I keep hearing that 'no one is talking about taking your guns', but it's happened before in the US within the last 10 years, on a massive scale.

[skypuppy 1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS67NUO5OAg

New Orleans gun grab. Guns taken without search warrants, without issuing receipts. Some smashed against the curb as the owners watched. Gun owners beat up if they expressed any reluctance to hand over their guns. Despite court rulings it took 3 years for the city to start giving the guns back from storage, and most had been irreparably damaged by poor storage conditions.

The city attorney was actually assigned some NRA and SAT costs personally for his recalcitrance.

upon being
told that Governor
Blanco had signed
into law a new
Louisiana statute
that prohibited law
enforcement from
confiscating
legally-owned
firearms during the
time of a civil
emergency, current
Superintendent of Police Warren
Riley made the following comment:
“During circumstances like that, we
cannot allow people to walk the
streets carrying guns. As law enforcement
officers, we will confiscate the
weapon if the person is walking
down the street, and they may be arrested.”
So the current chief of police in
New Orleans has stated in similar circumstances,
the police will again confiscate
legally-owned firearms, never
mind that Louisiana citizens have the
right to carry openly, can carry legally
in their cars, and can carry concealed
with a state-issued concealed carry
permit.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[Gravitymaster 0]

No, no. They are claiming "Obama " is not trying to take your guns.

[regulator 0]

It sounds like this applied only to people being caught with a weapon...or did they go door to door asking for citizens to hand them over?

[davjohns 1]

In a state with open carry, what is the difference? Are you suggesting geography makes the police actions legal even now that the courts have declared they were not?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

In a state with open carry, what is the difference? Are you suggesting geography makes the police actions legal even now that the courts have declared they were not?

Anyhow, in some cases, it looks like they went door to door.
The most well-respected moderate constitutional lawyer I know thinks that violated the 2nd Amendment. (Untimately, the courts agreed with him.)

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

It sounds like this applied only to people being caught with a weapon...or did they go door to door asking for citizens to hand them over?

watch the video in the link. They went door-to-door with ar-15's at-the-ready. They set up blockades as people were being ordered to evacuate (and to take their gun collections with them) -- and they confiscated those weapons. They pulled over people in boats who were taking their gun collections out of their flooded homes. They pulled up to tug boats who were towing barges they'd been asked to bring in with supplies, pointing weapons at them, and confiscated any hunting rifles or shotguns on board. They tackled a 58 year-old grandma who showed them she had a (unloaded) revolver to protect herself (inside her own home) kicking in her door and breaking her shoulder in three places , arresting her for not wanting to give it up...

I was not really aware of this entire situation, but if you google gun grab hurricane katrina, you can see this was a big operation...

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[Bignugget 0]

You know where else it's happened before?

Germany.

I can't remember if it was because of a hurricane or what, but I know I read something about it.

What confuses me is this is talking about a completely unlawful confiscation of the guns.

What is currently being debated is the passing of laws by democratic process.

How are those 2 related?

I guess the real fear should be what if the gun control guys don't get the laws they want passed. They might just send the SWAT team around to break grandmas shoulder and steal her revolver.

You guys should be supporting some more "useless laws" it will calm the gun control guys down and you won't have to face the Fourth Reich.

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

You know where else it's happened before?

Germany.

I can't remember if it was because of a hurricane or what, but I know I read something about it.

What confuses me is this is talking about a completely unlawful confiscation of the guns.

What is currently being debated is the passing of laws by democratic process.

How are those 2 related?

I guess the real fear should be what if the gun control guys don't get the laws they want passed. They might just send the SWAT team around to break grandmas shoulder and steal her revolver.

You guys should be supporting some more "useless laws" it will calm the gun control guys down and you won't have to face the Fourth Reich.

Did you look at the link? We;re talking about in the US, within the last 10 years, on a massive scale (thousands of guns). No one seems to be taking responsibility for it happening (national guardsmen, police from several states taking part, marshals, new orleans police) -- and no one seems to have apologized.

And the fact is, although it was later to be judged that it was wrong, many of the weapons were completely destroyed, without compensation, after they were illegally confiscated (although they claimed it was legal) and while it was sorted out.

On a national basis, IF laws were passed by presidential decree or otherwise, which were later to be overturned by SCOTUS (which so many other of Obama's hail mary passes seem to be doing), where is the protection for people already harmed by the laws 'so-called passing' before it's overturned?

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[Bignugget 0]

Which hail marys got overturned out of curiosity?

passed by democratic process. That is the only way laws get passed in the USA,

An executive order is part of the democratic process.

If a law was passed banning all your guns, it would be before SCOTUS well before it came into effect. Just like "Obamacare".

That is their protection.

There is no protection for the people who had their guns unlawfully seized. They should have fought back and not let the govt. take their guns. Obviously none of the people saying they won't give their guns up were from New Orleans.

[skypuppy 1]

again, watch the video. Maybe you won't be so surprised... A group of large CHIPs kicking a door down and throwing a 58 year-old 90 lb grandmother on the floor and breaking her arm in 3 places -- all when they knew there were cameras rolling -- shows these guys just didn't care if it was legal or not.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[wmw999 2,584]

Those evil Democrats! How dare they take guns! This would never happen under a Republican administration!

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Those evil Democrats! How dare they take guns! This would never happen under a Republican administration!

Wendy P.

Of course not. Republicans have the upmost respect for the constiution. They would never take away the rights of americans in the name of public safety.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Did you look at the link? We;re talking about in the US, within the last 10 years, on a massive scale (thousands of guns). No one seems to be taking responsibility for it happening (national guardsmen, police from several states taking part, marshals, new orleans police) -- and no one seems to have apologized.

I thought LEO and military would not carry out unconstitutional orders. I have seen lots of boasting about this lately.

Wha happened?

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Quote

Did you look at the link? We;re talking about in the US, within the last 10 years, on a massive scale (thousands of guns). No one seems to be taking responsibility for it happening (national guardsmen, police from several states taking part, marshals, new orleans police) -- and no one seems to have apologized.

I thought LEO and military would not carry out unconstitutional orders. I have seen lots of boasting about this lately.

Wha happened?

There is a video on youtube of a guardsman (brought in with his unit from Utah) who did go to his superior and tell them that his men would not go against the constitution and disarm civilians which they were hearing rumors about, but in the area they were posted they weren't doing that anyways.

It seems that there was a lot of confusion about whether this was legal or not (amongst LEO). The governor of the state and/or the mayor (both democrats) may have ordered it, or it may have been the police chief's idea (it went on for about 3 weeks before an injunction was put in place to stop it).

It seems it was the city that kept stored weapons (although many may have been destroyed on the street, some were in front of their owners), since they were eventually made to return them (although they had allowed them to deteriorate). I hope that the city was sued for compensation.

It seemed to take place in more than one jurisdiction, so it seems like it had to be more than just one police chief, but I don't know anything about the regional politics down there.

Since then, although no one has taken responsibility, the governor did sign a new law to make it illegal to disarm citizens without cause (as did some 21 states), but as you would see in my original post, the current police chief seems to think he would still go ahead and do it again.

i have to wonder if this is the police chiefs in the states, similar to what is happening about the First Nations protests in Canada where police are refusing to step in due to the old Ipperwash dispute where an Indian was killed and police were held accountable after an inquiry. I'm wondering if the events that inspired an action like this were the Rodney King riots in LA in which we saw armed patrols walking the streets, and police developed a protocol that in future riot-type events they would disarm everyone.

It seems though that might have back-fired seeing the legislative response to enact laws preventing them doing this in several states.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[CanuckInUSA 0]

All knives need to be seized immediately. We can not risk having people randomly stabbed.

Random stabbing sends six to hospital in Vancouver, Canada

Only when every knife is seized from society can we sleep easy at night.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Bertt 0]

The mayor in New Orleans took a lot of things he shouldn't have.

Quote

Ray Nagin, former New Orleans mayor, charged with taking bribes while in office.
A federal grand jury charged former Mayor Ray Nagin Friday with 21 counts of corruption, including six counts of bribery, one count of conspiracy, one count of money laundering, nine counts of deprivation of honest services through wire fraud and four counts of filing false tax returns, alleging that while in office, Nagin took cash bribes and gifts from two city contractors. Nagin's long-expected indictment arrived more than two and a half years after he left City Hall and relocated to the Dallas area.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/01/former_mayor_ray_nagin_charged.html

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[Bignugget 0]

I watched it....Im not surprised. Dangerous as hell to have all those people armed in the middle of a natural disaster and all packed together in a small area.....

Only reason I (as supreme commander of LA) wouldn't have been issuing the order to disarm people with guns is I would have already restricted them so heavily almost no one would have one.

You are talking in circles though.

If they don't care whether it is legal.....then they don't need to wait for a ban to come storm troopering in....

They were operating under the assumption that it was legal. When the court issued the injunction did the seizures stop? If so it seems like they do care about the legality.

You can't have it both ways. Either they didn't care and proceeded to operate unilaterally with disregard to the law. Or they listened to the court, stopped seizing guns, and returned the ones they had seized (broken apparently) but that is a civil issue (sue the city).

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

I watched it....Im not surprised. Dangerous as hell to have all those people armed in the middle of a natural disaster and all packed together in a small area.....

Only reason I (as supreme commander of LA) wouldn't have been issuing the order to disarm people with guns is I would have already restricted them so heavily almost no one would have one.

You are talking in circles though.

If they don't care whether it is legal.....then they don't need to wait for a ban to come storm troopering in....

They were operating under the assumption that it was legal. When the court issued the injunction did the seizures stop? If so it seems like they do care about the legality.

You can't have it both ways. Either they didn't care and proceeded to operate unilaterally with disregard to the law. Or they listened to the court, stopped seizing guns, and returned the ones they had seized (broken apparently) but that is a civil issue (sue the city).

It seems to me that the men on the ground assumed it was legal because they ordered to do it (mostly). The higher up mucky-mucks knew it was against the constitution when they ordered it, but didn't care. They resisted the court injunctions for weeks until they couldn't any longer, then stopped the confiscations.

It took the city over 3 years to comply to the order to return the weapons (some of which had actually been destroyed in front of their owners). Some of this delay was because the authorities out and out refused to issue receipts to gun owners when they took the weapons. But some of it was also because the city itself refused for months to admit they ever took guns from their owners. They only admitted they had them under threat of the mayor and solicitor being held in contempt.

it is worth noting that the city solicitor was fined PERSONALLY for concealing facts in the lawsuit.

So it is indeed a case of abuse of power (taking the guns) which was deemed to be illegal only after 1000's of weapons had ended up being destroyed and taking 3 years to get weapons back, if they were any good. Not to mention the civilians that were beaten up in the process (who knows how many were beaten up without cameras, or had their cameras taken as well).

I can find no indication that any compensation was ever given for any of the weapons, although it looks like the city had to pay legal costs for the other side (the NRA and SAF fronted the lawsuit) when they lost.

Even after clarification from state lawmakers passing a law to specifically forbid this happening again, the chief of police says he would do it again all over.

I can't believe this didn't make the news more at the time.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone