but when you hear of someone trying to take away someone's guns, you're writing your congressmen and throwing fits?

How about putting some of that energy into making sure that leaders don't ever let a travesty like this happen again.

[saint]

The concern here is that politicians will use the excuse of a natural disaster to eliminate one of our biggest rights in this country.  Once that happens, it's kind of hard to stop them from taking away other rights.  What if politicians said, "hey it's a natural disaster, so we are going to confiscate news cameras so people don't get the wrong idea about what's happening here."  That would be an assault on our first amendment which protects the freedom of speech, religion, and press.  That is hypothetical,

Already been attempted. CNN.COM

[daywane]

strange.... I was military... trained never give up my gun...
now somebody wants it.....lets see who has better training.
I would go quietly... no problem. but my gun stays with me!

[daywane]

great news Saint! thanks. I was just getting a email off to fox news.
asking how were they just going to sit by on this.

[NoOne=NBA=]

Not to start a flame here, but let me get this straight: You all watched the horrors of Katrina on the TV, and chatted about it here and there, but really didn't do too much (in general), but when you hear of someone trying to take away someone's guns, you're writing your congressmen and throwing fits?

I've been upset at how this entire thing has been handled from the beginning, and have been very vocal about it in real life.

What you continue to fail to understand however is that our 2nd Amendment rights are the only thing actually PROTECTING your 1st, 4th, etc... rights.
If you don't have a gun, the police will feel free to kick in your door, and do whatever they want--as will the local burglar, drug addict, etc...

How about putting some of that energy into making sure that leaders don't ever let a travesty like this happen again.  THAT'S what you should be writing about. 

I've been calling for the mayor's and governor's heads from the beginning.
Why don't THEY have the courtesy to resign after botching this as badly as they have?

Like I said, not a flame, and of course I come from a country where we don't feel the need to fight for our right to own guns, but still, it really seems your priorities are misplaced!

How do you feel about police kicking in your door, and tackling you, going through your stuff, loading you on a bus, and sending you to a "camp" somewhere--all against your will?

How do you feel about police, and looters, running rampant without any press coverage to show it to the world?

How about the National Guard deciding YOUR house would make a good headquarters?



THAT is the rationale behind defense of the Constitution.
I defend all parts with equal zeal.
The reason you hear me getting vocal now is that, prior to this, there were no Constitutional rights violations.

The police down there have every right to take away guns from people that are OUTSIDE their property, and wandering about town.
I have no problem with that because they have laws against it that are LEGAL.
NOT covered by 2nd Amendment because the person wandering about when told to stay on their property is committing a crime.

They do NOT have any right to take cameras/camera cards (regardless of where the person is), or restrict access to the press however.
If what you are doing is RIGHT, then let it be on tape.
If you can't defend your actions in court at a later date, you need to rethink those actions.
ALL completely covered by 1st/4th Amendments--unless they believe a CRIME has been committed, police may NOT confiscate property from citizens without warrant and due process.

My biggest problem is when they go onto someone's property, detain them, and take their property (guns/cameras/etc...) however.
This is exactly the type of action that the Constitution was written to prevent.
Violates 1st/2nd/4th Amendments

[shmokes]

They most likely have the right to confiscate the weapons and enter homes without a warrant.  The only thing that gives me slight pause on this claim is the death of Rehnquist.  But our current Supreme Court is just EXTREMELY pro-law enforcement.  They are not friendly at all to 4th Amendment and have been whittling away at it and hte exclusionary rule (illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in court) for the past couple of decades.

I'd wager large sums of money that if this makes it to the Supreme Court it will be ruled that the State's interest in evacuating the city outweighed the privacy interests of the individules.  They'd chalk it up to exigent circumstances and move on.  Writing your congressmen isn't going to do a helluva lot because your congressmen have little power to declare that the police are acting unconstitutionally.  I suppose they write legislation creating a fund to compensate people for having their rights violated, but it's not like it would do much good to draft legislation stating that military and law enforcement officers need to follow consitutional mandates. 

[NoOne=NBA=]

They most likely have the right to confiscate the weapons and enter homes without a warrant.

The only exceptions to this policy are belief that a crime is being committed, time of war, and insurrection.
NONE of these is the case in this instance.

I'd wager large sums of money that if this makes it to the Supreme Court it will be ruled that the State's interest in evacuating the city outweighed the privacy interests of the individules.  They'd chalk it up to exigent circumstances and move on.

That may well be, but it is still NOT Constitutional.
The State's rights NEVER outweigh the rights of the people, except in cases of property for public use--and that was tempered by the "just compensation" clauses.
Unfortunately, even that has been violated recently with the decision that the State can take private property from one person to be used PRIVATELY by another.
Also unfortunately, it is the duty of the people to see that their rights are not violated.
Our society has become a bunch of complacent, government-dependant, victims.
Had society been that way in the beginning, we'd all still be British citizens.

Writing your congressmen isn't going to do a helluva lot because your congressmen have little power to declare that the police are acting unconstitutionally.

They can demand Congressional inquiry, and can further demand federal prosecution for any infractions found.
That is exactly what happened to the police in the Rodney King incident, which was far and away a much less intrusive violation to that which is happening in New Orleans today.
The police in that instance had just cause to stop him, just cause to use deadly force, and opted to use less-than-deadly force instead.
Had they simply shot him, after tasering him twice, and attempting to subdue him, that incident would never have been the issue that it was.

Having read the reports of the officers involved, he is VERY lucky to be alive today.
One officer on scene was prepared to shoot him, and stopped when another officer got into the line of fire.
This was immediately prior to the part where they all began beating him with their batons.

Contrast the severity of this scenario to New Orleans, where they are now entering people's houses who have not been accused, nor even SUSPECTED, of committing crimes.
Law enforcement is about enforcing laws.
There is no provision in law ENFORCEMENT for "proactive" suppression of crime.
It is entirely a "reactive" proposition.
That is why police can't arrest someone because you THINK they are on their way to kill you.
Protecting yourself is YOUR job.
Finding the person AFTER they kill you, and BEFORE they kill someone else, is the job of the police.

[Zakk]

It is entirely a "reactive" proposition.
That is why police can't arrest someone because you THINK they are on their way to kill you.
Protecting yourself is YOUR job.
Finding the person AFTER they kill you, and BEFORE they kill someone else, is the job of the police.

I'd say you're not getting enough bang for your tax buck on this.  Perhaps this is why the baby in the other thread got stabbed. It would have been the baby's job to protect itself. Or tha nanny should have been packin'.  Nothing to do about the demented freak beforehand, gotta wait till he goes after a baby.

I don't think I'd give a rat's --I'm attempting to get by the auto-censor and should be beaten after I re-read the rules-- if the police found the guy that killed myself or my children.  I'd want to avoid it.

 From your logic it's okay to kill Americans, just don't get caught after the deed!  (okay, that's a bit of a stretch, but you get the reasoning).

[TOK]

You're making his argument for him. By the time the cops get there it's all over. In many cases, their job is to call the coroner.  The justice system is easy on sex offenders and mental patients, so these a-holes get chance after chance until something like this happens... Unless the baby dies, this scumbag will probably be out walking the streets again within 24 months.

Unfortunately for this Nanny, she's a citizen of NY. Even if she wanted to protect herself, NY doesn't see fit to allow regular citizens to carry a concealed firearm.
Not even sure if you're allowed to carry pepper spray in the city, but I'd do it anyway.
 

[Crazy Cooter]

The concern here is that politicians will use the excuse of a natural disaster to eliminate one of our biggest rights in this country.

[DYNAGOD]

the most mindboggling aspect of this is if someone survied the hurricane, survived the flood waters, survived the armed looters and rapists, and was now sitting peacefully in their home after the waters are receding and the national guard have restored order,with an attic full of MRE's and 500 gallons of fresh water and a legally ownder AR-15,
why on earth are they NOW,almost two weeks after the fact breaking into peoples houses to take weapons and detain law abiding citizens on their own private property?
the goverment has overstepped its bounds and we can either roll over and say ,oh well ,or stand up and shout now before this kind of thing becomes the norm not the exception..
and the fact that theirs a civillin and and media camera blackout with orders to confiscate is just frightening,,if what your doing is legal ,then what are you afraid of the press or populace seeing and reporting?
the press should be there in droves in defiance of this order and do their job for once..'
it was bad enough to see press mannipulation during the elections, but this sets a whole new low, since when does the goverment control the media and press??

[DYNAGOD]

here it is, the video of an elderly womans home being invaded and violently taken to the ground, in United States of America...
 


if you havent seen it yet, you have to watch it..

[NoOne=NBA=]

I'd say you're not getting enough bang for your tax buck on this.

It was not a problem with the police force though.
They reacted decisively and quickly, and took the guy into custody a "short time" later--BEFORE he could hurt anyone else.
In short, they did THEIR job effectively, and in a timely manner.

It would have been the baby's job to protect itself. Or tha nanny should have been packin'. 

It WAS the nanny's job to protect the baby.
Society let her down by forcing her to go about unarmed in a very hostile climate; and made the climate even MORE hostile to her, by not removing that guy from it when given reason to.

Nothing to do about the demented freak beforehand, gotta wait till he goes after a baby.

There's plenty that SHOULD have been done.
My point is that it the police COULDN'T do anything about it, until after the fact though.

If the guy did have a history of mental instability, he should NEVER have been loose in society.
The mental health department, and possibly the courts, were at fault (if he had a criminal history of mental health problems)--NOT the police.

I don't think I'd give a rat's --I'm attempting to get by the auto-censor and should be beaten after I re-read the rules-- if the police found the guy that killed myself or my children.  I'd want to avoid it.

And you have a God-given RIGHT to do so; and a DUTY to your children to do so, as well.
HOW you do it is entirely up to you, however.

Your only real choices are to avoid the situation beforehand (VERY difficult to do because you can't anticipate where every wacko is going to be), or you can deal with it when it happens (by whatever means you deem appropriate).
SOCIETY has an obligation to you, to make public areas as safe as possible for you, and is failing miserably at that.
The problem is that society has begun to look past its own failures, and attempt to control the situations from the wrong side of the equation.

There is absolutely no way that you can rationalize that disarming the law-abiding population will do anything except make the job of these predatory individuals that much easier.

If YOU were a criminal, where would you look for victims?
Would you rather mug people at a Handgun Control Inc. meeting, or an NRA one?
If you had a knife, would you rather rob a grocery store, or a gun shop?
If you were looking for a place to burglarize, are you going to pick the guy's house with the "Just Say NO to Guns" bumper sticker, or the old lady's house with an "Insured by Smith and Wesson" one?

From your logic it's okay to kill Americans, just don't get caught after the deed!

Not at all.
I'm merely pointing out the reality of the situation.
The police DO not, and can NEVER be funded to the point that they can watch each individual at all times.
The reality of this is that, unless you hire full-time bodyguards yourself, self-defense means just that.
Further, YOU are directly responsible for the safety of your children.

[Stingray]

You couldn

[ChadTower]

You would not shoot the King of England.  He's already dead.  You'd be running around screaming zombies and thinking "hey cool, zombies".

[Stingray]

No zombie brits are coming in my house to steal my bread pudding, I'll tell you that much.

-S

[ChadTower]

Yeah, them damn Brits trying to find food they can eat without chewing.

[Zakk]

No zombie brits are coming in my house to steal my bread pudding, I'll tell you that much.

-S

You got bread pudding?  *Yum* 

[Stingray]

No zombie brits are coming in my house to steal my bread pudding, I'll tell you that much.

-S

You got bread pudding?  *Yum* 

And the English undead can have it when they pry my cold dead fingers from...

I think I'm starting to lose my point... assuming I had one to start off with.

So to sum it up, the asian chick on Battlestar Galactica is hot.

-S

[Zakk]

There is absolutely no way that you can rationalize that disarming the law-abiding population will do anything except make the job of these predatory individuals that much easier.

We are a society of 'disarmed' individuals, and it's pretty peaceful here.

[Zakk]

No zombie brits are coming in my house to steal my bread pudding, I'll tell you that much.

-S

You got bread pudding?

[ChadTower]

I think I know where to get some cold dead finger chili.

[DYNAGOD]

and this thread is a testimony to the minescule attention span of the American public..
27 hours 14 minutes before bread pudding overtook a constitutional debate..

were all doomed..

[ChadTower]

Titties with bread pudding on them.

[Stingray]

and this thread is a testimony to the minescule attention span of the American public..
27 hours 14 minutes before bread pudding overtook a constitutional debate..

were all doomed..

BAH! You just try and take away my right to bear bread pudding and see how focused my attention span can be. HEY LOOK! A BLUE CAR!!

-S

[Grasshopper]

and this thread is a testimony to the minescule attention span of the American public..
27 hours 14 minutes before bread pudding overtook a constitutional debate..

were all doomed..

We're just defending our constitutional right to be frivolous.

[Stingray]

and this thread is a testimony to the minescule attention span of the American public..
27 hours 14 minutes before bread pudding overtook a constitutional debate..

were all doomed..

We're just defending our constitutional right to be frivolous.

New sig line for Stingray.

-S

[NoOne=NBA=]

We are a society of 'disarmed' individuals, and it's pretty peaceful here.

You are also a very homogenous society, which accounts for the lower instance of crime to start with.

The three main factors affecting the crime rate in the U.S. are drugs, poverty, and racial integration.
People who would otherwise not commit crimes will do atrocious things to get their next fix, take from those they feel "owe it to them", or to pay back those they feel have slighted their race.
Canada lacks this predatory element within their society, for the most part.

If you look at non-poverty stricken, homogenous societies around the globe, MOST have low crime rates--regardless of gun ownership.
As the poverty level increases (many parts Africa and South America being a good example) the crime rates increase as well.

Looking also at cities within the U.S., the cities with the strictest gun control also have the highest violent crime rates.

If I saw the police barging into a house to take away someone's guns, I would think there was a real good reason for it, and not think of it again.

And I'm all for that--WITH PROPER WARRANTS.

If guns were used ONLY and I do mean ONLY for self defence, then I would wholeheartedly defend their use, but since they are overwhelmingly used for offensive purposes, I can't see the benefit.

There's a huge problem with that logic though.
The generally accepted statistics are that about 5 times as many guns are used to PREVENT crime, as to commit it.
The problems with obtaining absolute data on this subject cause it to be ignored/down-played by the anti-gun crowd.

The big problem with the statistics are that MOST crimes that are prevented, or stopped in progress, are due to the brandishing of a firearm, not the firing of one.
Many, such as an attempted rape, may go unreported.
Many may involve the illegal concealed carry of a firearm, and go unreported.

When suddenly surrounded by a group of late-teen males, martial arts, pepper spray, stunguns, calling 911, etc... just don't STOP crime.

Individuals who want to own guns should have to pass tests (such as literacy!!) and have reason to own a gun.

I'm not against testing; BUT, after passing such tests, I hold that the person should be able to carry a firearm anywhere they want.
If used imprudently, that person should be subject to the most severe penalties allowed by law.

As far as the reason to own a gun.....uh........have you seen what happened in New Orleans?
Did you see the Korean store owners defending their stores in the L.A. riots?
Civil chaos is the epitome of reason to me.
When local law enforcement fails, it is up to the individuals to protect themselves, and their property.

I'd obviously go and burgle the guy with two beemers in the driveway (because that guy spends his money on nice things)

Which is going to BE the guy with the "Just Say No to Guns" bumper-sticker, right between the "Kerry-Edwards" one, and the "Proud To Be A Soccer Mom" one.

However I couldn't in a million years think of arming my nanny to take care of the children.

I didn't say that you HAD to.
I pointed out that if she HAD been armed, the confrontation would have turned out alot differently.

[Crazy Cooter]

and this thread is a testimony to the minescule attention span of the American public..
27 hours 14 minutes before bread pudding overtook a constitutional debate..

were all doomed..

It's unbelieveable how true that statement is.  I'd actually be surprised if legislation isn't passed legalizing gun confiscation.