The government confiscated guns in New Orleans from citizens.

[Renew Deal]

I hope you all appreciate and cherish the Bill of Rights because they are being destroyed. Did you ever believe the government would never take your guns away? Well they have done so once already. And not only did they take citizens legal guns away, they let corporate (Blackwater) mercenaries keep theirs.

NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 8 - Waters were receding across this flood-beaten city today as police officers began confiscating weapons, including legally registered firearms, from civilians in preparation for a mass forced evacuation of the residents still living here.

No civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns or other firearms, said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said.

But that order apparently does not apply to hundreds of security guards hired by businesses and some wealthy individuals to protect property. The guards, employees of private security companies like Blackwater, openly carry M-16's and other assault rifles. Mr. Compass said that he was aware of the private guards, but that the police had no plans to make them give up their weapons.
<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/08/national/nationalspecial/08cnd-storm.html?ex=1283832000&en=1aa360b408b7bd56&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Cherish your rights. Protect them now so you don't have to protect them more fiercely later.

[Deja Q]

1. So much for the 2nd Amendment...

:(

or

:D

it depends on your point of view

[SmokingJacket]

8. The 2nd amendment is not my favorite, but it's THERE.

And it's for EXACTLY this reason that it's there -- so that citizens can defend themselves against rogue government.

Personally, I hate guns -- but seeing the govt confiscate them to control citizens freaks me the hell out.

[MrBenchley]

95. And it covers a well regulated state milita and nothing more....

A shootout would have helped the flood victims, how, precisely?

[Recursion]

45. Look, I know I'm a heretic here

But to me, if losing the 2nd Amendment is any less of a "frowny emoticon" than losing the 1st, we have a pretty big gulf between our wolrdviews

[anewdeal]

108. They'll take the first after they take the second

in that order

[applegrove]

2. UM - remember how the rescuers had to stand down because

there was no law & order on the streets? Remember how psychologically the government had to get control of the streets because they sat on their hands and let it get out of control the first week?

Remember that?

[Renew Deal]

3. So you're saying it was planned?

[applegrove]

5. That the Bush WH did nothing but put incompetents in place? That's

been their plan for government all along. Nobody planned the Hurricane. Local planners ignored the need for better levies. Neocons love social engineering and don't have the human capacity to respond to crisis (other than Cheney on the horn to electricity companies to get power to big oil). Nothing was done. Was that a plan? Well - if you are in power and you do nothing than is a decision no?

There is vast amounts of institutional knowledge throughout the US government on lawlessness in times of crisis etc. Blanco was being ignored and told to submit the proper format for WH help - and phrases like "everything you got" were not acceptable to the adolescents running the WH in those early days.

And the people who chose to stay on vacation (perhaps more worried about stock markets as the aristocracy might very well be during a time of crisis) and left adolescents in the WH to run things during a crisis. Is that a plan? Yep.

When you are in power... you are in power. The faulty neocon gage on humanity was exposed during the crisis. When that became apparent the public was ordered not to "come to any conclusions" till the WH could try and work its way out of a crisis they ignored for two days. The Pentagon made a pity play on Wednesday night "why is everyone so upset about Katrina victims - think of what we are going through in this crisis tonight".

If you are narcissistic and get into power and rule that way and act that way and believe in your powers of discernment re: what matters and what does not... you obviously are responsible and plan your administration that way. Anyone else every ignored a humanitarian crisis while in power? Civil rights were ignored. Slavery were ignored. Labour laws were ignored and then the issue was solved by voting.

Who else is responsible for that horror? The one that took place in Washington side by side with the Katrina crisis? Where a laxidaisical syncopat was put in charge of Fema? Are the people of New Orleans responsible for that too? Did they force Condi to be shoe shopping? Did they bring up people like Cheney & Bush to have "gages" that would value stock market stability over humanitarian needs? And filter potential flooding of New Orleans through that prism?

[RandiFan1290]

4. You mean the stories that were debunked long ago?

Like the snipers shooting at helicopters? Or was it the gangs of black men raping babies all over the city? There was something "psychological" going on and it had nothing to do with getting control of the streets.

[applegrove]

6. I mean that the rescue was stopped for a few days because realistically

or not, the government lost control over a major city during a crisis that had a lead up time of three days.

That is what I mean. It isn't about who was shooting guns while the police had no numbers or gas for cars at night. It is about the people who did not get rescue workers to travel by boat to their homes, hear some screaming and cut through the roof with a saw. It is about the people who gave up on rescue and tried to swim to safety and drown. It is about the people who struggled for days on roofs. It is about the elderly who did not get rescued from hospitals for a week. Rescue.

[benEzra]

13. The rescues halted because the authorities were cluelessly dithering

and FEMA was blocking most of the would-be rescuers because of petty bureaucratic squabbling anyway...

You might notice that the gun confiscations were occurring in DRY neighborhoods where nobody needed to be rescued. And those officers doing the home invasions could have been elsewhere rescuing people in flooded areas, but no, saving lives wasn't the priority...

[earth mom]

23. I'm not buying your rethuglican meme.

The so called "looting" and the so called "chaos" was only a B.S. meme to provide a reason to justify why FEMA aka the Government/Pretzledent WOULD NOT help those people. People were hungry and thirsty, their homes were wrecked and full of water for gawds sake! Rescuers were ordered not to help them even the rescuers were willing to go in and do whatever it took to help those people! It was ALL a DAMN LIE!

So, DO NOT push that ugly rethuglican meme around here! The people of NOLA were treated like yesterdays trash by the government in charge and the majority of the people in this country saw it on T.V. and DID NOT like what they saw!

FYI-Most people know bullshit when they see it. :grr:

[Leopolds Ghost]

44. It was the plan all along to sit back and "Let the n**s shoot it out"

"...next time the Big One hits." And everyone knew it would hit.

Read up on your louisiana history, it's all in interviews dating back to the 1920s and up to 2000 (National Geographic's walk down the Delta, for instance)

They use the same mentality to justify instability and repression in prisons. "Those people are animals, you don't want to go in there."

It is prison guard rhetoric.

Intimately familiar to anyone in the security industry -- home of the U.S. Fascist.

They said it to the people that engaed in Jail Solidarity during the globalization protests of 2000-01.

[Leopolds Ghost]

49. Remember, the NRA Slogan plays right into their hands -- inadvertently.

"If guns are criminalized, then only criminals will own guns."

Well, guess what, Mr. NRA Man???

That's exactly what the criminals in Government want.

Then they can remove the competition (street criminals) by targeting
all armed resistance in times of crisis, having sidelined legitimate
civilian authority.

NRA fools have been tricked into thinking it is a racial issue. They will readily give away their guns and reverse every other cherished position if it protects them from the Black or Brown Menace. Orwell called it doublethink.

The Anglo-Saxons and Franks, 1000 years ago, called it la droit du seigneur -- not just the ability to rape but the general acceptance of a double-standard for the upper and lower classes. Looked at it from that angle, it's not doublethink at all.

If a vast middle exists, they must be co-opted and made to believe that they have the rights of the upper class, if not the rewards. Like ancient Rome, are moving towards a feudal society with a vast class of formerly middle class laborers that consider themselves "impoverished aristocrats". This is a common phenomenon in many declining societies.

They have the rights to separate them from the underclass, as a consolation for being denied the rewards of a free society or an egalitarian economy. That's why they aren't afraid of being picked up late at night on the side of the highway and prosecuted as vagrants.

[Oak2004]

101. The NRA has been fighting this gun grab from the beginning

Just as the NRA has fought blanket gun bans in housing projects.

The NRA is not about racism. It's a single-issue group that has supported pro-gun Dems as well as pro-gun Republicans. And I don't know yet, but I will bet, that the NRA is going to be up in arms (no pun intended) over the gov't spying databases, esp. since we know that they constitute de-facto national gun registration.

[applegrove]

85. Or looting on the TV would have been politically expedient as GOP

bonding goes.

[applegrove]

84. The problem was no national guard to maintain order. So the rescues

stopped. When Blanco said "everything you got", WH said "please, in point form format - we need a list". Were you not watching the West Wing last night? Surly the national guard could have carried out not a few grey old dames from nursing homes on their back. They didnt' have enough boots on the ground. And they had two days where they just sat there and did nothing. Problem - cavalry - rescue.

[jeffrey_X]

58. "the government had to get control of the streets"

Do you know this for a fact or this just what the MSM kept repeating over and over again, so that's what we believe happened?

[applegrove]

88. The rescuers stood down. St Bernard nursing home. Dead people

developed on Thursday & Friday.. yes? Panic & lawlessness predictable by many agencies collective institutional knowledge in Washington.

[MrBenchley]

96. But don't you understand? They needed a bunch of armed loonies

running around shooting it out with each other....(snicker)

No rest for the trigger happy, I guess.

[sandnsea]

7. And it was the right thing to do too

Good lord. There's no reason anybody should be out on the streets with guns in the middle of that kind of disaster. If they had adequate national guard and emergency workers in there, there wouldn't have been any crime going on anyway. Just no other way to get a handle on things except to tell people to leave their guns at home and if they're caught on the street with one, it's going to be confiscated. There's nothing unconstitutional about it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. I agree

[benEzra]

11. They were cuffing homeowners on the sidewalks

and going IN THEIR HOMES to search for guns. Without search warrants or even probable cause.

The officers doing the confiscating committed too many felonies to count (unlawful entry, assault, unlawful imprisonment, theft of a firearm, violation of civil rights under color of law). Some of those carry a sentence of at least 10 years in Federal prison. And you're saying that was the "right thing to do"?

Whatever you believe about the desirability of civilians owning firearms, the fact that an official could suspend the entire bill of rights and send police/National Guard house-to-house without warrant to kick in the doors of innocent people and confiscate their personal property at gunpoint is unspeakably wrong. This is the Milgram experiment on a grand scale. U.S. citizens who have done nothing wrong, handcuffed and sitting on the sidewalk while troops ransack their houses...THIS IS NOT AMERICA. It is contrary to everything America stands for.

Or is it only a violation of civil rights when it's someone you AGREE WITH with getting their door kicked in without so much as probable cause, their family flex-cuffed in the street, and their home ransacked by guys with machineguns? I guess you hold the Fourth Amendment in as much contempt as you do the Second?

Is this the kind of America you want to live in: http://www.gunowners.org/abcnews.mpg (9.73MB video)? Notice that soldier at the end, just back from Iraq, talking about the possibility of "shooting Americans"...

This has actually been a very active topic on DU, and VERY few DU'ers agree with what was done.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=112984
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=112975
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=113355
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=113430
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=113936
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=119280
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=113031
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=123124
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=123757
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=123967

...with at least that many more in General Discussion and General Discussion: Politics.

[sandnsea]

14. Complete bullshit distortion

They were trying to get the last people out of the city, people who possibly had mental illness or mental retardation and didn't understand why they needed to leave. Those videos had absolutely NOTHING to do with the guns.

The order was: "No civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns or other firearms, said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said." Operative word, CARRY.

Don't even get me started on some of the gun nuts on DU. They'll say any damned thing, just like the right wing NRA nuts.

[benEzra]

16. Guess you didn't actually watch the video, eh?

complete bullshit distortion...They were trying to get the last people out of the city, people who possibly had mental illness or mental retardation and didn't understand why they needed to leave. Those videos had absolutely NOTHING to do with the guns.

Those people in that video were homeowners very much in their right mind, who had their guns forcibly confiscated but were NOT evacuated.

It came out later that the door-to-door confiscations were not isolated incidents. The line you're parroting was also the line the authorities gave the Federal court that looked into the situation...the court called BS on them and issued a restraining order, and ordered the illegally siezed guns returned...

The order was: "No civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns or other firearms, said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said." Operative word, CARRY.

Too bad the interview with the deputy chief is ON THAT VIDEO, and what you quote wasn't all of it. The deputy chief said, on camera, "No one will be allowed to be armed. We're going to confiscate all the weapons." Don't believe me, WATCH THE DAMN INTERVIEW FOR YOURSELF (I linked the video above), but don't call me a liar for quoting him.

While you're at it, catch the part about the troops entering homes "with orders to disarm anyone inside"...

FWIW, Louisiana does not have a martial law statute, but a "Public Health Emergency" was declared, which is similar. However, Louisiana law does NOT allow an official to prohibit the possession of firearms in your own home under ANY level of emergency declaration. And the transport of firearms outside the home can be *regulated* under a PHE declaration, but not *prohibited*, and such a regulatory order requires the governor to jump through long series of legal hoops (which was not done), must be promulgated in accordance with state regulations (no such order was promulgated), and property must be returned after five days (it's been half a year now, and all but a few victims are STILL waiting).

There was not even a shadow of legal justification for doing even what you claim was done, never mind what was ACTUALLY done. As I said, all the officers/troops involved in the door-to-door confiscations committed at least 10-year felonies...

[sandnsea]

17. YES I watched the videos

The elderly woman was disoriented and they were going in to remove the last of the hold-outs, including her. They didn't know they would find someone with a gun when they went in. That was the purpose of entering the homes. Only someone with a completely warped and crazed gun obsession would see it in any other light.

"No one will be allowed to be armed." Right. No one on the streets and no one left in their homes because they were evacuating everybody. Consequently, there would be NO ONE armed.

This is what was ACTUALLY done. It was the right thing to do. The stupid idiotic NRA fuckers are the ones who are going to turn this country into a free fire zone because of their refusal to respect law and order. I really have absolutely no use for them, Democrat or Republican.

[benEzra]

18. No, the VIDEO I POSTED THE LINK TO JUST NOW...

the one that shows deputized Feds (DEA, from the look of it) confiscating guns from people INSIDE THEIR HOMES who were not being evacuated. The video that says they had orders to confiscate guns from anyone found INSIDE A HOUSE. The one that shows the deputy chief saying they were going to confiscate ALL guns in the city. All of which constitute felonies under Louisiana law.

ABC News video of gun confiscations

No, you apparently didn't watch it. The Patricia Konie video you allude to was disturbing, but it wasn't the most disturbing, and it sure as heck wasn't the one I was talking about...


Contrary to popular belief, the Fourth Amendment does NOT have a "hurricane exception clause"...

[sandnsea]

19. I do this amazing thing with my ears

I FUCKING LISTEN. "force people from their homes", without using force. First thing out of the reporter's mouth. They were going in to remove people from their homes. The people ON THE STREET were not allowed to have guns. THAT is what happened. That is what is supposed to happen in a state of emergency.

[benEzra]

20. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing...

Yes, the reporter started out talking about "forcing people from their homes" (which BTW is illegal under Louisiana state law). But the footage showed Feds confiscating guns from INSIDE people's homes, from people who were NOT being forced from their homes, and showed the deputy chief saying that ALL guns were going to be confiscated, without qualification.

Is that so hard to comprehend?

If it didn't happen, why did a Federal court issue an injunction to STOP it, and why is the city now being forced by court order to return those guns that supposedly weren't illegally siezed?

Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing...

[sandnsea]

21. Yeah, because the people wouldn't leave

And they had to take them down forceably because of the guns, the guns become evidence in that situation.

I really don't care that our nutty court system pandered to the fucked up NRA idiots, the cops didn't do anything wrong.

No cops were going door to door just to confiscate guns and that was the initial claim, so the cognitive dissonance isn't mine.

[benEzra]

25. The police could not legally take those guns

OR force anyone from their residence. They did the former but generally not the latter (the elderly lady they roughed up on camera being the exception).

I don't know where you are getting your information, but a number of police and National Guardsmen who were part of the post-Katrina rescue operation are members of the High Road, and they corroborated the standard version, i.e. the order pertained to guns in the home, not evictions. The people weren't being evicted. Most of the police there were outraged that the order was even given, several units responded with a firm "Hell, no," and the order was quickly rescinded after somebody up the chain of command realized that it was incredibly illegal.

The big problem here isn't whether or not stealing people's guns was priority #1 or priority #2, as you seem to be arguing. The problem is that TAKING THOSE GUNS WAS FELONY ILLEGAL, under multiple statutes, and going in the homes to search for them in the first place was a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Can you please point me to the Bad Weather Exception Clause in the Fourth Amendment? I'm sure it's right next to the Terrah Exception Clause...

[sandnsea]

26. Nuts freak out over their guns

What the hell else is new. They were able to distort reality and intimidate elected officials and law enforcement, which is really nothing more than complete anarchy.

When guns are used in the commission of a crime, then the guns are taken as evidence. Staying in those homes against specific orders in a state of emergency is a crime. States of Emergency give state and federal a lot of leeway, and it should. They have the right to forceably remove people, when the rich fucks objected, they backed off. But when they knocked on a door and somebody threatened them with a gun, that's a different situation. When people ON THE STREET insisted on carrying guns, tha'ts a different situation.

They were NOT going house to house to confiscate guns, they weren't even going into houses for the purpose of searching for guns. That was completely made up by NRA idiots and they continue to make it up. I don't care what any cop or guard or anybody else on the ground says, gun nuts are everywhere.

This country has just completely lost its ability to apply common damned sense and THINK. National guard at the friggin' border?? How crazy do you want this place to get before you say enough of the crazies running the asylum.

[Recursion]

41. I want to point out something to you:

You say: States of Emergency give state and federal a lot of leeway, and it should.

Bushbots say: The war on terror give state and federal a lot of leeway , and it should.

What's the difference?

[sandnsea]

43. State of Emergency is defined and temporary

That's what.

[The Stranger]

51. I don't know if you have been keeping up with current events,

but the fascists that have taken over the U.S. government are converting it into a totalitarian regime. They have no intention of giving up any power -- once they have it.

[benEzra]

48. Louisiana law is quite specific...

and the police officers in question violated Lousiana law. It doesn't MATTER whether or not an evacuation was declared; the gun confiscations were illegal no matter which way you spin it. If you think this was legal, please cite the relevant statutes and point out where the Governor authorized the action in accordance with them. Point of fact, she DIDN'T (in fact, she has condemned the seizures, as has the Louisiana legislature). The police chief pulled the justification out of his posterior.

Under the relevant Louisiana statutes, the police did not, in fact, have the authority to confiscate guns from those lawfully carrying them in the street (since such an order was never issued by the governor), never mind from people in their homes (are you trying to say that those couple thousand or so guns the Federal court ordered returned to their lawful owners are figments of the NRA's imagination?)

Would you be quite so supportive of the illegal actions if "terrah" had been the justification for the warrantless searches and seizures? The Fourth Amendment is SUCH a technicality, after all...

Just how familiar are you with U.S. Fourth Amendment case law?

[sandnsea]

53. Oh how the story changes

Yes, Kathleen Blanco is afraid of the gun nuts in her state. Did they have permits to openly carry in New Orleans? Even Louisiana has laws about carrying guns on the streets.

And, by the way, yes I do think in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack, the government has the right to say no weapons on the streets. That's what this is about, not some never ending war on terrorism and mixing the two is disingenuous bullshit.

[slackmaster]

60. Open carry is LEGAL in Louisiana

NO may have a local ordinance that predates state pre-emption, but not that I'm aware of.

http://www.opencarry.org/la.html

[sandnsea]

65. And did they open carry?

Or was it like the cops said, they weren't and they didn't have permits. Regardless, I still say that under a State of Emergency any sensible law enforcement strategy would include prohibiting guns on the streets. If this country had any common sense, we'd move to pass those laws instead of the exact opposite. It's pure insanity and after watching New Orleans it ought to be clear.

[slackmaster]

82. Don't know - I was responding to your post

...Did they have permits to openly carry in New Orleans? Even Louisiana has laws about carrying guns on the streets....

A more direct answer would be "No permit is required."

[sandnsea]

91. I was referring to a police quote

That said they had taken guns from people without permits.

[Leopolds Ghost]

54. The last of the holdouts? Respect law and order? Criminals & disoriented?

And it is okay to deny presumptive disoriented, mentally ill homeless people their inalienable rights?

(even assuming their homes were not habitable, which is a lie in many instances -- they were denied basic services which the gov't, some time in the 1930's, deemed essential for a building to be declared habitable)

Sounds like you are one of those incipient Big Government Totalitarian Leftists that a variety on the left and right (from Trotsky to Edmund Burke) warned us about.

[sandnsea]

57. So did Reagan throw the mentally ill in the streets?

Or was it liberals fighting for the rights of the mentally ill???

[Leopolds Ghost]

63. I don't like what happened to the mentally-ill under Reagan, but nobody's

talking about rounding them up and sending them back to institutions.
And for good reason.

Half the "problem" with homeless people is community refusal to take them in or to allow others -- especially churches in gentridfying urban neighborhoods -- to take them in and provide them with more humane assisted living and services. I should know, I grew up attending one such church.

The local historic association even allowed the only "historic" buildings that were allowed to be torn down in the entire neighborhood after the riots, to be done so for reasons that they were being used by area churches as a homeless shelter. Then they spent 20 years complaining about the gap in their historic facade caused by the removal of the shelters. I see similar hypocrisy on the part of the federal and local officials in New Orleans. Usually the first excuse for exceptions in the enforcement of statutes, be it historic preservation or gun control, is "the building was occupied by skells."

[sandnsea]

66. Do you blame Reagan?

I really want to know. Do you think it was Reagan who threw the mentally ill out of institutions?

[simonm]

89. "because of their refusal to respect law and order."

So basically, we should all "do what we are told" and forget the constitutional rights that others have died for. That type of thinking is disgusting. I even have friends in law enforcement that do not share such an extreme viewpoint.

Why don't you visit a country under a dictatorship or theocracy and see a good example of your views in action?

"Absolute monarchies are almost always authoritarian.
Dictatorships are always authoritarian.
Despoties are always authoritarian.
Militarchies, countries run by soldiers, are almost always authoritarian.
Theocracies are always authoritarian."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian

[Leopolds Ghost]

52. Buy a clue: They had every right to remain in their homes.

The right to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" does NOT mean the government's right to deny you house and possessions in order to "protect you".

If you think that anyone who remained behind rather than potentially permanently forfeit their homes to potential siezure by a land-hungry Republican government must be "criminal or mentally retarded" then you will doubtless agree with this judge:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1154713&mesg_id=1154713

And disagree with every British and American revolutionary that ever lived (from Thomas Paine to Cromwell!)

[sandnsea]

55. Protecting the mentally ill and retarded

is also a responsibility of any thinking person and that responsibility has been given to the government in emergencies. They had a responsibility to go door to door and attempt to remove people. When they were met with disoriented people who threatened them with guns, common sense says they've got a different situation to deal with. This is what law enforcement is supposed to do. Just because it's an emergency, it doesn't change their job and they remove mentally disoriented people, with guns, from their homes every single day. A flood doesn't change that. It also doesn't change the law that says people have to have permits to carry guns on the streets. The police tried to follow the law and restore order to New Orleans. The gun nuts got in the way of that as much as anybody.

And yeah, I do agree with that judge. You want to know why? Because LIBERAL lawyers have fought for years to make sure the mental state of defendants is considered in any court case. To sentence anybody without one is to open the door to an appeal and law suits. See, it cuts both ways which is something ideologues never seem to grasp.

[benEzra]

64. Another red herring...

they weren't siezing guns from the "mentally ill and r******d." They were siezing guns from people in their right minds who were fully authorized to possess them.

Just because a city official says the word "emergency" does not make Federal and State law, or the U.S. Constitution, vanish. There is no Bad Weather Exception Clause to the Fourth Amendment, any more than there is a Terrah Exception Clause.

[sandnsea]

69. There were ALL KINDS of people

Mentally ill, mentally retarded, handicapped, criminals, all kinds of people. The point is that they WERE NOT out there specifically to confiscate guns. That's a bold faced lie. They were out there to evacuate every person in the city and to keep guns off the streets. That is what happened, no more, no less. And the government DOES have more authority in a State of Emergency. They SHOULD have the authority to keep guns off the streets and go door to door and strongly encourage people to leave and remove ones who aren't in a position to make a competent decision themselves. Our common every day practices aren't suspended just because there's a weather emergency either.

[benEzra]

79. Yes, authority spelled out BY STATUTE...

And the government DOES have more authority in a State of Emergency.

Yes, authority spelled out BY STATUTE...statutes that in this case were completely violated by Chief Compass. Which is why the court issued a restraining order and ordered the illegally siezed guns returned.

FWIW, the U.S. Constitution allows ONE civil right spelled out in the Bill of Rights to be suspended during a time of grave national emergency. Know which one? It is NOT the Second or the Fourth Amendment...they still apply even during emergencies. Otherwise, someone could simply declare an emergency (like, say, a War on Terrah) and violate the Bill of Rights with impunity.

Thankfully, that's illegal in the United States, and yes, Louisiana is part of the United States...

Mentally ill, mentally retarded, handicapped, criminals, all kinds of people. The point is that they WERE NOT out there specifically to confiscate guns. That's a bold faced lie. They were out there to evacuate every person in the city and to keep guns off the streets.

I don't give the posterior of a Ratus ratus what the primary goal was. The fact is, in the process of accomplishing whatever goal they were after (and it was NOT rescuing people, or else they'd have been in the flooded Ninth Ward instead of in high-and-dry areas), illegal gun confiscations occurred. That is an indisputable fact, and your persistent defense of actions that violated both Lousiana state law and the Fourth Amendment is rather puzzling to me.

Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me that your logic is running along the lines of

A. Guns are bad.
B. Getting guns out of people's hands is good.
C. Anything that accomplishes B., especially when an emergency has been declared, is good.

regardless of whether or not C. is illegal, as it indeed was in this case.

Our common every day practices aren't suspended just because there's a weather emergency either.

And it is our "common everyday practice" to allow police officers search people's homes with neither probable cause nor a search warrant? To allow chiefs of police to declare an entire city a "gun free zone" in direct violation of both Louisiana state law and the state constitution?

I don't know where you live, but that's not "common everyday practice" anywhere I've ever had the privilege of living...

[sandnsea]

87. Remove people in danger???

Yes, that's a common every day practice. We don't let mentally disturbed people stay in dangerous situations. We don't let people threaten law enforcement with guns. Law enforcement has wide latitude in emergency situations, normal every day emergency situations. There's no logical reason they shouldn't have the same latitude in States of Emergency, in fact they should have more. I'd bet if any individual person wouldn't leave a home with a gas leak, people would be going crazy if cops had left the person there to be blown up. And if they brandished a gun, they wouldn't be surpised if the gun was taken as evidence.

It DOES matter why law enforcement was out there. Intention matters in law. They were not out there for the mere purpose of grabbing guns, none of those stories or videos show any cops or guard that were.

And no, I do not think guns are bad. I think gun nuts have so distorted the reality of crime in this country that they're turning the place into an armed fortress where nobody can walk the streets anymore. I don't want to live that way.

[benEzra]

102. Threatening a police officer with a gun is a FELONY...

and is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing the unlawful confiscation of guns from people who have NOT committed felonies, on the pretext of a declaration of an emergency, despite the fact that such confiscation is against the law.

It's a given that if you threaten the police with a gun, your derriere will be cuffed, jailed, and charged with felony assault on a police officer. Which is entirely unrelated to what we're discussing in this thread, since the people in question did not threaten any police officers. The one woman in one video who had a gun in hand, had it in hand because the police ASKED her to show it to them. She obeyed, holding it around the frame in a nonthreatening way. She then told them to get out of her house, as they had no legal right to be there, and no legal right to remain after being asked to leave.

No one else that I saw would even come close to the situation you're describing.

It DOES matter why law enforcement was out there. Intention matters in law. They were not out there for the mere purpose of grabbing guns, none of those stories or videos show any cops or guard that were.

Intention can only justify illegal acts if you are balancing acts that are malum prohibitum versus acts that are malum in se, or are trying to defend an illegal action in a court of law under the doctrine of Competing Harms. It does not make the act any less illegal, but it can provide some extenuation.

In this case, such issues do not arise. The actions of the police were completely illegal, regardless of what their intentions may have been.

The police may NOT search your home without a warrant or probable cause even if they think they might catch a criminal by searching everyone's house. That's the law, get over it.

In the case of your hypothetical gas leak, yes, the police may pound on your door and ask you to leave. They may NOT cuff you on the sidewalk, come into your house, take your guns, and leave, and any officer who did so would be facing a massive civil suit and possible prison time.

[sandnsea]

105. It IS what we're talking about

Law enforcement going into homes to implement an evacuation who were often met with lunatics brandishing their weapons. That and people who insisted on carrying weapons on the streets and disrespecting the law, right or wrong, at the time.

And yes, if I'm sitting in my home and there's a gas leak, and the cops break in because there might be a child in here or someone passed out from the gas; and I start waving a gun at them; they're going to take me down and take my gun as evidence. That's the way it is and the way it should be.

[benEzra]

107. The guns weren't taken as "evidence," sandnsea...

they were taken because Chief Compass decided he didn't want anybody but his guys and Blackwater to have guns. Maybe you think it was for the greater good in some way, but the fact remains that what Compass and the police did was felony illegal, THAT's why they rescinded the confiscation order so quickly (a day? less?), and THAT's why the Federal courts slapped him down.

Anybody who threatened a police officer would have been ARRESTED. It's people who didn't threaten police officers, and who had their guns confiscated but were themselves left alone (or roughed up and sent to the Convention Center for "processing") are who we are talking about here...

[sandnsea]

110. It was a state of emergency

They were trying to get people out of the city and keep guns off the streets. Everything they did was to that end, including taking guns from people who wouldn't cooperate or were otherwise not in their full faculties. There was no gun grabbing for the sake of gun grabbing going on. Yes a restraining order was issued against the city, but really the government didn't put up much of a legal fight after that because they're afraid of the NRA. It's sad and the only thing I can hope for is that kind of crazy thinking doesn't spread to the rest of the country.

[benEzra]

116. That "crazy thinking," as you call it, is reflected in the laws of nearly

every state in the United States, including Louisiana's, and is explicitly spelled out in the Louisiana state constitution and those of most other states. The fact that you may not like those laws and constitutional provisions, doesn't mean that some police chief can make up his own law.

FWIW, it was a declared Public Health Emergency (not martial law, Louisiana has no such thing). But the state didn't pass down any restrictions on the lawful carrying of firearms, and the state could not legally pass down the type of order that Chief Compass created out of thin air.

I take it you live in California? If you do, you have your gun-ban utopia. Keep it, fine with me. Just let those of us in other states choose our own way on the issue, please.

[The Straight Story]

123. Ummm...Explain to me what mental illness is and who decides

what it is??

[Recursion]

22. Ummm...

There's no reason anybody should be out on the streets with guns in the middle of that kind of disaster.

You must have typoed or something, because a disaster like that is exactly when you need a gun. Police entering people's homes and taking their firearms is a Very Very Bad thing, up there with illegal wiretaps on citizens and the press.

[sandnsea]

27. Except that isn't what happened

Read the thread, it just isn't what happened. Any more than the city being taken over by bands of rapists and murderers. In order to gain any sense of order, no carrying guns on the streets is a logical and reasonable requirement. Nobody EVER entered people's homes for the single purpose of taking guns, it was and is a big fat gun nut LIE.

[Recursion]

31. Have you missed this whole thread?

The original post of the thread is a NYT report that they did confiscate guns.

BenEzra posted a video where you can see them handcuffing people outside their house and taking their guns.

What part of this do you doubt?

[sandnsea]

34. "outside"

What the fucking hell is it that you don't get about "outside"??? No one carrying guns, that's what the cops said. I posted the quote above.

I'll say it again, I don't care who the NRA has been able to intimidate into reporting this non-existent gun grabbing story. The facts are right in these videos for anybody who has the ability to listen and apply common sense. Nobody was entering homes for the purpose of confiscating guns. It's just a bold faced lie. And it wouldn't be the first time the NYT got a story wrong either.

[Recursion]

39. OK, watch the video

"In the end, the police took the men's guns but allowed them to stay in the house"

Doesn't seem very up to interpretation, unless the reporter is just lying.

[sandnsea]

47. Yeah, they were removing people

That was the purpose of the door to door, to make people leave, NOT to confiscate guns which I've said over and over and over. They wouldn't leave, no one in New Orleans was going to be allowed to have guns. There was supposedly these wild bands of rapists and murderers, the reason the gun nuts said they had to keep their guns; yet when law enforcement attempts to take the guns away from the rapists and murderers, that's wrong too.

Gun nuts. If they had responded with an ounce of common sense and left, then obviously the only ones still in New Orleans were the criminals who needed to have their guns taken away. But oh no, not the gun nuts. Don't let law enforcement do their job, turn it into a government conspiracy.

This country is fucking crazy.

[benEzra]

62. NO, THEY DIDN'T REMOVE PEOPLE...

That was the purpose of the door to door, to make people leave, NOT to confiscate guns which I've said over and over and over.

The only problem is, they did NOT make people leave, but they did take their guns in violation of Louisiana law and Federal statutes. With the exception of Patricia Konie (who is now suing the NOPD and the CHP in Federal court and has a slam-dunk case), no one on the videos was taken away. The other people in the videos were temporarily handcuffed on the sidewalk while the police searched their home for guns, and were LET GO when the police had taken their property.

They wouldn't leave, no one in New Orleans was going to be allowed to have guns.

But the police chief (or the governor, for that matter) cannot legally say that no one is allowed to have guns. Making such a declaration, and sending police to enforce it, was a CRIME. Period.

There was supposedly these wild bands of rapists and murderers, the reason the gun nuts said they had to keep their guns; yet when law enforcement attempts to take the guns away from the rapists and murderers, that's wrong too.

Straw man. NO ONE is complaining about the police taking guns away from rapists and murderers; they are fully authorized to do so under Federal and Louisiana law, and that's not the slightest bit controversial.

What's controversial was the confiscation of guns from homeowners who weren't rapists and murderers. Straw's a flyin' around here...

Gun nuts. If they had responded with an ounce of common sense and left, then obviously the only ones still in New Orleans were the criminals who needed to have their guns taken away. But oh no, not the gun nuts. Don't let law enforcement do their job, turn it into a government conspiracy.

This country is fucking crazy.

Hmmm...if you look at the houses in that video, they are high and dry, and weren't damaged AT ALL. The confiscations didn't occur in the places hit hard by the storm, the places where people were drowning for lack of rescue while the authorities were busy kicking in doors in high-and-dry neighborhoods. The people getting their guns confiscated were the people who knew they'd be FINE, due to the geography of their neighborhoods.

Do you live in hurricane country? I do. I would have evacuated New Orleans, but people stay for a variety of reasons. Regulations prohibiting pets in shelters, for example (leave them behind to die, or stay with them, unless you have relatives out of state). Medical reasons. Financial reasons--how the heck do you evacuate early if you don't have the money to leave town/skip work every time a storm threatens? And so on.

But regardless of whether or not staying was the right decision, the homeowner does have the legal authority to stay, and the police do NOT have the legal authority to barge into their home without a search warrant and sieze property in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

[sandnsea]

70. What color are the rapists and murderers? Black??

Is that how law enforcement is supposed to differentiate them and take their guns??

They did not go from home to home for the purpose of taking guns. They went home to home to get people to leave. People who stayed were not going to be allowed to keep guns. People were not going to be allowed to carry guns on the streets. That's what happened. You can create your gun grabbing fantasy in your head all you want, it doesn't change what is clearly on the videos and what was clearly stated by law enforcement.

[benEzra]

81. Ah, and there's precisely the problem:

People who stayed were not going to be allowed to keep guns.

Ah, there's precisely the problem. The above decree WAS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF LOUSIANA STATE LAW, THE LOUISIANA STATE CONSTITUTION, AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.

Louisiana state law does not merely NOT AUTHORIZE such confiscations (and indeed it does not), such confiscations are explicitly prohibited by the Louisiana state constitution,, whether you like it or not.

The authorities didn't even make a pretense of following state law on the issue. Chief Compass didn't like any peons having guns in their homes, and by golly he was going to take them away, the law be damned.

The problem is, you can't do that in America. The fact that someone has declared an "emergency"--whether real or feigned--does NOT turn a locality into a dictatorship. That's Civics 101...

[sandnsea]

94. They did have the right

The 5 day emergency "controlling and regulating" right. The question is, will anybody in Louisiana government stand up against the NRA and fight for that right? Oh hell no. The guns were taken from, first, people on the streets. Second, during the course of mandatory evacuation, people who refused to leave and brandished guns at law enforcement. Not a sign of stability under the circumstances.

But hey, we'll just have complete anarchy any time a national disaster strikes. Great. Thanks so much for that.

[benEzra]

103. Give me a freaking break...

to invoke the 5-day statute, the regulation would have to have been promulgated BY THE GOVERNOR. She not only did not do so, but she has criticized the illegal confiscations in harsh terms, as I recall, as has the entire Louisiana legislature.

Such declarations have to be issued according to procedures spelled out by statute. None were. Chief Compass pulled this out of his ass; under Louisiana state law, he was NOT authorized to do what he illegally tried to do.

FWIW, citizens have rights; police have powers. Powers that are granted by statute, and are null and void if exercised contrary to statute.

People weren't "brandishing guns at law enforcement"; doing so is a felony, and you know it.

[sandnsea]

106. I know what she SAYS

But I also know she had the right to do it and if she didn't do it, she should have. I suspect they all thought it was obviously their right in a state of emergency, but she cowered when the NRA got involved.

And yes, they did brandish their weapons at law enforcement and try to tell them to get out of their homes or otherwise challenge their authority, that's why they were taken down and their guns taken. They would not have been handcuffed if they were just handing over their guns and peacefully leaving.

[benEzra]

109. Blanco has ALWAYS been pro-2nd Amendment

you think she's not sincere because she disagrees with you...because, of course, all rational people either agree with you on the issue or are deluded pawns of the "gun lobby"...

She didn't "cower"; she did the right thing. The NRA got involved later, FWIW, after getting quite an earful from its membership (and me, and lots of other DU'ers!) over the illegal confiscations.

try to tell them to get out of their homes or otherwise challenge their authority

!!!!!???

OMG. How DARE a homeowner exercise her/his right to be free from a warrantless search or seizure. Or to inform an Authority Figure that they are no longer welcome in your home. "Challenge their authority" by informing them that they are not allowed in your house?

I'm assuming you live in the United States. Are you THAT unfamiliar with U.S. case law or English common law? You DO have the right to tell anyone in your house to leave. If it's a police officer with a valid warrant, the officer doesn't have to. If it's a police officer with probable cause that a serious crime has been committed, he doesn't have to, either. But in the situation in that video, when she told them to leave, they were legally required to do so.

Instead, the officers of the California Highway Patrol then committed felony assault, felony theft of a firearm, and unlawful imprisonment. That woman is going to end up very wealthy...

If an officer is in your house, with neither probable cause NOR a warrant, then he/she is not the authority figure. YOU are, at least insofar as whether or not they are allowed to remain in your house.

[sandnsea]

111. She HAS to be

She can't get elected in gun crazy Louisiana any other way.

Yeah, I'd imagine law enforcement from western states considered the well-being of the individual first. Maybe that's why we don't have situations like New Orleans when our cities are hit with major earthquakes.

A danger to self or others. That woman was a danger to herself and they had every right to remove her. Just like all those seniors who drowned. If law enforcement had known about them, they would have had the right to remove any of them who didn't appear to be in their right state of mind because we don't let disturbed people hurt themselves.

[benEzra]

114. There's your prejudice again...

She HAS to be. She can't get elected in gun crazy Louisiana any other way.

There's your prejudice again...no rational person can EVER sincerely support civilian gun ownership...they've GOT to be either dupes, or pawns, or pretenders...only people who agree with YOU could possibly be sincere. Hence, Ms. Blanco must be pretending to be pro-gun out of politicial expediency, instead of doing what she believes is right...

And as far as the "can't get elected unless" part...yeah, representative democracy is SUCH a pain, isn't it? Dictatorship is just SOOOO much neater. Then she'd be able to impose your views on all the little people of Louisiana, without fear of people tossing her out of office...

Yeah, I'd imagine law enforcement from western states considered the well-being of the individual first. Maybe that's why we don't have situations like New Orleans when our cities are hit with major earthquakes.

Show me the American city that was completely destroyed by an earthquake, and the government didn't allow food/water/rescuers in for a week, in the last 50 years? Oh, wait...

Before you get too smug, I have three words. Rodney King Riots. Yeah, civil unrest is IMPOSSIBLE in California...

...and FWIW, except for California, the entire West Coast is even more pro-gun than the South...

A danger to self or others. That woman was a danger to herself and they had every right to remove her.

Er, no. She posed no demonstrated danger to herself. She was uninjured, had food, water, a dry house, heat for cooking and water purification, clothing, and a means of self-defense. So, the authorities dislocated her shoulder, took away all the above, and dropped her off by herself at the freaking CONVENTION CENTER, where she remained until she was transported to the New Orleans airport for medical care to treat her injuries, that were serious enough to require surgical repair. Yeah, they really saved her...

Just like all those seniors who drowned. If law enforcement had known about them, they would have had the right to remove any of them who didn't appear to be in their right state of mind because we don't let disturbed people hurt themselves.

This may come as a huge shock to you, but not all senior citizens are incapable of managing their own affairs, thanks. Age does not mean incompetence.

When you go into a nursing home, though, you have to sign your authority over to someone else; they can't just take it. Those seniors who died in New Orleans in the nursing home had signed their rights over to the home and the State in exchange for a guarantee of care and provision that didn't happen.

The thing about the woman who was taken from her home against her will, though is that she had made no such concession. She was as in charge of her own affairs as you or me, and if the State deems itself able to take away her autonomy without due process, they can take away yours or mine the same way.

[sandnsea]

115. I support gun ownership

I don't support the nuts, like the ones on the border, who think guns are the answer to everything. I don't support people who say police are only for "cleaning up", after the citizens have "defended themselves" from the "criminal" around every corner. I don't support the idea that we really are living in a time of terrorism, but we don't keep records of who bought a gun for more than 24 hours. I don't support Florida's shoot first law. I don't support the idea that we need to be wandering the streets with guns when people are most vulnerable, like after a national disaster.

If Louisiana, yes Louisana, didn't have such a "get them bad guys" mindset, then there wouldn't have been people all over the streets with guns and all those guard and law enforcement people could have focused on the convention center and 9th ward. To a very real extent, that white man's idea that they have to have a gun to protect themselves from the scary black man CAUSED the disaster in New Orleans. Owning a gun for REAL self-defense is one thing. Creating the hysteria that causes people to think they're about to be killed if they don't have a gun isn't what the founders had in mind with the 2nd Amendment. That's what happened in New Orleans. It didn't happen in Mississippi because those particular counties only have 10-20% minority populations and more people were able to evacuated.

[benEzra]

117. Those records are kept for 20 YEARS, sandnsea...

I don't support the idea that we really are living in a time of terrorism, but we don't keep records of who bought a gun for more than 24 hours.

Those records are kept for 20 YEARS, sandnsea, in accordance with the very strict recordkeeping requirements of the Gun Control Act of 1968. When you buy any gun from a dealer, you fill out a BATFE Form 4473 that becomes the permanent record of the purchase, allowing the BATFE to trace the gun if that's ever necessary. If the dealer goes out of business within 20 years, the records are transferred straight to the BATFE.

The 24-hours limit pertains to the NCIS instant check system, not the record of the purchase. If you pass the background check, the fact that you passed is purged from the system; if you fail, that's kept forever.

I don't support Florida's shoot first law.

Florida doesn't have a "shoot first" law. That was a PR slogan the Bradyites came up with. Have you read the law? It's now similar to California's, as I recall...

I don't support the idea that we need to be wandering the streets with guns when people are most vulnerable, like after a national disaster.

Then don't. But please stay the hell out of my gun safe if a disaster does occur, OK?

If Louisiana, yes Louisana, didn't have such a "get them bad guys" mindset, then there wouldn't have been people all over the streets with guns and all those guard and law enforcement people could have focused on the convention center and 9th ward. To a very real extent, that white man's idea that they have to have a gun to protect themselves from the scary black man CAUSED the disaster in New Orleans. Owning a gun for REAL self-defense is one thing. Creating the hysteria that causes people to think they're about to be killed if they don't have a gun isn't what the founders had in mind with the 2nd Amendment. That's what happened in New Orleans. It didn't happen in Mississippi because those particular counties only have 10-20% minority populations and more people were able to evacuated.

If that were the case--which it wasn't--then WHY THE HELL were the CHP boys busting all the lawful gun owners in high-and-dry neighborhoods that WEREN'T experiencing looting, weren't flooded, where people didn't need to be rescued? When people were drowning down in the 9th Ward?

I never, ever thought I'd hear somebody try to pin the blame for the Katrina disaster on the NRA, but I guess I just heard it... :eyes:

[sandnsea]

118. Wow, twist twist twist

First of all, I've always found it hysterical that gun rights advocates object to gun registration since gun sales records are already kept. I know that. In any event, I am talking about the national background check and it should be kept for more than 24 hours because that's all law enforcement really has that's quickly available to them. So nice attempt to spin it around, but it's bullshit. It's absolutely crazy that we aren't keeping records of who is buying guys, at least for 30-90 days.

Second, I didn't use any Brady campaign PR. I've got no idea what they call it. But it is a shoot first law, and it is not similar to California's law, California law allows deadly force only to prevent great bodily injury or death. The same standard applies in a break-in, they have reasonable force statutes. That means you can't kill people any time you think you're threatened.

Third, act like a sane person and leave a disaster area when transportation is provided out and law enforcement won't have any reason to implement extreme measures.

Fourth, as I've said more times than I can count, there was an evacuation order for EVERYBODY to get out. You act as if the CHP were the only ones in the city. Did you want them to swim into the 9th ward? And again, maybe if those people weren't quivering in fear of the big black man, they'd have left that city, like any sane person would. Then maybe you would have seen the CHP helping those people in the 9th ward.

NRA, dick swinging, fear inciting, hate filled racist assholes. Yeah, they had their part.

[benEzra]

119. So does Florida's. Ever read it?

Second, I didn't use any Brady campaign PR. I've got no idea what they call it. But it is a shoot first law, and it is not similar to California's law, California law allows deadly force only to prevent great bodily injury or death. The same standard applies in a break-in, they have reasonable force statutes. That means you can't kill people any time you think you're threatened.

California's law does not require you to retreat if you are being attacked by someone who means to kill you or cause serious bodily harm. Florida's used to. Now, it no longer does, like California. You are NEVER allowed to shoot someone just because you "feel threatened." Care to cite the part of the Florida law that supposedly allows that? The standard is still reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm, just like California...

FWIW, how long have you been studying Florida self-defense law?

Florida has always had a castle doctrine rule; I believe California also does. The new Florida law also covers if you are actually being carjacked, which is probably the biggest difference between FL and CA.

Third, act like a sane person and leave a disaster area when transportation is provided out and law enforcement won't have any reason to implement extreme measures.

I fully agree about leaving a disaster area; that'd certainly be my choice, if that's a realistic option for you.

The problem is, the "extreme measures" you advocate violate both the U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of most states. That pesky Fourth Amendment and all, and all those right to keep and bear arms provisions...

Fourth, as I've said more times than I can count, there was an evacuation order for EVERYBODY to get out. You act as if the CHP were the only ones in the city. Did you want them to swim into the 9th ward? And again, maybe if those people weren't quivering in fear of the big black man, they'd have left that city, like any sane person would. Then maybe you would have seen the CHP helping those people in the 9th ward.

The CHP, a few DEA, and a couple small groups of Oklahoma National Guard troops were the only ones who carried out the order, AFAIK. The prevailing attitude of the others on the ground seems to have been "hell, no." And while those confiscations were going on, there WERE people helping in the 9th Ward. Just not the CHP, who apparently had "more important" things to do...

NRA, dick swinging, fear inciting, hate filled racist assholes. Yeah, they had their part.

Speaking of hate...

[sandnsea]

120. Oh my god

So there were people in the 9th ward and your whole people were drowning while they were confiscating guns was bullshit. Why am I so not surprised.

"the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force"

That's what Florida law now states, which is quite different from California's reasonable force laws. California law doesn't include the "right to stand your ground" which means killing somebody isn't necessarily reasonable force.

Oh absolutely, I hate NRA gun nuts. You and I wouldn't be friends in the real world, that's for sure.

[Recursion]

122. Sigh

You may hate those you categorize as "gun nuts", but we don't hate you (or I don't at least). Even if you feel you must deny that the right exists, I'll stand up for your right to keep and bear arms just as much as I'll stand up for your right to peaceably assemble, speek freely, or publish as you wish.

But just a few thoughts:

1. Calling us "nuts" because we disagree with you about the importance and nature of an individual's right to armament doesn't help anything.
2. At some point you need to realize that a lot of us so-called "nuts" are in all other ways completely on-board with the DU/progressive/liberal bandwagon
3. Ignoring clearly indisputable facts -- like the fact that the CHP *did* confiscate firearms *from inside the houses* of people who they did not evacuate -- doesn't seem to advance this debate in any way
4. Once you say one right guaranteed by the Constitution can be waived for situational expediency, I don't personally see how you avoid the slippery slope that Shrub has slipped 29% of the country's psyche down
5. Finally (this is related to number 2), let's remember we are on the same side here. We view the confiscation of firearms in NOLA as another in the pattern of Constitutional abuses this administration's corruption and incompetence has subjected us to. We're not crazy, trigger-happy, or bloodthirsty; we just believe in a person's right to keep and bear arms. And we don't like seeing the state take that away from people any more than we like seeing antiwar protesters sent to mental hospitals, or the press spied on by the NSA, or women denied their rights of reproductive choice. We (or I, at any rate) see the attacks on these rights as all equally reprehensible, and it's really not fair to tar me as an NRA "gun nut" (I'm not a member of the NRA, and I do not own a firearm) just because I believe it should be my right to if I choose.

[sandnsea]

124. Funny thing is

The gun owners I know are for reasonable gun regulations including the AWB, background checks, trigger locks, locked safes, etc. I know A LOT of gun owners. I don't know any gun nuts, except online.

Cheers.

[stepnw1f]

126. BINGO

NRA propagandists.

[benEzra]

125. Selective citing is funny that way...

since you leave out the important part:

“A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat, and has the right to stand his or her ground, and meet force with force, including deadly force IF he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” (F.S. 776.013(3))

A "reasonable belief" in lawyerspeak means that "the facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force WAS necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault." The new law does not change these criteria, it just eliminated the subjective duty to run away that was present in Florida law, by which an overzealous prosecutor could turn a clearly justifiable act of self-defense into a murder charge simply by claiming that the victim should have tried to outrun the assailant before trying to stop the attacker. Meaning that Florida law in this matter is now like California's, when it used to be not so.

Florida, and many other states, also authorize potentially-lethal force to stop the commission of a "forcible felony," as defined by statute; such would include kidnapping, armed robbery, aggravated assault (i.e., assault likely or intended to maim or cause serious bodily harm and that could result in death), etc. I'm sure California does as well.

Just how long have you been studying self-defense law?

[MadHound]

30. Nothing unconstitutional about it?!

WTF, where do you get that from? Look, I believe in gun control as much as the next person, and perhaps more than some. But going in, searching a law abiding citizen's residence without a warrant, seizing their guns, sorry but that's wrong, and unconstitutional.

And gee, as you said, for a long while there wasn't adequate security or emergency personell. People were on their own for days. Sorry, but if I'm on my own in desperate situation, I would like to be armed, as would many other people. Say I was living in NO at the time of Katrina, my house survived OK, but looters are roaming the street. What am I supposed to do, open the door and let them in? Forget about that.

I understand some of the motivation behind this, but in the situation immediately following Katrina, I think that is a situation that positively calls out for the need of a gun for self defense.

[sandnsea]

36. Oh my god, it didn't happen

For the cazillionth time, look at all the videos yourself. Read all the actual news articles from the time. It is NOT what happened. They were not entering homes for the purpose of confiscating guns. What happened BEFORE the NG got there is completely irrelevant because the order "no one carrying guns" came AFTER the NG got there when they were trying to restore order.

[MadHound]

42. OMG, saying something doesn't make it so

Guns were confiscated by both the NO police and the National Guard, both before and afer the NG got on the scene. Here, read for yourself<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/22/opinion/main1430218.shtml?source=RSS&attr=Opinion_1430218>

And if they weren't confiscated, then where did the guns the NO police are returning now come from? <http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060420/NEWS0110/604200394/1002>

And frankly, if this action was all so hunky dory, why is the LA House passing a law to prevent such seizures in the future? Oh, that's right, because it was determined that the gun seizure was determined to be UNconstitutional.<http://www.kplctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4813748>

Sorry, but the fact is that people both on the street and in their homes had their guns confiscated. This is indeed wrong and unconstitutional.

[sandnsea]

46. On the streets and during the removal

That's when the guns were taken. That's what every article at the time stated happened. I've read the articles. I've watched the news reports.

Why is Louisiana changing the laws? Because of gun nuts, that's why.

[MadHound]

56. Here's some quotes that speak otherwise

"John C. Guidos was successfully guarding his tavern on St. Claude Ave on September 7, when police took his shotgun and pistol; indeed, it was the only time that he saw any cops. Soon afterwards robbers looted the tavern. "

"No one will be able to be armed," said Deputy Chief Warren Riley. "We are going to take all the weapons."

"No civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns or other firearms, said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said.

"At the orders of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, the New Orleans Police, the National Guard, the Oklahoma National Guard, and U.S. Marshals have begun breaking into homes at gunpoint, confiscating their lawfully-owned firearms, and evicting the residents. "No one is allowed to be armed. We're going to take all the guns," says P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police."

"ABC News video on September 8 showed National Guard troops going house-to-house, smashing down doors, searching for residents, and confiscating guns. Every victim of disarmament was clearly not a thug or looter, but a decent resident wanting to defend his or her home.

Many of the troops were clearly conflicted by their orders. "It is surreal," said one member of the Oklahoma National Guard who was going door-to-door in New Orleans. "You never expect to do this in your own country."

And no, I don't think that LA is changing the laws because of pressure from the NRA. I think that LA is changing the law because they realize that in a disaster the magnitude of Katrina, law enforcement was simply overwhelmed and could not protect the populace. Therefore, as in other times of such crisis, it was up to the individual to protect their life and their property, and the most efficient way to do so is with a gun. You may not like it, but that is the ugly reality of such a situation.

And frankly, that is one of the bigger reasons why I myself have a gun, self protection. If there is a major disaster comes and destroys my part of the world, I know for certain that the first people to reach me aren't going to be the sheriffs or deputies, far away in the county seat. No, it's going to be the meth freaks and general criminals that are seeing such a disaster as an opportunity to pick up some things for free. And it is at times like that a gun is needed. And frankly, if the NG or local law enforcement comes around to confiscate my guns, they're going to have a mighty hard time finding them, and I won't be giving them over willingly. For one thing, a couple of antique pieces, and I know I wouldn't ever get those back.

Life has taught me some hard lessons in my time, and one of those is that this isn't some loving world that when shit seriously happens, everybody pulls together for the common good. That is true of most people in our society, but there are always those assholes who see disasters as a thieving, looting, murder and mayhem opportunity, and the only language that such people listen to is that spoken by the business end of a twelve guage shotgun. I would love to live in a society who exhibits it's noblest behaviour when the situation is the most dire, but until everybody in our society is that enlightened, I'll be hanging onto my guns, thank you very much.

[sandnsea]

61. Right wing distortions

I don't care that you have a gun to protect yourself in an emergency or otherwise. But once law enforcement has arrived to restore order, then you shouldn't be out on the streets with your gun. You should not put law enforcement in the position of having to decide whether you're a criminal or not. That is what the gun nuts in New Orleans did.

Your quotes are out of context. You're taking the gun nut arguments, because I've read them, and slapping them up against the real intentions of law enforcement.

"No civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns or other firearms, said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said.

Those were the guns that were taken.

The "house to house, smashing down doors" was to find the people who were still in New Orleans to try to get them to leave. If they hadn't done that, then the left would be bitching that they left people there to starve to death. Go look at the videos yourself. They WERE NOT searching for guns. The gun nuts made that shit up ut of thin air because they're NUTS, and racists. They think because they're white, law enforcement should automatically know they aren't criminals. That's what happened in New Orleans.

[MadHound]

68. Friend, I've watched the videos, I've read the reports

And frankly, yes, the guns were being seized illegally and unconstitutionally. And yes, doors were kicked in, guns were grabbed, and this isn't the paranoid delusions of some RW gun nutter, this is reality.

If you wish to deny that this happened, fine, deny all you wish. But I, and many others on this thread have given you links, quotes, articles and videos that disprove your notion. That you continue to believe otherwise is your own delusion, please try not to foist it on the rest of us who live in the reality based world.

Like I said earlier, I'm as much in favor of sensible gun control as the next person, but what happened in NO was wrong. And it wasn't perpetrated by racists or gun nuts, it was perpetrated by the law enforcment authority against ALL the people of NO, black, white or otherwise.

And frankly, if I'm in a situation comparable to Katrina, even if law enforcement shows up to "restore order" they're still not getting my weapon. Because looking at how well they "restored order" after they arrived, it looks like I'll still have a need for a firearm.

[sandnsea]

72. "guns were grabbed"

But you're no RW gun nutter. Riight.

Nobody set out to kick in doors and grab guns. That was not the purpose. Getting people out of their homes was the purpose. Otherwise they'd have taken guns from homes where nobdy was at, that would have been a lot easier. Nobody on the streets with a gun. No civilians waving firearms at law enforcement. Perfectly reasonable. The gun nuts refused to comply. Obviously as you would too because you'd be there long after sane people had left, according to your last sentence.

[MadHound]

75. Oh that's cute. Cute and predictable.

Can't back up your points with links and references, get your ass handed to you by myself and other people who can reference our points, and VOILA, Seabeyond resorts to name calling and ad hominem attacks.

Have very predictable of you, and how very sad. Why don't you try arguing facts, backed with links and references, instead of acting like a grade schooler and calling names.

Oh, by the by, if you had actually read some of the links I provided, you would have found out that law enforcement was indeed breaking into unoccupied houses and taking the guns from there too.

But I suppose for you it is more intellectually fulfilling to disregard those pesky things known as facts, and go straight to name calling instead:eyes: Classy, NOT!

[sandnsea]

77. The links are all over in this thread

It's the interpretation that is in dispute. It's also been reported that some guns were flat out stolen so it's impossible to know what happened to a gun just because it's missing.

Gun nuts are a serious problem in this country. The hysteria over crime and self-defense that is used to justify all these guns caused people in New Orleans to die when it was declared too dangerous for help to come in. They had a responsibility to restore order, and getting guns off the street is part of that. The authority also exists under Louisiana's 5 day emergency gun "regulating and controlling" measure. Whether Blanco actually issued the order or not, we'll never know because she sure hasn't got the guts to stand up and say so if she did it.

[MadHound]

80. And despite all of that, you instead now resort to calling me names?

How damn pathetic is that. Disagree with me all you want, we can argue and debate around and around all day. But I think it is beneath you to start using ad hominem attacks, name calling, and insunuating somehow that I'm a RW gun nut. That friend is against the rules around here and you know it.

But sadly, from past confrontations with you, this seems to be your MO:shrug: Again, perhaps it would serve you better to work with facts backed up by references, rather than relying on your own opinion backed up by name calling and innuendo.

Oh, and again, if you would read the links I provided, you would find that the LA law regulating gun seizures in emergencies was found to be unconstitutional:shrug: But I suppose you'll think that a federal court somehow was cowed by the NRA:eyes:

[sandnsea]

90. You've tried that twice now

And I have yet to all you a name. Both your posts, on the other hand, are filled with real name calling and accusations. Now that is what is really typical.

And yes, the courts and government are cowed by the NRA. What do you think the point of Bush appointing conservatives has been?

[MadHound]

93. You are absolutely beyond belief,

I would suggest that you re-read your post number 72, and then try and tell me that you aren't insinuating that I'm some sort of RW gun nut.

And now you are believing this is some sort of gun conspiracy that can effect the courts in this country. Hey, I'm as big a fan of tin foil as anybody around here, but even I know when it is time to put the shit down and back away quickly.

Oh, and if you go and do your research, you'll find that most of the court appointees in this case were put there by *gasp* Clinton. But I suppose he was in on the conspiracy too:eyes:

[sandnsea]

97. And read your 75 & 80

You used the term "guns were grabbed", not me. The only ones I've ever heard use "gun grabber" terms have been gun nuts. That's the only thing I pointed out.

You, on the other hand, went on two different diatribes with all kinds of accusations, including calling me seabeyond and I've got no idea what that's about.

Clinton appointed gun rights judges? Color me not surprised.

[slackmaster]

33. There were neither adequate NG nor emergency workers present

If they had adequate national guard and emergency workers in there, there wouldn't have been any crime going on anyway.

If my aunt had testicles she'd be my uncle.

[sandnsea]

37. But when they DID arrive

They issued an order, no one on the streets carrying guns. And if your aunt had testicles, she'd tell men to help their neighbor instead of getting always preparing to shoot them.

[Leopolds Ghost]

59. There's a difference between unarmed "looters" and armed thugs - be they

criminals or rogue cops. I believe in "turn the other cheek." I believe that violence, even in self defense, is always wrong. But I will not condone violent takedowns by law enforcement in order to deny people their right, under common law, to act in self-defense.

Now, common law says it's ok to kill someone if he trespasses in your yard. I have a problem with that. But I also have a problem when cops kill a guy for brandishing a pair of scissors, or looking at them funny during a "public health emergency". Cuffing is just an order on the spectrum of violent responses that we have left available to the state, which you would hypocritically deny the individual, when it comes to "self defense".

[sandnsea]

74. You believe in anarchy

Because I don't know how you expect law enforcement to know who the looters and thugs are, you know, the ones the gun nuts said they had to defend themselves against. (Which you obviously know generally weren't there anyway) The entire situation in New Orleans was created by hysterical gun nuts who view everybody as a potential criminal. How to turn New Orleans from the wild west into a place safe for first responders. That was what they had to deal with. The only way to do it is no guns on the streets and everybody out of the city. How to convince the "self-defenders" that they can leave? Convince them there's no more looters in the city. The only way to do that is start forcing evacuations and taking guns of those who are wandering the streets with guns or brandishing them when they go into homes.

[coalition_unwilling]

112. "Balls," said the Queen. "If I had two I'd be King."

[Doctor Venmkan]

86. "If they had adequate national guard and emergency workers in there...

wouldn't have been any crime going on anyway."

But - they - DIDN'T!!! And crime DID go on! And a lot of people were left defenseless thanks to the "helpful" government!

The whole PURPOSE of owning a gun for me is simple - THE POLICE/ARMY/UNCLE SAM CAN'T BE EVERYWHERE AT ONCE! The only option if you enjoy being alive and healthy is to learn to defend YOURSELF. And for me and many others, a firearm is what works for me.

[sandnsea]

92. Others say there was NO crime

So what was it? Crime that had to be defended against? Allow criminals to continue roaming the streets with guns?

Or complete gun nut hyseria from start to finish.

[Doctor Venmkan]

98. And some people say they have a bridge to sell you..

do you believe them too? Maybe the 'anarchy' stories were overblown, but it's downright stupid to think that there was NO crime whatsoever.

You have a Seahawks avatar, does that make you the Seahawks coach? No - just like someone huddled in his home, or even on the streets of NO with a gun isn't automatically a danger to society.

[sandnsea]

104. So how do you tell the difference?

Either the entire thing was overblown, by the scaredy cats in this country who think they have to shoot everything that moves. In which case, they're a danger to restoring law and order in a situation like New Orleans. OR, there really were gangs of rapists and murderers that needed to be disarmed in a state of emergency. Either way, or both ways at once, they did the right thing to say no guns on the streets and to take guns from people in their homes when they were acting like nuts, brandishing their weapons at the people who were there to help them. And that's what happened.

[applegrove]

99. Right. And there were not adequate. So a few people with guns got

on their rifles and floated to homes to rescue the people who were drowning. The right people with guns and with enough guns were not in the right place. Cause there were not enough of them. Not even inside the conference centre.

I think somebody who had their gun taken away during marshall law - when that law allowed rescues to start up again - lost so little compared to someone who drown or watched their husband float away. No? Priorities.

You live in a democracy.. sometimes.. you give up a little. Especially if it means the life of somebody else.

[Ksec]

9. and I remember them guys pointing guns at the citizens...

now THAT pissed me off.

[Maddy McCall]

12. Many gun owners will never get their guns back, because police officers

stole the guns and god knows where they are now.

Several police officers/deputies were charged with crimes for stealing from homeowners in NOLA. Haven't heard further development of those cases, though.

You want to see how bad the cops in NOLA were during the hurricane? Check out the bad cops archives:

http://www.mustbme.com/bad_cop_news/louisiana/

And, let me add also that the firefighters in NOLA worked with honor and integrity during the aftermath of Katrina. Not a single firefighter abandoned his/her post. That can't be said for the police--hundreds walked away from their responsibility to protect and serve the citizens of their city. If the firefighters could stay, there's no excuse as to why the police could not stay, too.

[applegrove]

100. Many people will never get their homes back because they floated

away? Family floated away too but someone picked them up and brought her to an airport to die or be flown to a scary new life in some weird city - if they were lucky. Relax. If you lost your gun.. you are very lucky indeed. You can count your blessings. Maybe get a mortgage on your house that is still standing and buy an armory with that?

[anarch]

15. come on...the second amendment is only there for politicking

It's a bullshit issue that the Republicans use to their advantage at election time, but when it comes down to it the government will always take your guns away, doesn't matter which party is in charge. Man, it sure gets the gun-owning voters riled up though.

And yes, emergency situations where you might actually need a gun are exactly what the writers of the Constitution must have had in mind in guaranteeing the right to bear arms as a fundamental civil right.

These days, martial law is only a minor incident away. Pretty much the whole Bill of Rights has been violated in recent history.

[Renew Deal]

24. It's getting to crunch time.

Either we defend the constitution or we lose it.

[sandnsea]

28. Defend against the gun nuts, you got that right

Who are making a mockery of the right of government to govern, particularly in a state of emergency. Keeping guns off the streets shouldn't be the FIRST thing our National Guard has to think about. Sadly, the paranoia of our gun nuts, who think every event requires an armed solution, means that our first responders have to worry about guns before rescue. It's disgusting.

[Renew Deal]

29. Licensed and trained gun owners are not the problem.

Those that use their guns responsibly are not the issue. There is not reason to confiscate weapons. Shoot those that are shooting at you, but someone's bad behavior doesn't mean that everyone else should suffer.

The gun nuts weren't the ones shooting at cops.

[sandnsea]

32. Weapons weren't confiscated

That's been proven by the very links gunnuts.org posted as proof of their position. (I don't remember the name of the gun group) The weapons were confiscated from people ON THE STREET, or in the process of removing people from homes when guns were brandished at cops. Or possibly, people who WERE shooting at the cops and tracked down by cops, but the gun nuts would never tell the truth about that. No, creating gun hysteria, that's the agenda, first last and always.

Somebody really needs to figure out why the entire northeast can go into a blackout and not have the gun and crime hysteria that happened in Louisiana.

[Renew Deal]

35. Were you around for the Blackout in the late 70's?

The Northeast blackout was short and the NE is in a much different social situation than NO. Here's a reminder of what happened in the 70's.

<snip>
Looting and vandalism were wide spread, hitting thirty-one neighborhoods, including every poor neighborhood in the city. Among the hardest hit were Crown Heights, where seventy-five stores on a five-block stretch were looted and Bushwick, where arson was rampant with some 25 fires still burning the next morning. At one point two blocks of Broadway, the main drag, were on fire. In all, thirty five blocks of Broadway were destroyed: 134 stores looted, 45 of them torched.

In all, 1,616 stores were damaged in looting and rioting. 1,037 fires were responded to, including 14 multiple-alarm fires. In the largest mass arrest in city history, 3,776 people were arrested. Many had to be stuffed into overcrowded cells, precinct basements and other makeshift holding pens. A Congressional study estimated that the cost of damages amounted to a little over $300 million.

By 1:45 p.m. the next day, service was restored to half of Consolidated Edison's customers, mostly in Staten Island and Queens. It was not until 10:39 p.m. on July 14 that the entire city's power was back online.
<snip>

http://www.answers.com/topic/new-york-city-blackout-of-1977

[sandnsea]

38. Different social situation?? Hmmm

What different social situation would that be?

And I wonder what has changed in the northeast so the 2002 blackout didn't have the same response as the one in the 70's. A difference in attitude about guns and race? Yeah, that might be it.

[Renew Deal]

40. NY and the surrounding area is much different now.

Manhattan island is very affluent. A lot of poor have been forced off the island. Also, people's homes were intact. There was no flood and there was working plumbing for the most part. The suburbs are pretty much the same. People didn't want to burn down their neighborhoods because they had something to lose. There was nothing to lose in NY in 1977. There were 1553 murders in 1977. There were 587 in 2002. There were over 600,000 crimes in NY in 1977. There were just over 250,000 in 2002. The situations are just not comporable.

http://samoa.istat.it/Eventi/sicurezza/relazioni/Langan_rel.pdf

[sandnsea]

50. It was like ten states

You're telling me there's no poverty in those major cities and states? Bullshit. What changed is people's attitudes towards guns and race. And maybe respect for a State of Emergency and additional law enforcement. Instead of a bunch of idiots that decided to take the law into their own hands and created more problems then they solved.

[Renew Deal]

67. How does one have anything to do with the other?

The circumstances were completely different. There is some level of poverty in NY, but not nearly on the level of NO. Also, there was no destruction here. People can go to bed at night and expect the power to come on in the morning. That wasn't possible in NO. The destruction wasn't going away. It had nothing to do with guns. The only bullshit is that you're trying to make this a gun issue.

The real problem is that mercenaries from Blackwater get to keep their weapons while law abiding citizens have them taken by the government.

[sandnsea]

78. But they didn't in the 70's

That was a 25 hour blackout. So what changed?? Why New Orleans went so horribly wrong matters. How racism played into it matters. How people's attitudes about guns and who the criminals are, matters. And whether every emergency is going to turn into the wild west, matters.

[benEzra]

71. There's that freeper "anarchy" meme again...

didn't happen...there were isolated incidents of violence (mostly between criminals and residents), but the "people shooting at rescuers" thing was a MYTH, used to justify the do-nothing mode that FEMA and the local authorities exhibited after the storm.

The Gulf Coast of Mississippi wasn't an "anarchy" zone either. You think people in Biloxi don't own guns?

[sandnsea]

76. So what needed defending???

NOTHING. Complete hysteria by the fucking gun nuts, from start to finish. They're the ones who jumped to the conclusion that the blacks were looting and raping and murdering, therefore they had to have their guns to defend themselves from the blacks, and then when they tried to take away the guns from the supposed looters so that the gun nuts would evacuate, the gun nuts whacked out over that too. They're paranoid delusional NUTS, that's why.

[lies and propaganda]

73. i love how they take away what they cherish...

I think mostly on our side, we just love the Constitution....I think their side has a real hgealthy love of guns, yet only the hired guns can have em.

NOLA was shit all over by the feds while they are hanging out to dry every Dem in the state when Katrina hit.

[AzDar]

83. If the current Government decides when and where it can deny

Constitutional Rights (be they 1st, 2nd, or 4th), we are living under a Dictatorship.
And yet they go on....
I DESPISE guns, but an emergency situation is exactly what I've always perceived the 2nd Amendment to pertain to.
Another outrageous abuse.

[zulchzulu]

113. About 300 shot dead in the street during martial law...some innocent...

Why the NRA hasn't set up camp on New Orleans to protest the right to carry a weapon...oh wait, they were nig&ers...nevermind...

[sandnsea]

121. They did

How do you think those 300 ended up dead??

[zulchzulu]

127. I have a friend who worked one of the levees who...

...talked to the National Guard when they rescued he and his crew. They were bragging about how about 300 people had been shot during the first week for carrying or perceived to have been carrying firearms during the martial law period...

[benEzra]

128. I hope the shooters are tried for murder...

but I'm not holding my breath...