Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Posted: 10/11/2005 6:43:01 PM EDT
More proof the federal government doesn't trust it's citizens with firearms


www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3966989&nav=EyB0
Guns banned at FEMA trailer park

BAKER, La. Hurricane evacuees now living at the FEMA trailer park at Baker are banned from keeping firearms.

The gun ban is part of the lease residents sign to move into federal property.

The East Baton Rouge Sheriff's Office requested the ban for safety. A spokesman, Colonel Greg Phares, says the trailers are so light and close together that a shot could endanger a number of people.

One resident, Corey Barbarin, says a gun would make him feel safer. He says the ban is unconstitutional. Another resident who likes the ban, Linda Brooks, says there are too many kids in the park who could be in the line of fire.

Any residents of the park found with a gun will be evicted. So far no guns have been confiscated. The sheriff's office says guns given up voluntarily will be returned when the owner moves out.
Link Posted: 10/11/2005 6:46:10 PM EDT
How are they going to know that you have them?
Link Posted: 10/11/2005 6:56:39 PM EDT

Quoted:
The East Baton Rouge Sheriff's Office requested the ban for safety. A spokesman, Colonel Greg Phares, says the trailers are so light and close together that a shot could endanger a number of people.
.


How is that any different than any other mobile home park?
Link Posted: 10/11/2005 7:02:03 PM EDT
mother fuckers
Link Posted: 10/11/2005 7:04:27 PM EDT
I'd like to see this lease. I lived in a FEMA trailer park after Ivan and it says nothing about firearms in the lease I signed. The park rules state that the use of firearms is prohibited.
Link Posted: 10/11/2005 7:05:38 PM EDT

Quoted:
How are they going to know that you have them?

Link Posted: 10/11/2005 7:06:13 PM EDT

Quoted:


The East Baton Rouge Sheriff's Office requested the ban for safety. A spokesman, Colonel Greg Phares, says the trailers are so light and close together that a shot could endanger a number of people.




Will the police check their weapons before entering the trailer park, so their shots don't endanger a number of people?
Link Posted: 10/11/2005 7:07:27 PM EDT

The East Baton Rouge Sheriff's Office requested the ban for safety


I guess so they could go around and beat the older residents without fear of reprisal.
Link Posted: 10/11/2005 7:08:49 PM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:
The East Baton Rouge Sheriff's Office requested the ban for safety. A spokesman, Colonel Greg Phares, says the trailers are so light and close together that a shot could endanger a number of people.
.


How is that any different than any other mobile home park?



AAhm sure, the good colonel thoughts are as light as the trailers. Lawdee, lawdee, the State of LA shouldnt trust some of their OWN officers with guns. [or fists, for that matter]
Link Posted: 10/11/2005 7:09:01 PM EDT
FEMA has to play by the local's rules.
Link Posted: 10/11/2005 7:34:08 PM EDT

Quoted:
More proof the federal government doesn't trust it's citizens with firearms


www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3966989&nav=EyB0
Guns banned at FEMA trailer park

BAKER, La. Hurricane evacuees now living at the FEMA trailer park at Baker are banned from keeping firearms.

The gun ban is part of the lease residents sign to move into federal property.

The East Baton Rouge Sheriff's Office requested the ban for safety. A spokesman, Colonel Greg Phares, says the trailers are so light and close together that a shot could endanger a number of people.

One resident, Corey Barbarin, says a gun would make him feel safer. He says the ban is unconstitutional. Another resident who likes the ban, Linda Brooks, says there are too many kids in the park who could be in the line of fire.

Any residents of the park found with a gun will be evicted. So far no guns have been confiscated. The sheriff's office says guns given up voluntarily will be returned when the owner moves out.



I disagree - if they're living in a FedGov house, they need to abide by FedGov rules.

They don't like the rules - GTFO and get your own home.

Link Posted: 10/11/2005 8:46:45 PM EDT
Don't worry. The cops will be there to save and protect you..... Just look at the track record so far.



Macallan, I disagree with you. Do you give up your right to free speech when you check in? How about the right to be secure in your person and effects from search and seizure? How about the right to religion? Should I go on? There are plenty that are inalienable.

You know, some things are sacred. Don't you want to keep the rights you are losing everyday to encroachment? Why don't you get onboard and help us support and keep some of them rights?



Technically, the property is paid for out of taxes paid by all of us. So, technically, we should be making the rules because we as a whole, own the property and shelter. Oh wait. We did make them. Some 200 years ago. I keep forgetting.
Link Posted: 10/11/2005 8:54:47 PM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:
More proof the federal government doesn't trust it's citizens with firearms


www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3966989&nav=EyB0
Guns banned at FEMA trailer park

BAKER, La. Hurricane evacuees now living at the FEMA trailer park at Baker are banned from keeping firearms.

The gun ban is part of the lease residents sign to move into federal property.

The East Baton Rouge Sheriff's Office requested the ban for safety. A spokesman, Colonel Greg Phares, says the trailers are so light and close together that a shot could endanger a number of people.

One resident, Corey Barbarin, says a gun would make him feel safer. He says the ban is unconstitutional. Another resident who likes the ban, Linda Brooks, says there are too many kids in the park who could be in the line of fire.

Any residents of the park found with a gun will be evicted. So far no guns have been confiscated. The sheriff's office says guns given up voluntarily will be returned when the owner moves out.



I disagree - if they're living in a FedGov house, they need to abide by FedGov rules.

They don't like the rules - GTFO and get your own home.




So the federal government can cast the constitutuion aside when it decides so........   I know they have done it, they will do it and it can't be stopped but that still doesn't make it right.
Link Posted: 10/11/2005 9:29:16 PM EDT

Quoted:
Macallan, I disagree with you. Do you give up your right to free speech when you check in? How about the right to be secure in your person and effects from search and seizure? How about the right to religion? Should I go on? There are plenty that are inalienable.

Can I walk into the Supreme Court Chambers (payed for by MY tax dollars) any time I want and voice my opinion?

Do I have a "right" to carry a backback into the US Capitol without being stopped and searched?

Can I put up a cross and start holding church services at the Post Office?


What rights do you have that are "absolute"?

Link Posted: 10/11/2005 9:38:16 PM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:
I disagree - if they're living in a FedGov house, they need to abide by FedGov rules.

They don't like the rules - GTFO and get your own home.

So the federal government can cast the constitutuion aside when it decides so........   I know they have done it, they will do it and it can't be stopped but that still doesn't make it right.


If you're concerned about upholding the Constitution... WHERE in the Constitution does it even delegate to the Federal Gov't the power to set up taxpayer-funded "trailer parks" to house homeless people?

Where is "charity" an enumerated power of the Legislative or Executive branch of Gov't???



Link Posted: 10/11/2005 9:42:13 PM EDT
They should be allowed to search their trailers without a warrant, prohibit speech against FEMA, require them to house soldiers passing through, and prohibit them from practicing their religion on the property.

If they can piss on one civil right, they might as well piss on them all.
Link Posted: 10/11/2005 9:48:18 PM EDT

Quoted:
They should be allowed to search their trailers without a warrant, prohibit speech against FEMA, require them to house soldiers passing through, and prohibit them from practicing their religion on the property.

If they can piss on one civil right, they might as well piss on them all.

Maybe if they did, there'd be less parasites wanting to drain the taxpayer-funded federal slushfund.

Link Posted: 10/11/2005 9:51:44 PM EDT

Quoted:
How are they going to know that you have them?



+1, and if they're going to be asshole enough to do unwarranted, random searches/seizures in these trailers...better say fuck the gov't and find somewhere else to live.  This is a good time for people to be learning how to live off the land.  
Link Posted: 10/11/2005 9:56:10 PM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
I disagree - if they're living in a FedGov house, they need to abide by FedGov rules.

They don't like the rules - GTFO and get your own home.

So the federal government can cast the constitutuion aside when it decides so........   I know they have done it, they will do it and it can't be stopped but that still doesn't make it right.


If you're concerned about upholding the Constitution... WHERE in the Constitution does it even delegate to the Federal Gov't the power to set up taxpayer-funded "trailer parks" to house homeless people?

Where is "charity" an enumerated power of the Legislative or Executive branch of Gov't???






What is your point ?   It says we have a right to keep and bear arms, it does not state we have a right to free housing due to a disaster. I am more concerned with what it says we have a right to. The Constitution states we have the RKBA, period. I would hope that a stated right trumps any "privilege" the government bestows upon a group of people. I know it doesn't or won't though. The federal government has been over stepping it's bounds for almost 100 years, if you can justify that by saying that parts of the Constitution are null and void simply because they do other things not specifically mentioned then good for you. I prefer they stick to what is stated above whatever other policies are in effect but it is a dream and not reality.
Link Posted: 10/11/2005 10:00:47 PM EDT

Quoted:
mother fuckers



+1
Link Posted: 10/11/2005 10:03:02 PM EDT
my apartment complex has a BIG no firearms rule...you get evicted.

if they only knew....lol
Link Posted: 10/11/2005 10:04:51 PM EDT

Quoted:
my apartment complex has a BIG no firearms rule...you get evicted.

if they only knew....lol



South Florida ?
Link Posted: 10/11/2005 10:08:22 PM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
I disagree - if they're living in a FedGov house, they need to abide by FedGov rules.

They don't like the rules - GTFO and get your own home.

So the federal government can cast the constitutuion aside when it decides so........   I know they have done it, they will do it and it can't be stopped but that still doesn't make it right.


If you're concerned about upholding the Constitution... WHERE in the Constitution does it even delegate to the Federal Gov't the power to set up taxpayer-funded "trailer parks" to house homeless people?

Where is "charity" an enumerated power of the Legislative or Executive branch of Gov't???

What is your point ?   It says we have a right to keep and bear arms, it does not state we have a right to free housing due to a disaster. I am more concerned with what it says we have a right to. The Constitution states we have the RKBA, period.


So how come you don't get so bent out of shape about the millions of people a day forced to give up their RKBA to get on an airplane, enter a post office, go to the court house or walk into any other state or federal building?

Why in the hell is this even "news" - FedGov restricts RKBA on FedGov property. Wow that's a new one!

I'm not trying to be a jerk about it, you just need to understand that this happens MILLIONS of times a day to people when it comes to entering FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROPERTY and it never makes the news.

I guess my point is that if people don't like giving up their RKBA for free FedGov housing, like I said - they should get the fuck out ASAP and live on their own instead of under "mommy and daddy's" roof.

Link Posted: 10/11/2005 10:22:31 PM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
I disagree - if they're living in a FedGov house, they need to abide by FedGov rules.

They don't like the rules - GTFO and get your own home.

So the federal government can cast the constitutuion aside when it decides so........   I know they have done it, they will do it and it can't be stopped but that still doesn't make it right.


If you're concerned about upholding the Constitution... WHERE in the Constitution does it even delegate to the Federal Gov't the power to set up taxpayer-funded "trailer parks" to house homeless people?

Where is "charity" an enumerated power of the Legislative or Executive branch of Gov't???

What is your point ?   It says we have a right to keep and bear arms, it does not state we have a right to free housing due to a disaster. I am more concerned with what it says we have a right to. The Constitution states we have the RKBA, period.


So how come you don't get so bent out of shape about the millions of people a day forced to give up their RKBA to get on an airplane, enter a post office, go to the court house or walk into any other state or federal building?

Why in the hell is this even "news" - FedGov restricts RKBA on FedGov property. Wow that's a new one!

I'm not trying to be a jerk about it, you just need to understand that this happens MILLIONS of times a day to people when it comes to entering FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROPERTY and it never makes the news.

I guess my point is that if people don't like giving up their RKBA for free FedGov housing, like I said - they should get the fuck out ASAP and live on their own instead of under "mommy and daddy's" roof.




Thats why my first post said "MORE proof". Where did I state this was the first time this has happened ? I guess it shouldn't be news since so many people are used to being treated like this and then you have others that want to defend it.
Link Posted: 10/11/2005 10:23:59 PM EDT

Quoted:
my apartment complex has a BIG no firearms rule...you get evicted.

if they only knew....lol



Is that even legal?  
Link Posted: 10/11/2005 11:30:28 PM EDT
Is FEMA really still in LA? Sheesh...if Clinton was President, they'd have that mess cleaned up and be in Pakistan by now.
Link Posted: 10/12/2005 5:45:13 AM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
I disagree - if they're living in a FedGov house, they need to abide by FedGov rules.

They don't like the rules - GTFO and get your own home.

So the federal government can cast the constitutuion aside when it decides so........   I know they have done it, they will do it and it can't be stopped but that still doesn't make it right.


If you're concerned about upholding the Constitution... WHERE in the Constitution does it even delegate to the Federal Gov't the power to set up taxpayer-funded "trailer parks" to house homeless people?

Where is "charity" an enumerated power of the Legislative or Executive branch of Gov't???

What is your point ?   It says we have a right to keep and bear arms, it does not state we have a right to free housing due to a disaster. I am more concerned with what it says we have a right to. The Constitution states we have the RKBA, period.


So how come you don't get so bent out of shape about the millions of people a day forced to give up their RKBA to get on an airplane, enter a post office, go to the court house or walk into any other state or federal building?

Why in the hell is this even "news" - FedGov restricts RKBA on FedGov property. Wow that's a new one!

I'm not trying to be a jerk about it, you just need to understand that this happens MILLIONS of times a day to people when it comes to entering FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROPERTY and it never makes the news.

I guess my point is that if people don't like giving up their RKBA for free FedGov housing, like I said - they should get the fuck out ASAP and live on their own instead of under "mommy and daddy's" roof.




Your point is crap.  These folks are living there because their normal homes were destroyed by an act of nature, not because they WANT to live in a FEMA trailer park (excluding the 10% who actually do want to live there the rest of their lives).  I'd like to see you in a similar situation someday, and see whether or not you turn in your guns.

If you do, do you really think you should be posting on a pro-firearms website?

Link Posted: 10/12/2005 6:27:58 AM EDT

Quoted:
Can I walk into the Supreme Court Chambers (payed for by MY tax dollars) any time I want and voice my opinion?

Do I have a "right" to carry a backback into the US Capitol without being stopped and searched?

Can I put up a cross and start holding church services at the Post Office?


What rights do you have that are "absolute"?




Macallan, I guess my point is that you used to be able to do all these things, up to about 30 some years ago. Now you can't due to restrictions that people have submitted to in recent history. It's sad that we gave up those rights freely. We will never get those rights back without bloodshed and a fight.

I see you are bothered that the gov set up "free" housing on "your" dime and you feel these people are freeloaders. Okay, maybe so. But most of these people lost everything, were displaced, sometimes at gunpoint, or their complete house was destroyed. Not everybody has family that could take them in. There are some on this board that have used this very "service" from the gov, without the "no gun" restrictions. I have never received any type of "aid" assistance, myself.

I would like to see more people protest the disarmament of America and demand those rights be restored. I would expect support on a pro-gun site. I guess I expect too much. Why are you here?

Yes, I have protested about being disarmed at the airport and other places - to the point of almost being arrested. And, I routinely carry my firearm with me where ever I'm not subject to search or metal detector - sign or no sign. That's my protest.
Link Posted: 10/12/2005 9:34:05 AM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:
my apartment complex has a BIG no firearms rule...you get evicted.

if they only knew....lol



Is that even legal?  



yes and no, because since Im renting it is THEIR private property and they make the rules.
Link Posted: 10/12/2005 2:27:26 PM EDT
They should be allowed to search their trailers without a warrant, prohibit speech against FEMA, require them to house soldiers passing through, and prohibit them from practicing their religion on the property.

If they can piss on one civil right, they might as well piss on them all.



Maybe the Sheriff, his Deputies, and FEMA officials can just come in and have their way with your wife and daughters?

Under the Louisiana Constitution, Section 11. "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

So, the Sheriff has no legal power to do this under Louisiana Law.
Link Posted: 10/12/2005 2:43:39 PM EDT

Quoted:
They should be allowed to search their trailers without a warrant, prohibit speech against FEMA, require them to house soldiers passing through, and prohibit them from practicing their religion on the property.

If they can piss on one civil right, they might as well piss on them all.



Maybe the Sheriff, his Deputies, and FEMA officials can just come in and have their way with your wife and daughters?

Under the Louisiana Constitution, Section 11. "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

So, the Sheriff has no legal power to do this under Louisiana Law.



FEMA doesn't make the rules. They are "guests" in a community and pretty much have to follow whatever the county/city sets.
Top Top