Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/9/2005 12:40:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2005 12:42:47 AM EDT by SteyrAUG]
I hope all you LA guys that are on the net are currently securing (re: HIDING) your weapons.

If you have friends in NO with guns and can get to them, DO IT. Sneak that shit out and hide it.

I'm absolutely convinced that nearly everyone who has their guns confiscated WILL NOT get them back.

Your senator and mayor are using this as an excuse to get rid of a LOT of guns. Dollars to donuts they will be destroyed as the government currently has few provisions to take care of people, they will NOT take care of your guns.

I can just see some poor bastard losing his entire personal collection as a result of political hysteria.

I hope the lawful gunowners of NO get sufficient warning of this to hide their guns or get them to a safe place.

This is nothing short of amazing.

Disasters are why we HAVE guns.

After Hurricane Andrew armed citizens were a common sight. Police didn't even bother people unless they were not handling them safely. I had my ID checked only ONE TIME and I was carrying a select fire HK G3 at the time. I checked out and was sent on my way with the other members of the group I was with, everyone of which was openly carrying.

Unreal.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 12:40:56 AM EDT
agreed.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 12:45:06 AM EDT
Any word on if it is just NO or surrounding areas as well? If they confiscate my guns I am going UA and turning some of the things I learned in iraq on the NOPD. At that point I will be "Protecting the country from threats external and INTERNAL"
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 12:50:00 AM EDT
This clusterfuck is going to resonate for years.

You know damn well the cops/NG, whoever aren't doing an inventory, recording serials, etc... I doubt the gun owner is given an itemized receipt for his property under the circumstances. How does the gunowner *prove* that his guns were confiscated? What happens if/when they turn up at a crime scene later? What about C3 stuff? God help a gunowner that "loses" an NFA firearm. When they aren't returned/go "missing" HTF is the gunowner going to claim them for insurance?

Nope, beyond the GLARING Constitutional issues that are causing my blood to boil, the practical ones make my head explode as well.

Link Posted: 9/9/2005 12:50:43 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 1:02:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2005 1:03:29 AM EDT by Mr45auto]
I'm a staunch defender of LEOs and believe most have "doing the right thing" in mind when performing their duties. That said, I would resist with force any attempts to illegally disarm me or my family. My dogs would be the first line, warning them not to enter or they would be released. After that comes a tough choice. Maybe a warning that I was armed and would repel any attempt to enter my home. I'd probably get shot in the end I have no desire to harm any LEO or military member but there is a line to be drawn.

As an LEO entering a home I would not comply with an order to disarm citizens. This action is ILLEGAL and cannot be justified.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 1:05:16 AM EDT
That is just plain Bullshit!!!

Armed citizens have keep looters away from private property after many disasters!!

As a Federal LEO I'm disgusted with the way this is being handled.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 1:07:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2005 1:14:51 AM EDT by Boom_Stick]
Those stupid.....looters of african American origin....they're the reason innocent law abiding people are getting their arms confiscated.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 1:13:42 AM EDT

"Your firearms seem to be lost due to the confusion at the time of confiscation. Sorry about that..."

Chief Of Po-leece NOLA

Link Posted: 9/9/2005 1:15:25 AM EDT
There is a tough choice to be made here. My personal line in the sand is when my otherwise lawfully owned and possessed weapons are about to be confiscated. The men that would come to take them are probably good men, men that in better times I might be friends with. But if I move back my line in the sand, even just once, then I have lost more than my firearms.

I can only hope that if I am ever in a situation like this the men who have come to take my weapons leave peacefully, without them. Because I cannot in good conscience allow them to leave peacefully with them.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 1:16:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Those stupid.....looters of african American origin....are the reason why innocent law abiding people are getting their arms confiscated.




Hmmm. Mandatory evacuation zone as ordered by Governor pursuant to powers granted to Governor by those same people who are now refusing to leave said zone while remaining armed. Sounds logical. IIRC, the order regarding weapons was that nobody in the evacuation zone WHERE NOBODY SHOULD BE NOW was going to be permitted to carry weapons except law enforcement.

Simple answer: weapons in cases, leave the zone, let the gov't get the water out, get water and sanitation back in operating order, so they can reopen the area to residents who can then return with their guns when the city can handle repopulation. It's really not that hard.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 1:16:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Those stupid.....looters of african American origin....they're the reason innocent law abiding people are getting their arms confiscated.



Don't make this a race issue. It doesn't have to be. I am pretty sure that most of the people who are having their weapons confiscated right now are minorities anyway.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 1:24:08 AM EDT
I truly hope it never comes to this. Apparently it is happening already under the guise of public safty.


Texas Penal Code.


§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful force.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows
is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace
officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or
search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under
Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or
attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly
communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing
he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts
to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or
discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences
with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section
46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in
violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is
justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;
and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this
subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.


§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A
person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;

(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not
apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time
of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the
habitation of the actor.

Link Posted: 9/9/2005 1:24:21 AM EDT

My personal line in the sand is when my otherwise lawfully owned and possessed weapons are about to be confiscated.

And that point has to be a line in the sand. Once the police take your weapons, they can, as the police have many times in just the past century, load you in cattle cars to take you to your death. You have to make your stand against the police before the point where they have taken your guns.z
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 1:30:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By zoom:

My personal line in the sand is when my otherwise lawfully owned and possessed weapons are about to be confiscated.

And that point has to be a line in the sand. Once the police take your weapons, they can, as the police have many times in just the past century, load you in cattle cars to take you to your death. You have to make your stand against the police before the point where they have taken your guns.z



Exactly. I think it is a perfectly logical place to draw a line in the sand, and one that only a fool would even want to cross.

Our country is going into the shitter, fast.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 1:33:38 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 1:43:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By npd233:

Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Those stupid.....looters of african American origin....are the reason why innocent law abiding people are getting their arms confiscated.




Hmmm. Mandatory evacuation zone as ordered by Governor pursuant to powers granted to Governor by those same people who are now refusing to leave said zone while remaining armed. Sounds logical. IIRC, the order regarding weapons was that nobody in the evacuation zone WHERE NOBODY SHOULD BE NOW was going to be permitted to carry weapons except law enforcement.

Simple answer: weapons in cases, leave the zone, let the gov't get the water out, get water and sanitation back in operating order, so they can reopen the area to residents who can then return with their guns when the city can handle repopulation. It's really not that hard.



Leaving now with your weapons apparently is not an option. If you have them they will be seized. That is unacceptable. I likely would have evac'd a long time ago but there are also houses in relatively untouched areas that the residents ( private property ) choose not to leave.

I guess since we all pay property taxes on our homes and they may be seized if we dont pay then we never actually own them anyhow. We live in our homes as long as the government lets us
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 1:57:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2005 2:06:34 AM EDT by Boom_Stick]

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Those stupid.....looters of african American origin....they're the reason innocent law abiding people are getting their arms confiscated.



Don't make this a race issue. It doesn't have to be. I am pretty sure that most of the people who are having their weapons confiscated right now are minorities anyway.


Wealthy whites are not a minority, and wealthy whites are not looting and shooting at choppers and rescue boats. Did you see the video of whites being flex cuffed and weapons confiscated in front of their homes?
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 2:07:36 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 2:10:44 AM EDT
I believe that certain elements of government and law enforcement will be watching this unfold as a test case, to see how people will react.

Those that stayed to defend their homes against the looters are probably more 'hard-core' than the general population, who either left or were rounded up early into the PooperDome, so if they can sweep and confiscate without much real conflict, they can probably safely assume that they can do the same to the rest of the country.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 2:11:50 AM EDT
I didn't see the video because I don't have a TV.

I just don't think this should be a race issue. If race is the cause of something, go ahead and make it a race issue.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 2:34:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By GreyHat:
small video



All I get here is audio, is there supposed to be video with it? Maybe some work filter
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 2:39:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DDiggler:
I believe that certain elements of government and law enforcement will be watching this unfold as a test case, to see how people will react.

Those that stayed to defend their homes against the looters are probably more 'hard-core' than the general population, who either left or were rounded up early into the PooperDome, so if they can sweep and confiscate without much real conflict, they can probably safely assume that they can do the same to the rest of the country.



...........and isn't that the truth. If not today or tomorrow or 10 years but soon and for some "national emergency".

A dangerous precedent. No help for a week and then when they do come they disarm you and have you report to the "camps". Sounds strangely familiar.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 2:48:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mr45auto:
I'm a staunch defender of LEOs and believe most have "doing the right thing" in mind when performing their duties. That said, I would resist with force any attempts to illegally disarm me or my family. My dogs would be the first line, warning them not to enter or they would be released. After that comes a tough choice. Maybe a warning that I was armed and would repel any attempt to enter my home. I'd probably get shot in the end I have no desire to harm any LEO or military member but there is a line to be drawn.

As an LEO entering a home I would not comply with an order to disarm citizens. This action is ILLEGAL and cannot be justified.


I'm sorry to say your dogs would shortly be full of holes from your welcome "rescuers".
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 2:58:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SC_00_05:

Originally Posted By Mr45auto:
I'm a staunch defender of LEOs and believe most have "doing the right thing" in mind when performing their duties. That said, I would resist with force any attempts to illegally disarm me or my family. My dogs would be the first line, warning them not to enter or they would be released. After that comes a tough choice. Maybe a warning that I was armed and would repel any attempt to enter my home. I'd probably get shot in the end I have no desire to harm any LEO or military member but there is a line to be drawn.

As an LEO entering a home I would not comply with an order to disarm citizens. This action is ILLEGAL and cannot be justified.


I'm sorry to say your dogs would shortly be full of holes from your welcome "rescuers".

It is ironic, a week ago there were lots of people that needed rescuing but the officals had their thumbs up their asses. Now they going in to "help" the people that don't want to be helped. That is the government for you.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 3:02:54 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 3:03:44 AM EDT
You know what needs to be done.

Link Posted: 9/9/2005 3:06:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By soowah:
I truly hope it never comes to this. Apparently it is happening already under the guise of public safty.


Texas Penal Code.


§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful force.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows
is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace
officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or
search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under
Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or
attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly
communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing
he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts
to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or
discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences
with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section
46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in
violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is
justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;
and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this
subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.


§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A
person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;

(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not
apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time
of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the
habitation of the actor.




Can somebody translate? I'd appreciate a legal opinion of the application of Texas law in the NO gun confiscation situation as it would pertain to resisting persons or firearms being removed.

These are watershed events.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 3:12:02 AM EDT
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.



I guess this mean nothing anymore, along with the other 9
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 5:47:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RustedAce:
Any word on if it is just NO or surrounding areas as well? If they confiscate my guns I am going UA and turning some of the things I learned in iraq on the NOPD. At that point I will be "Protecting the country from threats external and INTERNAL"




Glad some of our military still gets it.

The whole thing is bullshit, and I can't see the good people of Louisiana accepting it.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 6:10:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By SC_00_05:

Originally Posted By Mr45auto:
I'm a staunch defender of LEOs and believe most have "doing the right thing" in mind when performing their duties. That said, I would resist with force any attempts to illegally disarm me or my family. My dogs would be the first line, warning them not to enter or they would be released. After that comes a tough choice. Maybe a warning that I was armed and would repel any attempt to enter my home. I'd probably get shot in the end I have no desire to harm any LEO or military member but there is a line to be drawn.

As an LEO entering a home I would not comply with an order to disarm citizens. This action is ILLEGAL and cannot be justified.


I'm sorry to say your dogs would shortly be full of holes from your welcome "rescuers".

It is ironic, a week ago there were lots of people that needed rescuing but the officals had their thumbs up their asses. Now they going in to "help" the people that don't want to be helped. That is the government for you.



ain't that the truth!
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 6:22:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
So why don't you guys all get off your asses and light up the phone lines to the congresscritters in LA as well as your own states, as well...and the NO mayor's office, and the NOPD's office, and so on and so forth?


RAISE HELL. It needs to be done.


No confiscation without justification. Justification means a crime has actually been committed.

This is AMERICA. Let's ACT like it.


When will you people get your heads out of your asses and realize that the time for talk and legislative action is OVER and the time to act is now. Nothing short of the the entire population of this community (80k last time I heard) moving as a group into NO and actively engaging those enforcing an illegal, unconstitutional firearm and eviction order will put a stop to this.

The time for civil war 2 is now.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 6:30:35 AM EDT
Now I'm echoing the comments of the liberals that last week were saying "This is AMERICA, this shouldn't happen here"

At least Iraqis get one rifle per household... This is simply, in a word... unconscionable.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 6:31:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DDiggler:
You know what needs to be done.

dittmantechnologies.com/temppics/brick.jpg



Throw bricks? I'm not following you here. I've seen you post that pic in another thread several times and am wondering what part of the 2/a written in marker on a brick will do...

Not a flame, an honest question.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 6:39:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2005 6:42:07 AM EDT by _DR]
"It's good to see you Americans have finally come around to my way of thinking"

Link Posted: 9/9/2005 6:47:31 AM EDT
Saw this happen during the 1992 Los Angeles Riots, LAPD cruisers would take whatever firearms from people they encounter, even those that are legal, ie they possessed them on private property etc, gave the people a receipt and drove off. Later they were looted.

Also the state also denied people their gun during the rioting even though they met the required waiting period of 21 days, they were supposed to pickup their guns during the five days of rioting but were denied, their is nothing in the law saying that the govt could do this.

Also the sale of ammunition is banned 5 days before July 4th, and Jan 1.

Things to keep in mind.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 6:57:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By DDiggler:
You know what needs to be done.

dittmantechnologies.com/temppics/brick.jpg



Throw bricks? I'm not following you here. I've seen you post that pic in another thread several times and am wondering what part of the 2/a written in marker on a brick will do...

Not a flame, an honest question.



Read The Window War. I personally think it is a good idea.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 7:59:24 AM EDT
Just sent this note to all my .fedgov critters:

There are blatant and total violations of the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments happening in New Orleans, LA as we speak.

In the latest "evacuations," law-abiding citizens who have used firearms to protect themselves and their property during the hell of lawlessness that took place after Katrina, are having their arms seized by the government.

This is an absolute outrage and will not be tolerated! These citizens with arms were the last barrier between civilization and barbarism in New Orleans. Now, the same incompetent, Constitutionally ignorant idiots who run New Orleans and Louisiana are in willful and blatant violation of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. The actions of the police and National Guard at the orders of Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin are ILLEGAL and should be stopped immediately.

The remaining, law-abiding citizens of New Orleans are being unreasonably searched, stripped of property without just compensation, and are being denied the INALIENABLE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS and DEFEND THEMSELVES.

Had Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin done their jobs at the outset of this catastrophe, an environment of lawlessness and barbarism would not have taken hold, as an ample force of police and National Guard would have been in place within 24 hours after the hurricane. As it is, they failed, unleashed the lawless wolves on their citizens, and are now punishing those citizens for protecting their lives and livelihoods.

I have unyielding respect and admiration for sworn Peace Officers and military personnel everywhere. They are America’s finest and deserve our support for what they do. They have been put in a terrible position by incompetent leaders who are more focused on vote-buying, graft and patronage than protecting the rights of the people they serve.

I feel it is my duty as a US citizen to state that I will never allow my rights or the rights of my compatriots to be violated the way the people of New Orleans rights are being violated.

I am respectfully demanding you to use your abilities as my elected representative to do the following.

1. Craft a non-binding resolution stating that the federal government supports and defends the rights of all law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms to protect themselves, their neighbors and their property in disaster zones, especially in vacuums of law enforcement.

2. Immediately begin an investigation into the orders given by the governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans to confiscate the arms of law-abiding citizens as violations of the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as well as the Civil Rights Act.

3. Immediately deny non-disaster relief federal funding of any kind to any agency, state or locality currently engaged in the acts of seizing arms of law-abiding citizens in violation of the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as well as the Civil Rights Act.

4. Draft a resolution that all citizens whose arms have been seized will have them returned immediately. Furthermore, the resolution shall require that citizens whose arms were lost, damaged or destroyed in the seizure will be immediately compensated for those arms at current manufacturer’s suggested retail price and the citizen will be immune from prosecution should lost, damaged or destroyed arms be criminally misused by other persons. Finally, all citizens whose arms were illegally seized will receive restitution at 100 percent of the current manufacturer’s suggested retail price of their arms from a fund of the combined personal assets of Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin.

5. Draft an immediate, emergency resolution that all evacuees with arms shall keep them and shall be allowed to take their arms with them in a safe and responsible manner, with help from the National Guard.

Your help in this grave violation will be greatly appreciated.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 8:20:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By qualityhardware:
Just sent this note to all my .fedgov critters:

There are blatant and total violations of the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments happening in New Orleans, LA as we speak.

In the latest "evacuations," law-abiding citizens who have used firearms to protect themselves and their property during the hell of lawlessness that took place after Katrina, are having their arms seized by the government.

This is an absolute outrage and will not be tolerated! These citizens with arms were the last barrier between civilization and barbarism in New Orleans. Now, the same incompetent, Constitutionally ignorant idiots who run New Orleans and Louisiana are in willful and blatant violation of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. The actions of the police and National Guard at the orders of Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin are ILLEGAL and should be stopped immediately.

The remaining, law-abiding citizens of New Orleans are being unreasonably searched, stripped of property without just compensation, and are being denied the INALIENABLE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS and DEFEND THEMSELVES.

Had Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin done their jobs at the outset of this catastrophe, an environment of lawlessness and barbarism would not have taken hold, as an ample force of police and National Guard would have been in place within 24 hours after the hurricane. As it is, they failed, unleashed the lawless wolves on their citizens, and are now punishing those citizens for protecting their lives and livelihoods.

I have unyielding respect and admiration for sworn Peace Officers and military personnel everywhere. They are America’s finest and deserve our support for what they do. They have been put in a terrible position by incompetent leaders who are more focused on vote-buying, graft and patronage than protecting the rights of the people they serve.

I feel it is my duty as a US citizen to state that I will never allow my rights or the rights of my compatriots to be violated the way the people of New Orleans rights are being violated.

I am respectfully demanding you to use your abilities as my elected representative to do the following.

1. Craft a non-binding resolution stating that the federal government supports and defends the rights of all law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms to protect themselves, their neighbors and their property in disaster zones, especially in vacuums of law enforcement.

2. Immediately begin an investigation into the orders given by the governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans to confiscate the arms of law-abiding citizens as violations of the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as well as the Civil Rights Act.

3. Immediately deny non-disaster relief federal funding of any kind to any agency, state or locality currently engaged in the acts of seizing arms of law-abiding citizens in violation of the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as well as the Civil Rights Act.

4. Draft a resolution that all citizens whose arms have been seized will have them returned immediately. Furthermore, the resolution shall require that citizens whose arms were lost, damaged or destroyed in the seizure will be immediately compensated for those arms at current manufacturer’s suggested retail price and the citizen will be immune from prosecution should lost, damaged or destroyed arms be criminally misused by other persons. Finally, all citizens whose arms were illegally seized will receive restitution at 100 percent of the current manufacturer’s suggested retail price of their arms from a fund of the combined personal assets of Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin.

5. Draft an immediate, emergency resolution that all evacuees with arms shall keep them and shall be allowed to take their arms with them in a safe and responsible manner, with help from the National Guard.

Your help in this grave violation will be greatly appreciated.




very nice letter. Mind if I use it to send off to my .gov asshats?
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 8:48:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jmzd4:

very nice letter. Mind if I use it to send off to my .gov asshats?



By all means, please help yourself.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 9:00:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By qualityhardware:

Originally Posted By jmzd4:

very nice letter. Mind if I use it to send off to my .gov asshats?



By all means, please help yourself.



thanks. its on its way
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 9:48:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Airwolf:
This clusterfuck is going to resonate for years.

You know damn well the cops/NG, whoever aren't doing an inventory, recording serials, etc... I doubt the gun owner is given an itemized receipt for his property under the circumstances. How does the gunowner *prove* that his guns were confiscated? What happens if/when they turn up at a crime scene later? What about C3 stuff? God help a gunowner that "loses" an NFA firearm. When they aren't returned/go "missing" HTF is the gunowner going to claim them for insurance?

Nope, beyond the GLARING Constitutional issues that are causing my blood to boil, the practical ones make my head explode as well.




I believe they are being CONFISCATED not taken into custody.

This means owners will never see them again.

Some may be distributed to law enforcement for "official use" the rest will probably be destroyed.

Again, they do NOT have the capacity to take care of PEOPLE what makes you think for a second they will care for your PROPERTY. All they have to say is "We declared an emergency, etc...."
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 9:50:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By npd233:

Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Those stupid.....looters of african American origin....are the reason why innocent law abiding people are getting their arms confiscated.




Hmmm. Mandatory evacuation zone as ordered by Governor pursuant to powers granted to Governor by those same people who are now refusing to leave said zone while remaining armed. Sounds logical. IIRC, the order regarding weapons was that nobody in the evacuation zone WHERE NOBODY SHOULD BE NOW was going to be permitted to carry weapons except law enforcement.

Simple answer: weapons in cases, leave the zone, let the gov't get the water out, get water and sanitation back in operating order, so they can reopen the area to residents who can then return with their guns when the city can handle repopulation. It's really not that hard.



They will not let you leave with cased weapons. Trust me.

Many stayed to defend their property. Now they are being forcibly removed and their weapons are being confiscated.

This is NOT a simple situation.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 10:01:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By qualityhardware:

Originally Posted By jmzd4:

very nice letter. Mind if I use it to send off to my .gov asshats?



By all means, please help yourself.



I would like to use it as well.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 11:34:42 AM EDT
Well according to FOX (if true) nobody is being forcibly evacuated.

However there is no mention of if these people are ALL being disarmed and that could very well be the case.
Top Top