if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
From My Wet, Drowned Hands
by Lee
I received this as an email alert from the NRA and I thought it was an important enough issue to post here.
As was reported last week, in the wake of unspeakable crimes perpetrated by roving, armed gangs and individuals, authorities in New Orleans seized legal firearms from lawful residents, effectively disarming the very citizenry they are sworn to protect.
On Monday, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox slammed New Orleans authorities for this incredible action.
“What we’ve seen in Louisiana--the breakdown of law and order in the aftermath of disaster--is exactly the kind of situation where the Second Amendment was intended to allow citizens to protect themselves, “ LaPierre said. “For state, local, or federal government to disarm these good people in their own homes using the threat of imminent deadly force, is unthinkable.”
“The NRA will not stand by while guns are confiscated from law-abiding people who’re trying to defend themselves,” Cox said. “We’re exploring every legal option available to protect the rights of lawful people in New Orleans.”To that end, NRA has put professional investigators to work on the ground in New Orleans and surrounding areas. News stories and members’ detailed accounts have been followed up on, but we need more information. Some of our best leads have come from rank and file law enforcement, but we need to hear from all directly affected citizens.
If you have personally had a gun confiscated in Louisiana since Hurricane Katrina hit, please call (888) 414-6333. Be prepared to leave only your name and immediate contact information so we can get back to you. Once again, we are seeking contact information from actual victims of gun confiscation in Louisiana only.
It is just astonishing to me (maybe it shouldn’t be) that in a city with armed gangs shooting at rescue workers the police decided that the best thing to do was to disarm the law-abiding citizens who were trying to defend themselves. If there is any incident which confirms the necessity and vitality of the Second Amendment it is the aftermath of Katrina.
Comments
They wanted to have a monopoly of gunpower. If citizens held weapons, it could have been harder to know the “bad guys” from the “good guys”.
They wanted to have a monopoly of gunpower.
The Second Amendment prevents exactly that monopoly, because the Constitution is a restraint on the government, not the citizenry.
The “bad guys” would be the ones roaming the streets, kicking in windows and doors. The “good guys” are the ones who registered their weapons and are quietly sitting at home, defending their property. Funny how it was only the registered guns that were seized, isn’t it?
Y’see, criminals don’t bother to get their guns registered. A quick phone call to ask “is this gun registered, and is this the guy to whom it is registered” would have taken no more time than running questionable license plates during a traffic stop.
If it comes back clean, that should end it.
A second hint would be the fact that the legal guns aren’t being used to shoot at the rescuers.
But being able to come to that conclusion would have required you to actually think - something you haven’t shown yourself capable of performing, so color me not surprised.
How where the guns taken? Going house by house and asking for guns or taking them from someone in the street?
A quick phone call to ask
Phones where working where they?
How where the guns taken? Going house by house and asking for guns or taking them from someone in the street?
going house to house. in fact there is a video of a officer tossing old lady down to get the pistol she kept in her house.
Ever heard of radio, dumbfuck? Do you think cops could ask a driver to wait while they found a pay phone at the corner market?
Or maybe cell phones, which WERE working when they started making seizures of legal guns.
There is also the fact that they had no legal authority to be seizing the guns from law abiding citizens in the first place, given the fact that we DO have a Second Amendment.
Of course, that would require that YOU think, too. I should have known better from a stupid sunnuvabitch like you.
Now piss off, puddles.
in fact there is a video of a officer tossing old lady down to get the pistol she kept in her house.
Yeah, that was adorable. NO’s finest.
“I have a gun, sir.”
“You do? Can I see it?”
“Here.”
*BODYSLAM*
There is also the fact that they had no legal authority to be seizing the guns from law abiding citizens in the first place, given the fact that we DO have a Second Amendment.
Beyond even the Second Amendment, the law clearly gives the NO Chief of Police absolutely no authority to order any such thing. Yet he did. The lawsuits should be swift yet painful.
going house to house. in fact there is a video of a officer tossing old lady down to get the pistol she kept in her house.
Got to admit then, that is damn stupid. If it was people in the street, even if they weren’t doing anything with the guns at the time, I would understand it. But going into houses makes absolutly no sense.
Ever heard of radio, dumbfuck? Do you think cops could ask a driver to wait while they found a pay phone at the corner market?
Surprised you still even have pay phones, but I was under the impression radio was screwed as well. If not, then fair enough - consider me corrected.
But really, Drum, chill out. Why are you always so angry?
Does Martial law make any difference? I really don’t know Drum so before you get all uppity again, this is a question not a statement.
Why are you always so stupid?
It isn’t ignorance, because ignorance can be corrected with information.
But you HAVE access to the information, you just don’t bother to actually process it.
Why is that? Is it an inbred thing? Or were you (repeatedly) dropped on your head as a child?
Ahhhh .. irrelevant:
Contrary to many media reports, martial law has not been declared in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, because no such term exists in Louisiana state law[4]. Rather, a state of emergency has been declared, which does give some powers similar to that of martial law. On the evening of August 31, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin did declare “martial law” (in name at least) in the city and said that “officers don’t have to worry about civil rights and Miranda rights in stopping the looters.” Another common rule during riots and disasters is a curfew from sunset until sunrise. [5]
Does Martial law make any difference?
Martial law is exactly what it sounds like - the military is enforcing the law.
But the legal ownership of guns is NOT a violation of any laws.
THINK before speaking, and people won’t laugh at you quite so much.
New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin did declare “martial law” (in name at least) in the city and said that “officers don’t have to worry about civil rights and Miranda rights in stopping the looters.”
I think these guys actually thought they could just make it up as they went along.
“officers don’t have to worry about civil rights and Miranda rights in stopping the looters.”
What was that little old lady looting? Or was that in her own home, and if so, which of them qualifies as the looter?
You:
But you HAVE access to the information, you just don’t bother to actually process it.
Me:
If not, then fair enough - consider me corrected.
I am quite fine with admitting when I made a mistake despite your childhood tantrums to that affect. I don’t come here because I know all the answers and know all the facts, but because I want to be challenged and hopefully learn something new. For that to happen, God forbid, I actually have to be wrong about things. Thats how learning works.
Why don’t you two get a room?
Here is something I am certain you have been exposed to in the past: the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. NOTHING else can override it, not even a “state of emergency” declared by an incompetent Mayor.
He has ordered his police to essentially ignore the real looters and seize the guns belonging to law-abiding citizens who are quietly sitting in their own homes.
What could POSSIBLY make this defensible? I know that your fellow Brits have voted to voluntarily emasculate themselves, hoping that the Government will always be benign, but that doesn’t apply here.
We have a Second Amendment for a reason. Try actually thinking first.
Why don’t you two get a room?
Two men enter, One man leaves…
Just remember which of us has the guns…
So this was, with out a doubt unconstitutional?
So this was, with out a doubt unconstitutional?
I guess “shall not be infringed” is too vague…
Drum,
As I said in my 2nd post on the subject, I agree with you. Going house to house and taking guns is rediculous. However, I might go further than you would, I think anyone walking around in the street not on a very obvious path to a refugee center in the middle of a disaster like this would be fair gain for disarming, even if at the time the police see them they are not doing anything wrong.
I have no idea if that’s legal or not, but given that lots of states don’t allow you to carry guns in public, I assume that some aspect of the state legal system can vote to temporary disallow people to carry guns in public. I am sure thats something you know more about.
But I agree, taking guns from people in their own houses seems beyond pointless. Its the people outside that are the problem.
Just remember which of us has the guns…
I am not sure I could get another tourist Visa for the US for a while given how long I spent out there so you might have to come to the UK ;)
Going house to house and taking guns is rediculous.
It’s not “rediculous” {sic}. It’s ILLEGAL.
I have no idea if that’s legal or not,
Read the Second Amendment again. Maybe that will clear up any misunderstanding you might be having. If not, then you are beyond hopeless.
I assume that some aspect of the state legal system can vote to temporary disallow people to carry guns in public.
IN PUBLIC. Not in their own homes.
taking guns from people in their own houses seems beyond pointless
It’s not that it is pointless, it’s ILLEGAL. Do you still not get that?
I’m thinking give them one gun and say that’s all you have. I have four or five.
I have no idea if that’s legal or not,
I was talking about taking guns from people in the public. I understand its unconstitutional when in their own home.
Problem badman is that they would search your home, forcibly.
and you know the anti-gunners always have promised that they would not support this going to people homes and taking guns....
Puddles, an action doesn’t suddenly become Constitutional just because it happens on the Street, rather than in a private home. The police cannot just snatch you off the street and lock you away in a back room, just because they caught you on the way to the mailbox, any more than they can kick down your door to do it.
and you know the anti-gunners always have promised that they would not support this going to people homes and taking guns....
Yeah, the anti gun people probably got a hard on hearing about this.
I saw a picture of sean penn in NO carrying a 12 Guage pump. Why didn’t they take his gun?
Puddles, an action doesn’t suddenly become Constitutional just because it happens on the Street, rather than in a private home. The police cannot just snatch you off the street and lock you away in a back room, just because they caught you on the way to the mailbox, any more than they can kick down your door to do it.
I understand that, but as I said above, some states don’t let you carry guns in public so assuming you can in Louisiana, there must be some legal process to go through that makes it now not legal to carry guns in public. What that is, I have no idea, whether they did that or if its included under declaring a State of Emergancy, again I have no idea. But it seems to be a very very different thing to me than gun grabbing from people in their houses which I why I asked what the situation was in post #1. Clearly there is no constitutional right to be able to walk down the street carrying a gun, given that in some places you can not. Or do I misunderstand that?
What that is, I have no idea, whether they did that or if its included under declaring a State of Emergancy, again I have no idea.
They didn’t and it wasn’t.
Clearly there is no constitutional right to be able to walk down the street carrying a gun, given that in some places you can not.
The Constitution guarantees both the right to keep *and* bear arms, not just to keep them, as in your home. Unfortunately, yes, some states have unconstitutionally banned public carry.
The police cannot just snatch you off the street and lock you away in a back room, just because they caught you on the way to the mailbox, any more than they can kick down your door to do it.
I hate to be the one to correct you Drum, but I believe they can. they MAY not be able to convict you of such but they CAN detain you and let the judge iron it out for his or herself.
Cops have all the power on the street and it is up to the judge to decide whether force was determined correct.
Unfortunately, yes, some states have unconstitutionally banned public carry.
If its unconstitutional, why hastn’t the supreme court got involved?
This is interesting when the supreme coutry prevented congress from forcing all schools to be gun free.
some states don’t let you carry guns in public
This was not on the street, this was going door-to-door and sezing guns from private individuals.
You keep bringing up “on the street”, as though the door-to-door would somehow be made legal.
Is isn’t. The cops went to their houses (ignoring the ones actually out doing the looting) and stole the guns from the law-abiding citizen.
That’s ILLEGAL.
The fact that you still keep trying to come up with some justification, even throwing in hypotheticals, just shows that You. Don’t. Get. It.
It isn’t ignorance, because you’re being given the facts, but are choosing to ignore them. It’s nothing but pure-quill, raw-gum stupidity.
Clearly there is no constitutional right to be able to walk down the street carrying a gun, given that in some places you can not. Or do I misunderstand that?
Only in your fevered imagination can you possibly equate “in their own homes” with “walking down the street”.
You’re obviously too stupid to understand the distinction.
If its unconstitutional, why hastn’t the supreme court got involved?
They’ve been asked to, frequently. Not you know what “judicial activism” means.
I hate to be the one to correct you Drum, but I believe they can. they MAY not be able to convict you of such but they CAN detain you and let the judge iron it out for his or herself.
Let me re-phrase, since you are suffering from the same disease as puddles.
I am not saying that it could not happen, since there is no physical law of nature to prevent it. But I’m not talking about rocks floating in mid-air. They cannot LEGALLY do that.
They cannot LEGALLY gun you down in cold blood, either. Yes, it is theoretically possible for that to happen. But the laws say differently.
That’s ILLEGAL.
The fact that you still keep trying to come up with some justification, even throwing in hypotheticals, just shows that You. Don’t. Get. It.
It isn’t ignorance, because you’re being given the facts, but are choosing to ignore them. It’s nothing but pure-quill, raw-gum stupidity.
For fucks sake drum you are being insanely stupid here. I UNDERSTAND that this case was illegal, I accepted that half the page ago, and not only accepted it was illegal but agreed it was wrong - yes the gun grabbing Brit agrees that taking the guns was wrong.
But since then I have quite clearly moved on to talking about the hypothetical taking of guns in the street. This is where I probably would disagree with you because I think the police should take the guns. I am now trying to understand if they can legally do that or not, hence my questions, but you seem to be stuck on what happened here which I agree with you half the page ago.
Posted by Badman7 on 09/17 at 09:47 AM
I saw a picture of sean penn in NO carrying a 12 Guage pump. Why didn’t they take his gun?
They probably thought he was filming a new movie, given that he had a cameraman and a publicist trailing along…
They’ve been asked to, frequently. Not you know what “judicial activism” means.
They won’t hear the case? Interesting.
But since then I have quite clearly moved on to talking about the hypothetical taking of guns in the street.
Why, yes, if that little old lady had been somehow caught shooting out windows and stealing TVs then the police would have been fully justified in arresting her and seizing the gun, because she was clearly violating the law.
And if little green space men came down and started and started handing our glassine baggies of heroin on Canal Street, the cops would be able to arrest them, too.
Since it’s all about the hypotheticals, and all.
Meanwhile, back in the REAL world, the cops are violating the Constitutional rights of provate citizens, and you’re talking about “what if?” scenarios that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
You must really enjoy it in your dream world… You seem to spend an awful lot of time there.
But whatever keeps you from killing yourself in despair…
Let me re-phrase, since you are suffering from the same disease as puddles.
I am not saying that it could not happen, since there is no physical law of nature to prevent it. But I’m not talking about rocks floating in mid-air. They cannot LEGALLY do that.
They cannot LEGALLY gun you down in cold blood, either. Yes, it is theoretically possible for that to happen. But the laws say differently.
Well, you seem to really be showing your age with that comment.
Cops can forego whatever the fuck rights you think you are entitiled to. They don’t even need to read you your Miranda.
you can file me in with Padders all you want but I live here in this country, and I have seen first hand that whatever the fuck right you pretend to think you have is erased the minute a cop points in your direction.
To you old timers, you think cops are just peacekeepers, but that is not the case these days. They are firestarters and revenue earners. it is not their jobs to react. They are out to create trouble.
Legally they cannot, but when they shoot a one year old child as an innocent bystander, there seems to be a shut down in the judicial process.
Curious. Robert Blake got shuffled through?
you can file me in with Padders all you want
Birds of a feather, and all that. Don’t like it? Quit saying such stupid shit. Padders has no excuse. You do.
Birds of a feather, and all that. Don’t like it? Quit saying such stupid shit. Padders has no excuse. You do.whatever Drum, either you have an audience of fools or you need to reflect on self.
Drum, seriously have you not taken your medication today or something? Talking about a hypothetical situation is now akin to living in a dream world and something to prevent me from suicide? Man, you must be having a bad day.
And if little green space men came down and started and started handing our glassine baggies of heroin on Canal Street, the cops would be able to arrest them, too.
Wouldn’t they have diplomatic immunity ;)
either you have an audience of fools
Saith one of the audience…
I’m out of here, have fun Manwhore :)
Saith one of the audience…
If I didn’t know you better it would be easy to react. I tend to agree that you live in a very small and isolated world.
I have had my issues with Padders, but I think you are jacking off to the idea of turning something into a plame.
Not my issue, but I will point out where I think you have lost touch with reality.
Talking about a hypothetical situation is now akin to living in a dream world
Look. The cops are taking away guns from real, living humans who have done nothing wrong, in a violation of the Constitutional rights.
You are trying to excuse it by saying that you can come up with some hypothetical situation in which the police might theoretically be justified in taking away guns from looters and vandals.
The reality is apples, and you are talking about koala bears.
I will point out where I think you have lost touch with reality.
Feel free. Tell me again, under what authority the cops are stealing guns from law-abiding citizens?
Boy, that reality, she’s a bitch…
I am currently reading a book on gun laws for the state of Texas. Fascinating read. There are many situations where you can carry concealed or otherwise without a permit. Such as keeping a long gun in your car.
They run many disclaimers stating that cops will probably arrest you in most cases, eventually returning your gun with an apology.
Basically stating that cops don’t like others to have guns and do not have a good understanding of the law.
You are trying to excuse
HOW many fucking times does it need to be said.
I think it was unconstitutional to take the guns. I think it was wrong to take the guns.
HOW MANY TIMES DO I NEED TO SAY IT?! What more do I need to do? Write letters to a random congressman? Phone someone? Stamp it on my forhead. I have said it numerous times now, what is your problem?
Now, I was trying to discuss the situation if it was a random person in the street not doing something different.
You see Drum, when talking with someone I disagree with on things I first try and find common ground (this case) but then try and see where we differ in opinion. I agree on this case as I have said 5+ times now, but I think I would disagree with you in regarding to gun grabbing a random walking around in the street in a disaster situation.
I think I would disagree with you in regarding to gun grabbing a random walking around in the street in a disaster situation.
No, you wouldn’t. The cops would be entirely justified in such a case.
THAT ISN’T WHAT WAS HAPPENING.
See what I mean about being presented with the facts, and then choosing to ignore them?
See what I mean about being presented with the facts, and then choosing to ignore them?
Yeah, it is almost as frustrating as selective quoting and issue abating…
THAT ISN’T WHAT WAS HAPPENING.
I know. For a normally intelligent person you are being fucking thick today.
For a normally intelligent person
You have no idea how much I wish that I could say the same of you - stupidity is truly tragic.
How does your mother cope?
Drum,
Not to throw gasoline, but, there is video out there of exactly the situation padders is talking about happening. I can’t find the link but the video shows a group of police coming up to a group of home owners protecting their block and taking their weapons and giving receipts. The quote from the owners was, “I think they are little worried since we are more heavily armed than they are.”
The NRA has issued a statement about this practice and is asking for anyone that had their arms seized to contact them for a class action lawsuit because the actions taken by the police were illegal. This may be the case that the Supremes finally end up ruling on for 2A rights.
As an aside, the cop that threw the old lady down was a Los Angeles County Sheriff. Seems it was easier for cops from the gun grabbing states to follow the order than the actual Lousiana LEOs.
I can’t find the link but the video shows a group of police coming up to a group of home owners protecting their block and taking their weapons and giving receipts.
Look, the Constitution is clear. Unless they can show that the citizens were violating a law, the police had no right to seize anything, receipts or no.
And laws about carrying weapons in public are against carrying that weapon concealed. If they could seize the weapon merely for having it in one’s possession, then all the cops would have to do is hang out outside the gun stores, and arrest anyone carrying his new purchase out the door.
The whole point of the Second Amendment is to allow the citizen to defend himself, his family and his property when the police are incapable of doing the job. That was clearly the situation, as everyone in the nation could see just by flipping on a TV set…
There were looters roaming the streets, reports of rape and armed assaults in the Superdome, and the cops are going after the law abiding types?
Makes sense only to those who don’t want the citizens to have that kind of power.
Drum,
I’m one of the most pro 2A guys you will ever meet, right up there with Publicola. However, there are quite a few places in the US where there are laws against having a gun in public. The link above shows what is happening down the road from me in Denver, to summerize, the city has stated that they are above State law and have created laws antithical to gun owners. This is why I’m hoping the case in NO makes it to SCOTUS so that myriad of laws can be clarified and simplified. The laws that exist in most states in regards to carry and possession constitute prior restraint, and should therefore be done away with.
However, there are quite a few places in the US where there are laws against having a gun in public.
Curious how those places always have the highest murder rates, isn’t it?
And how!
Padders, I didn’t have any trouble following the point you were making. Drum seems to need someone to chew on. I haven’t been available for most of the week cause of work. Manwhore will set a pick for you a time or two if it gets too intense.
beano, do/can you shoot?
Drum seems to need someone to chew on.
Not at all. I would much rather not have to keep correcting all of you Libtards when you make your dumbassed comments, but I do need the occasional reminder that the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
But Badman asks a good question.
I have another one: define gun control.
I have no doubt that this will culminate into Drumwaster asking me what professional experience I have dealing with guns, but I’m too much of a hardhead to help myself ;)
I can see a reason why the cops would want to do this.
The looters and criminals who are going around shooting at people may not be using guns that are legally registered to them; but those guns are most likely legally registered to somebody. Somebody who left them in their house to be stolen and used against other citizens, the police, and rescuers. If the law abiding citizens with the guns had proven that they were able to properly secure their guns, then those criminals wouldn’t have any, or atleast, wouldnt have as many.
Under normal circumstances, confiscating the guns of law abiding citizens wouldn’t do much to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, because those criminals can get them brought in from out of town. But I seriously doubt there is much in the way of a gun smuggling ring operating in New Orleans at this time.
What they are doing may or may not be Constitutional, I’m not a Constitutional scholar, but I know that there have always been circumstances where the temporary confiscation of legally owned guns has been deemed Constitutional by the courts. If you’re in the middle of a crime scene, and the cops find that you have a gun, they’re going to take it from you and give it back to you later, whether that gun is legally owned or not. The fact that they are giving these people receipts tells me that they intend to give them back.
Obviously going door to door is a lot different. I’m not exactly brimming with confidence for the discretion of the local officials, but I’d bet that their concern is not that the law abiding citizens are going to start going John Wayne on their neighbors, but that the lawlessness in the city makes it all the more likely that the guns of the law abiding citizens will fall into the hands of those who are rather less prone to abide by the law.
The Second Amendment is fairly concise, but it has been decided (wisely so in many cases), that it is not entirely absolute. Otherwise, I would have the right to have a ballistic missile silo built in my backyard. While an ideologically pure Constitionalist might argue that I should have that right, anybody with common sense can understand why I do not.
Peace
I can see a reason why the cops would want to do this.
Oh, great, more uninformed commentary.
The looters and criminals who are going around shooting at people may not be using guns that are legally registered to them; but those guns are most likely legally registered to somebody.
So figuring out the paperwork is important enough to override the Constitution? Or to leave these law-abiding citizens defenseless against the armed thugs that are known to be roaming and predating at will? And that while the cops are busily confiscating guns from the ones who are not breaking the law, those officers cannot be used to locate and round up the ones who ARE?
Why do they call it ‘common sense’ when it’s so rare?
What they are doing may or may not be Constitutional, I’m not a Constitutional scholar
Obviously. But I guess “shall not be infringed” is too vague for you, and needs to be “interpreted"…
Tell us, O Scholar, why did the Founders think it important to let the citizenry own weapons? So important, in fact, that they made a change to the Constitution spelling out the fact that the government shall never be able to take guns away from the citizens?
I can see a reason why the cops would want to do this.
I can see lots of reasons why the cops might WANT to do this. None of them good, and all of them unConstitutional.
Geefunk,
I understand that the cops have a difficult job to do and you and others sympathize and want to make it easier. There is a reason why it should remain more on the difficult side and this guy explains it better than I can.
Oh, great, more uninformed commentary.
You are quite predictable ;)
So figuring out the paperwork is important enough to override the Constitution? Or to leave these law-abiding citizens defenseless against the armed thugs that are known to be roaming and predating at will? And that while the cops are busily confiscating guns from the ones who are not breaking the law, those officers cannot be used to locate and round up the ones who ARE?
Not sure that paperwork has anything at all to do with anything that I said. What is registered to whom is irrelevent, who’s hands the guns are in, is.
Putting officers out to round up people who have illegal guns may not yield any guns. Going aroudn taking the guns that you know about, will almost certainly prevent atleast some more of those guns from falling into the wrong hands.
Why do they call it ‘common sense’ when it’s so rare?
Most people have it. Just because you don’t, doesn’t make it all that rare.
Obviously. But I guess “shall not be infringed” is too vague for you, and needs to be “interpreted”…
So are you then suggesting that I should have the right to own a ballistic missile? Or a room full of Stinger missiles? It is infringing upon my right to bear arms not to allow me to have them, isn’t it?
Tell us, O Scholar, why did the Founders think it important to let the citizenry own weapons? So important, in fact, that they made a change to the Constitution spelling out the fact that the government shall never be able to take guns away from the citizens?
I don’t pretend to have any special insight into the minds of our wig-wearing ancestors, but my personal feeling is that it was to give the citizens the right to keep the government from overstepping it’s bounds, and so that the citizenry can rise up to fight against foreign invaders. Hence the ‘well regulated militia’.
Personally I think that this should also extend to self-defense reasons. WHich is why I am a proud gun owner, a member of the NRA, and have a concealed-weapons permit in Florida. I enjoy my right to bear arms. But I don’t for a minute pretend that it is absolute under every conceivable circumstance, nor do I think that it should be.
The looters and criminals who are going around shooting at people may not be using guns that are legally registered to them; but those guns are most likely legally registered to somebody.
Louisiana doesn’t have gun registration as far as I’m aware.
So are you then suggesting that I should have the right to own a ballistic missile? Or a room full of Stinger missiles? It is infringing upon my right to bear arms not to allow me to have them, isn’t it?
There’s a difference between arms and ordnance.
There’s a difference between arms and ordnance.
Is that why we have nuclear arms control treaties and not nuclear ordnance control treaties?
I enjoy my right to bear arms. But I don’t for a minute pretend that it is absolute under every conceivable circumstance, nor do I think that it should be.
That is exactly where you are wrong. By making a statement like that you are saying there are circumstances where you can not be trusted. Do you not trust yourself? It is the governments obligation to trust each and everyone of its citizens until that citizen breaks the law or otherwise proves himself untrustworthy. The Constitution does not grant us rights, it spells out those rights that are innate in every individual. This goes back to my prior restraint arguement.
You are quite predictable ;)
As are you.
Not sure that paperwork has anything at all to do with anything that I said.
Except that it does. (See what I mean?) You claimed that the cops were only taking them away in order to track down the lawful owners. (Your exact words, just in case you were so stupid that you’ve already forgotten, were: “I can see a reason why the cops would want to do this. The looters and criminals who are going around shooting at people may not be using guns that are legally registered to them; but those guns are most likely legally registered to somebody.” and “Going aroudn taking the guns that you know about, will almost certainly prevent atleast some more of those guns from falling into the wrong hands.")
I don’t care what their arguments are, it is in violation of the Constitution, especially when the owners would have been able to show that they are the lawful owners. (Y’see, law-abiding citizens keep track of the paperwork.)
The cops wouldn’t have given them receipts if they thought they didn’t own them, right?
it was to give the citizens the right to keep the government from overstepping it’s bounds
Like violating the Constitution? Or stealing and looting?
Hence the ‘well regulated militia’.
Oh, so the word “people” in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eight, Ninth and Tenth Amendments mean “everyone in the nation, but the word “people” in the Second Amendment means “only specified government employees”. Is that right?
Or are you just talking out of your ass again?
Read this and then the Department of Justice opinion.
Is that why we have nuclear arms control treaties and not nuclear ordnance control treaties?
Yes. “Arms” is just a semantic term given to nuclear weapons.
Except that it does. (See what I mean?) You claimed that the cops were only taking them away in order to track down the lawful owners.
Reading is fun-da-mental. I never once said track down the lawful owners. I said the reason the cops were taking them away was so that they would not be stolen and fall into the hands of criminals. And I guess the fact that you lack basic reading comprehension skills makes this, or any, debate entirely useless. I might recommend a good English teacher, but I wouldn’t want to drive them crazy trying to deal with you.
Oh, so the word “people” in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eight, Ninth and Tenth Amendments mean “everyone in the nation, but the word “people” in the Second Amendment means “only specified government employees”. Is that right?
You really are a fucking moron. I never once said government employees. You asked me what reason I thought that they put that stipulation in the Constitution, and I answered it. The reason that the right to bear arms exists, and the people who that right extend to, are entirely different things. I don’t consider a militia to be government employees.
Anyway, continuing this line of thought is pointless, since as just continue to prove that you have zero reading comprehension skills, and whatever inadequacies and insecurities you may have with your own masculinity will continue to prevent any semblance of objective thought processes.
In other words:
That is exactly where you are wrong. By making a statement like that you are saying there are circumstances where you can not be trusted. Do you not trust yourself?
No, I don’t trust myself in all circumstances. Which is why I would never bring a gun to a bar.
And there are many circumstances where I wouldnt expect others to trust me.
Military materiel, such as weapons
“Arms” is just a semantic term given to nuclear weapons.
The Constitution also states, in its Preamble, that the government shall “provide for the common defense...ensure domestic tranquility” In the sense that private citizens “bear” a Stinger missile/launcher or nuclear weapon (if a nuke could even be “bearable”...I doubt those things are very light), the government could be justified in preventing this sort of “arms bearing”, as it has an overbearing public safety interest in doing so. It does not, however, have any overbearing public safety interest in preventing any single law-abiding citizen from bearing personal small arms.
It does not, however, have any overbearing public safety interest in preventing any single law-abiding citizen from bearing personal small arms.
They’re not denyign single law-abiding citizens anything, they’re denying it to ALL law-abiding citizens within the affected area.
And they’re only temporarily denying it to them, at a time when there are a lot of people running around with guns that they stole from law abiding citizens shooting at people who are trying to save the lives of law abiding citizens.
They’re not denyign single law-abiding citizens anything, they’re denying it to ALL law-abiding citizens within the affected area.
I know. There isn’t any overbearing public safety interest in denying it to ANY of them, yet they ARE denying it to ALL of them, with no underlying reasoning (that would stand up in court) why they should be disarmed in the first place. It’s not like the law-abiding ones are running around looting and shooting (hence the term Law-Abiding...if they were doing that, they would fall into the unlawful category, and be placed in the category of those that should be disarmed.
No, I don’t trust myself in all circumstances. Which is why I would never bring a gun to a bar.
Here is where we get to the nitty-gritty. You have proven that you are a responsible gun owner by choosing not to put yourself and the public at risk because you think you might drink if you are at said bar. I feel that you should be able to bring a gun to the bar if you do not drink. Once again, prior restraint. As long as you are behaving in an appropriate manner (i.e. not clouding your judgement with drink or drugs, firing a gun off randomly, etc.) you should be able to carry or possess anywhere. Alot of people use the phrase “you can’t yell fire in a crowded movie house”, which is true. But you don’t sew up peoples mouths when they enter this movie house do you? Of course not, same situation when owning and carrying weapons.
There isn’t a stipulation in the Second Amendment that indicates when it is OK to temporarily suspend anyone’s right to bear arms without any prior extenuating circumstances, like having just shot at rescue workers or something. And I’ll tell you what, not every law-abiding citizen still has the receipts for the gun(s). I know I don’t. And without any sort of registration system that tells the state that John Doe of Anytown owns a Colt Gold Cup .45 and a Remington Model 700 .30-06 (which is illegal, BTW, although that doesn’t seem to stop California), if the police are “temporarily confiscating” guns from peaceable folks without any kind of documentation, it’s the peoples’ word against the police as to who owns what. Getting them back could be a nightmare.
They’re not denyign single law-abiding citizens anything, they’re denying it to ALL law-abiding citizens within the affected area.
All of whom are single individuals. How many angels can you shoot off the head of a pin?
And they’re only temporarily denying it to them, at a time when there are a lot of people running around with guns that they stole from law abiding citizens shooting at people who are trying to save the lives of law abiding citizens.
Sorry, there is no “you’ll be slaves for just *a little while*” provision in the Constitution. Your liberties are inalienable and part of your person by merit of your being a living person, not because it’s in any public interest.
BTW, I was referring to the registration system as being illegal, not either of the two aforementioned firearms. Just to clarify.
As for larger ordinance, here’s a fun thought experiment to determine the intentions of the framers: How did the founding government address private ownership of artillery?
I don’t have time to address all of the points, but Surf, the cops are giving the people receipts for the guns when they confiscate them, and I presume that they are taking down the serial numbers, therefore they have documentation.
---
As far as the trust issue… that is true. But the other end of the spectrum, is others trusting me, not just me trusting me.
If there are a bunch of stolen guns being used to shoot at people, then obviously there are a bunch of people who couldn’t be trusted to properly secure their guns. Under normal circumstances, you know, normal police procedures would suffice. But this is not normal circumstances. Anybody that is playing with a full deck of cards probably would not be there. I know if I were a resident of New Orleans, me and my guns would be in another state. So if I WERE still in New Orleans, one might assume, correctly, that I was not in full control of my faculties. :p
Anyway, I’m not necessarily saying that what they did was right, but I can see reasons why they would do it, other than just having some irrational desire to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens.. And yes I know, maybe it’s technically illegal, but you know what, I technically break the law often myself when the circumstances call for it. Crossing the solid white line is technically illegal, but if there’s an 18-wheeler about to smash into the side of my truck, my ass is going across the line, especially if somebody else is in my passenger seat on the side of the vehicle that is about to get squashed. And if a cop decides to give me a ticket for it, that’s a ticket I’ll just have to take.
If whoever is in charge of this gun confiscation believes that they are protecting their citizens, even though they may technically be breaking the law, then maybe I would do the same if I were in their shoes, and deal with it later. Breaking the law wont hang over my conscience, but losing the lives of people I could have saved by breaking the law would.
There will be time for the voters to decide if they didnt like his call later.
...they said, as the Reichstag passed the Enabling Acts.“There will be time for the voters to decide if they didnt like his call later.”
Surfpunk is right, there are no provisions in The Constitution, the LA constitution, or the LA emegency provisions act ( Publicola has the germain parts)for the suspension of the right to keep and beer arms. What they did was illegal, immoral, and just plain wrong.
Surfpunk is right, there are no provisions in The Constitution, the LA constitution, or the LA emegency provisions act ( Publicola has the germain parts)for the suspension of the right to keep and beer arms. What they did was illegal, immoral, and just plain wrong.
Then why haven’t the feds come in and arrested them? I bet I can tell you why… I bet that some legal counsel at the FBI has looked over the law, and decided that what they did WASNT illegal.
...they said, as the Reichstag passed the Enabling Acts.
give me a break. its the aftermath of a fucking hurricane, the government is not trying to take over New Orleans for political purposes.
Anyway, have fun. Off to the real world I go ;)
Good debate; most of you anyway.
Peace
give me a break. its the aftermath of a fucking hurricane, the government is not trying to take over New Orleans for political purposes.
Nope, but this is a binary equation. The government can destroy your liberties “in the public interest” during an emergency (like a mere “fucking hurricane"), or they can’t.
I hold that they can’t. You hold that they can. The latter was exactly the basis on which the Reichstag Fire Act and the Enabling Act were passed. (That, and the Stormtroopers surrounding the Reichstag chanting “Give us the bill, or there will be fire and murder!”, International ANSWER style.)
If whoever is in charge of this gun confiscation believes that they are protecting their citizens, even though they may technically be breaking the law, then maybe I would do the same if I were in their shoes, and deal with it later. Breaking the law wont hang over my conscience, but losing the lives of people I
From what i got when i read about this originally, it was local and State decision. With the government bringing in private security, someone must have thought that the civilians didn’t need their guns because the “good guys” were in town providing protection.
‘bout time the NRA get to using the money we member sent them to do some serious work instead of calling you 4-5 time s a week asking for donations.
I am sure the lefties will defend this action as being necessary to protect the people from them selves or some such nonsense.
If the NRA doesn’t succeed in this matter, the next time there is a major disaster, FEMA or the state Governments will move to take your guns, for the common good. You can bet your ass on that.