Here are people telling about THEIR guns being taken after Katrina.

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.metatube.com/en/videos/38821/Defenseless-New-Orleans-Gun-Grab-Violation-of-Rights/
Three people, Richard Styron, Wayne Schum, JoAnn Guidos, all state on camera that their guns were illegally taken. It is a news video. Unfortunately they also interview Alex Jones in the last section. But you have three citizens, on camera, telling what happened.

Pattie Konie is the name of the elderly lady in the famous video. She was not "waving her gun around", but was holding in the palm of her hand AFTER police had told her to show it to them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4
Robert Zas had his gun taken away. He also witness a friend having his gun taken away. Buell Teel had two hunting rifles taken away, but was able to get them back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVyV9ojTA_I
I.H. Spurlock states, on camera, he had guns confiscated and hasn't gotten them back. Other people whose faces are on camera but whose names aren't given claim to have had guns taken from them. One lady states a revolver was taken (She had the store reciept with the serial number but the gun was not returned.), Tony Gugliuzza states a shotgun was taken, another man says a rifle was taken, Albert Dase was another victim of gun confiscation, another unidentified lady tells on camera that her guns were taken.

That is eight named people stating on camera that their guns were taken, and two unidentified people also stating that their guns were taken.

Yet some people refuse to believe that the New Orleans gun grab happened.

[SecularMotion]

1. I refuse to believe that the New Orleans gun grab happened.

I think it is more likely that these were isolated incidents which are being grouped together and dishonestly categorized as a "gun grab" to promote the NRA agenda.

[rfranklin]

2. Knowing the NRA's tendency to stir up the paranoia of its members...

I think that it is probably the most likely explanation.

[SteveM]

100. Those planes flying into the World Trade Center...

It didn't happen. All foto-shopped. Just conspiracy-theorists (like yourself?) who "stir up the paranoia."

[AtheistCrusader]

3. So, you have people it happened to, you have a mayor and police chief that said they were going to

on national television...

What more do you need?

(and yes, you are correct in that it was overstated, all 700+ weapons were not confiscated in this way, but even ONE was illegal)

[Hoyt]

9. Needed? Imprison those in Gretna who had armed police turn fleeing refugees back across bridge.

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. That isn't what the thread is about. *Do* try and keep up, eh? n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Do try and stay on topic, won't you?

[spin]

5. And you probably believe that the ATF Operation Fast and Furious ...

is just an NRA plot to further its agenda.

[Dogtown]

6. I agree w/ you & Post #2.

These confiscations were probably situational & were dictated by reaction, perhaps over-reaction, by individual police officers.

I'd call it a gun-grab if there were specific road-blocks searching for weapons exclusively.

Anything less is hyperbole.

It's just silly to think that either party wants to dis-arm our citizens. Face it, our government is absolutely sure they can control us. They'd only want a disarmed populace if they feared us and clearly they do not.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

10. Would you call it a "gun grab"...

...if there were specific house to house searches being carried out under the mayor's direction, with no warrants, specifically to confiscate firearms?

I just want to be clear if you only consider a road block a gun grab or if unlawful warrantless forced entry combined with confiscation by order of the mayor also meets your definition.

[Dogtown]

22. I would accept documented proof

such as an in-house memo or other official instruction, to be prima fascia evidence of an official gun-grab.

Does such proof exist, or are we to rely on unsubstantiated anecdotes by a handful of individuals, in which no *organized* attempts are described, to support our paranoia?

Check me out, I do not routinely support the police, especially when it comes to unlawful search and seizure. I have a strong distrust of LEOs and police agencies. Also, I have a carry-permit and routinely have a handgun in my vehicle when I venture out.

I just cannot imagine that the government wants us disarmed. We are no threat, not only because we are not sufficiently coherently organized to be threatening, but also because we are so ridiculously out-gunned by the authorities. ("We" being any specific group of angry citizens, whether Bircher-inspired Tea-bagging Revolutionary wannabees or irate liberal/socialist rebels.)


I'll accept conspiracy-theories about jailing blacks/hispanics more often than white outlaws; the proof is in the records and the populations.

I don't believe for a tick that a relative few individuals who have complained of their rights being violate during an extreme emergency constitutes evidence of systematic attempts to disarm us. I read one post that describes 5 or six individuals and someone else mentioned the number "700" without any substantiation. Even 700 verified instances would be a minute percentage of the gun-owning population of a city the size of NOLA.

Also, the described instances very in their details and do not support any charges of an *organized* attempt to confiscate weapons by any agency.

What I've read are accounts of police officers, operating under duress and lacking adequate resources, over-extending their authority. That's believable; cops do that sort of thing routinely, even under normal conditions.

Some NOLA cops actually killed honest citizens without legal justification. They committed murder, were investigated, tried and convicted. It's a proven fact. Does that indict NOLA PD for a conspiracy to commit genocide? Preposterous.

I've spent more time on this rebuttal than is justified for a non-event. Still, I felt it was important to provide some perspective to the thread. We as DUers, should be much more analytical and critical in our thinking, not just react to an inflammatory, anecdotal propaganda theory that is easily refuted with a minimum of unbiased evaluation.

I hope this isn't perceived as argumentative of your post or an attack on you personally. I'm a bit short on time & ran with my observations, only spring-boarding from your post.

In summary, I would accept your hypothetical as an unconstitutional gun-grab, but see no evidence that those conditions existed.

:hi:

[We_Have_A_Problem]

26. Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ

IT WAS ALL OVER THE FUCKING NEWS FOR ABOUT A MONTH!

Did you flat fucking sleep through Katrina? Did you not know it happened? There are PILES of news stories, TV stories, documented occurrences, law suits, affidavits, etc.

HOW MUCH MORE PROOF AND DOCUMENTATION DO YOU REQUIRE?

The Mayor admitted it. The Police Chief admitted it. The courts found in favor of the plaintiffs. There have been in court and out of court settlements.

Good God al-fucking-mighty. You're not going to see an internal memo that says, explicitly, "lets go grab the guns from anyone around the area just because we feel like it".

You want to play Devil's Advocate, fine. Just try not to be stupid in the process, OK?

[X_Digger]

32. It's DU's electronic version of 'lalalala-I-can't-hear-you!' n/t

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

67. "IT WAS ALL OVER THE FUCKING NEWS FOR ABOUT A MONTH!"

Hm, maybe some people were just busy listening to / watching the actual important things going on in New Orleans ...

Maybe some other people need to get a grip and a clue about what those things actually were.

These tales always remind me of when I watched the movie of the Nadine Gordimer short story "City Lovers", about a white male professional and his "coloured" female housekeeper, who have a love affair and get caught by the authorities of apartheid. At the end of the movie, his apartment is searched and boxes of his files are taken away, and she is found hiding in a closet and taken away. The film ends with her naked in a sterile examining room with a white male doctor bearing down on her with a speculum to seek evidence of their illegal sexual activities.

I watched it on my VCR with three friends: my then law partner, his buddy the Trotskyist lawyer, and our part-time secretary/university student friend. Everyone was silent for a moment at the end. Then the Trot spoke up.

"What an invasion," he said. "Imagine. Going through his files like that."

Some people really just can't see beyond their navels and their agendas, can they?

[friendly_iconoclast]

77. True, this wasn't as important as the Danzinger Bridge incident....

....or the multi-level governmental fuck-ups (to describe them as kindly as possible) that killed thousands and wrecked the lives
of tens of thousands more- but it certainly is on topic for the Guns Forum and quite an appropriate subject for discussion
here.

In fact, I'd go as far to say that the lesser crime helped illustrate the greater ones, much as the aerial photo of a hundred or
so submerged school buses was a stark reminder of sheer stupidity, cupidity and downright waste.

[AtheistCrusader]

80. This is the guns forum.

Seems topical. Other firearm related issues from that disaster have been covered here as well, including the convictions of some police officers.

[Union Scribe]

82. No, it would appear you cannot. nt

[SteveM]

102. Reality does not become you, sir/madam.

;-)

[SteveM]

101. Please review the video when Police Chief Compass called for confiscation...

and tell us how this is "...perhaps over-reaction, by individual police officers.

"gun-grabs," or any attempt at prohibition are not signaled by road-blocks (we all know how effective these are for drug-users). Actually, there was a little door-to-door. But you can choose your poison. Or hyperbole.

You can find any number of politicians (including presidents) who have called for strict gun-control. And you can find them in either party. Trouble is, they can no more succeed in this endeavor than they have in other forms of prohibition. So the only question which remains is the politics of the situation. One party (the Dems) is stuck with the image -- and reality -- of favoring strict gun-control/prohibition; the other, is identified (incorrectly) with a "gun rights" image.

Incidentally, Mayor Nagin (who was N.O.'s mayor during Katrina) was an "ex" Republican.

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. Yeah, the NRA got a look-alike for the police chief to appear in this video...

...and order gun seizures. Clever bastards!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8trl69kzo&feature=related

[SteveM]

99. Well, you know how it is with videos...

...they can mean anything -- like Rodney King not getting the shit beaten out of him, and the cops being acquitted as a result.

And your agenda?

[X_Digger]

4. Even with the police chief on national news..

And court proceedings..

There are none so blind..

[SecularMotion]

7. Hey, Mr. Statistics

Please provide the statistics on the number of guns confiscated on a daily basis in major urban areas in the US. Then compare those numbers to the number of gun confiscations in New Orleans during Katrina.

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. Why should he look up those statistics for you? That's *your* argument, not his.

Can't deny the videotapes and court records anymore, so you're taking another approach.

You made the claim that the gun seizures weren't out of the ordinary, so the onus is on you to prove your claim, not on
him to disprove it.

[SecularMotion]

12. Wrong

I'm not the one mis-categorizing a small number of gun seizures as a "gun grab"

NRA supporters are making the claim, they need to provide the evidence.

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. First they "didn't happen", now there were only "a small number of gun seizures"

I guess we've always been at war with Eastasia...

[X_Digger]

18. What's 700+ guns among friends..

700 is 'small' compared to the number of atoms in a pound of feathers..

See? You just gotta know how to look at it- it's all a matter of perspective.

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. I guess we are supposed to believe him and not the chief of the NO police:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8trl69kzo&feature=related

[SecularMotion]

23. It's dishonest to use that number to imply that 700 legal gun owners were dis-armed

How many of those weapons were illegal and un-registered?

How many of those weapons were removed from abandoned homes or businesses?

Why are they unclaimed if they were confiscated from legal gun owners?

[gravity556]

28. Registered?

I'm pretty sure there's no "registration" in LA. In fact, there are very few states that have registration, though the few that do tend to be places with draconian gun laws and high crime rates in spite of the registry. As for illegal, what do you mean by that? Unregistered NFA weapons (if you don't know what that means, you should google the "NFA tax registry")? Most folks who go to the hassle and expense of buying an NFA weapon would take their expensive goodies with them when they bugged out. But that's neither here nor there.

And they're unclaimed because the PD didn't give the victims of their theft (and that's what it is) receipts for what they confiscated, instead forcing the owners of the guns to provide receipts of purchase, something that is unlikely to be easy to find if your house has been flooded and then ransacked during the illegal search. Based on the corruption we saw among the NOLA PD, I would be rather unsurprised to see a good number of those stolen firearms in the posession of cops.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

29. Registration is not required in most states.

In fact, registration is the extreme exception. The rule is that registration does not exist. Sorry you've been misinformed.

[SecularMotion]

33. Gun registration does exist in my state

Sorry, you aren't aware of that fact.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

35. Then why...

...did you assume the guns were somehow unregistered and illegal?

Most guns are unregistered.

[SecularMotion]

41. Why did you say registration does not exist?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

51. I said....

the RULE is, that it does not exist. Meaning, registration is the extreme exception, not the rule.

[MicaelS]

37. How are we supposed to know that?

You don't even post which state you live in just "New England".

And gun registration is the exception in this country, not the rule.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Ok, that's a great indicator of the price of tea in china, but has nothing to do with Louisiana.

In LA, ain't no fucking registration, so they could hardly confiscate guns for being un-registered, now could they?

[GreenStormCloud]

79. New Orleans is in Louisiana. There is no gun registration in that state. N/T

[X_Digger]

30. Err..

How many of those weapons were illegal and un-registered?

How is a gun 'illegal'?

What is this 'registration' thing you speak of? (Hint: there is no registration in LA- http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/LASL.pdf )

How many of those weapons were removed from abandoned homes or businesses?

And by abandoned, you mean.. houses that were boarded up by the owners on the expectation of returning? By people who couldn't afford to take every possession they own with them, and expected to find their houses not pillaged by the fucking police on their return?

Police who at first denied that *any* confiscation had taken place (google Eddie Compass)? Police who didn't keep any records of where and from whom guns were confiscated? (And no, they weren't all from houses, see the OP.) Police who seem to have lost 300 odd firearms? (The figure went from 'a thousand' to 'about 700' from one brief to the next.

Why are they unclaimed if they were confiscated from legal gun owners?

Because NOLA PD are/were requiring proof of ownership, like a sales receipt including serial number-- from people whose houses and much of what they own-- were washed away. If the gun was handed down from another family member, forget about it. Since the PD didn't keep track of it, it's up to the owners to prove that their property actually belongs to them.

[SecularMotion]

34. None of this constitutes proof of a "gun grab"

The guns were secured by the police during an emergency and then returned to rightful owners. The fact that some people could not provide proof of ownership does not equal a "gun grab"

Again, I return to my original claim that the facts are being skewed here to promote the NRA agenda.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

36. When it requires...

...a court order to force return of the property, I'd say that's pretty well a gun grab. You can play it however you like.

The police were not in any way authorized to confiscate them. Period. When you or I take "unattended property" from someone else, that is typically called "theft".

[Iktomiwicasa]

39. Un....

...fucking believable.

[X_Digger]

40. Semantic masturbation now?

Police went house to house, pillaging empty houses for firearms, forcing residents of occupied homes to evacuate, and confiscated firearms that those evacuees had. Police eventually admitted to this in response to the SAF lawsuit.

They ended up in possession of 1,000 700 (*wink* *wink*) guns that didn't belong to the NOLA PD. The fact that evacuees cannot prove that the gun their father gave them is actually theirs does not make them the property of the NOLA PD, nor does it make the action morally or legally defensible.

[SecularMotion]

42. You are using hyperbole and a worst case scenario

to help the NRA spread fear and paranoia among legal gun owners that their weapons are in danger of being confiscated.

[X_Digger]

44. No danger anymore (at least under these circumstances)..

Congress and many individual states passed laws in the wake of Katrina to assure that such action could never happen again.

Why don't you tell all those members of congress (the vote was 84-16) that there was no 'gun grab'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_Recovery_Personal_Protection_Act_of_2006

[SecularMotion]

45. Again, you are skewing the facts to imply that this had wide bi-partisian support

The bill was introduced by Congressman Bobby Jindal(R) and Senator David Vitter(R) as an amendment to a DHS Security Appropriations Act. Signed by Bush(R).

[X_Digger]

46. 84-16 and 389-9 kind of speaks for itself. n/t

eta: added the house vote and links..

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll401.xml

[SecularMotion]

48. For a DHS Security Appropriations Act

It may speak but it doesn't support the story you're pushing.

[X_Digger]

50. No dear, those were separate votes.. the DHS one was 100-0.

The first senate vote (84-16) was on the Vitter Amendment separately. It passed 322-99 all on it's own in the house.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll401.xml

[SecularMotion]

52. Wrong again

House vote was 223(R) - 98(D)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2006-401

[X_Digger]

53. Those were the 'aye' votes, yes.. and?

Did you not click on the link in my previous post that had the same information?

98 democrats voted for it, and 98 voted against it (along with one republican).

[We_Have_A_Problem]

54. I suspect....

...even if it were a unanimous vote in the House and Senate, it would still be dismissed as it was submitted by republicans and signed by a republican president - ergo, it doesn't matter.

[X_Digger]

55. No doubt.. did you see the graph?

Pretty much says it all, for me.

[SecularMotion]

58. But that's not the case, is it?

The vote was not unanimous. The bill was opposed by half of the Democrats in Congress.

You're right, as a progressive Democrat, I don't agree with bills promoted by the NRA and passed by republicans.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

62. You can disagree with it on that basis

And I support your perspective, but claiming it was a partisan thing is inaccurate at best. It was passed with bi-partisan support.

When you have a vote on that level, it really doesn't much matter which party is in the majority. It is a clear indicator that the nation as a whole is fully behind the legislation.

[gejohnston]

66. Yet as a "progressive" Democrat you

seem to have no problem with the police violating the fourth and fifth amendments. Would you feel the same way about bongs? I doubt it. Such hypocritical bullshit and attacking someone who resists criminals as "crazed vigilantes" (another tread about this) does more to discredit the progressive movement than all Koch think tanks combined. Most people don't care about ideology, they look at who is looking out for them and support their interests.

[SecularMotion]

72. Is that you O'Reilly?

[gejohnston]

74. umm no

that is how what you said comes across to most people. The other half can be found in some of the posts here. Unfortunately, some of the worst were deleted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x459674#459769

[SteveM]

104. That posting indicates you are complaining about your chess opponent's move...

...even as you remain check-mated.

So easily revealed, you are.

[SecularMotion]

56. You're right, I read your post wrong

[We_Have_A_Problem]

57. I owe you an apology.

It is rare that someone who takes the anti-gun side will apologize for a mistake. Kudos to you sir.

[X_Digger]

61. Well, to be fair, I fubar'd the vote total, too..

Though I linked to the right vote, I listed the results from the other. No harm, no foul.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. Boy you sure like playing games with semantics, don't you.

Check the voting rolls for the bill.

[GreenStormCloud]

71. Senator Obama voted for that bill. N/T

[Remmah2]

90. Some firearms were impossible to return.

Many people were displaced for months (years), some without addresses. In addition to their confiscated firearms, some lost just about everything. Retrieving their firearms would be low on the priority list, hence many firearms will probably go unclaimed. In addition to firearms being confiscated (stolen) by the police, the police also looted other items from individuals.

Katrina certainly redefined "clusterfuck".

I have to believe that many people just never got the memo about the return of their personal property, or given the circumstances, they just didn't care to apply. (Dignity was also a casualty of Katrina.) Some that might be inclined to apply, lacked the means to travel to apply (family, food and shelter being slightly more important.). Also, being that many persons were displaced and put of state, a different set of firearms ownership laws would prevent them from possessing their firearms in the new state. (We had Katrina LA displaced persons up in NY.)

There are a lot of situations that put people in a position to not seek the return of their firearms or file complaints against the police. Just because there are no legal reams of paper on it, or an army of lawyers, does not mean it did not happen.

[oneshooter]

96. Most, if not all of the weapons to be "returned" were little more than rust.

After being"stored" by being piled on the floor, or in 5gal buckets for several years.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[SteveM]

103. If your police chief said to surrender weapons on Nat'l T.V., would you?

In the eventuality that you did not own weapons, would you defend your neighbor's right to own these weapons?

[gejohnston]

64. number does not matter

it is about violating the fourth and fifth amendments. You know, the Bill of Rights? Or is it OK to violate the rights of gun owners simply because they are gun owners?

[X_Digger]

11. Depends on the locality..

And of course, most of those occur as part of routine police procedures such as arrests. What, you think cops just go around collecting guns from regular folks who haven't committed a crime?

When it doesn't occur under circumstances such as an arrest? You get shit like this..

http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2011/08/30/cops-confiscate-lakewood-ladys-arsenal-motive-pending

Her cache somehow caught the attention of Lakewood Police, who paid a visit last September. When they found Rice wasn’t home, they asked an obliging employee of the complex to open up the apartment without her consent. Once inside, they raided the gun rack, making off with 13 firearms worth around $15,000. The only problem: They had no apparent reason to.

When Rice kindly asked to have her toys returned, the cops acknowledged that the weapons were legally owned. But they refused to return them without a court order. And so Rice has filed suit in Lakewood Municipal Court.

Oh, she got em back..

http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2011/09/14/cops-confiscate-lakewood-ladys-arsenal-motive-pending-updated

Since Scene first reported the story, Rice’s arsenal has been restocked and her legal action tabled.

Hah, or another one..

Dallas Police Officer Fired, Charged With Stealing Driver’s Gun
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/06/30/dallas-police-officer-fired-charged-with-stealing-drivers-gun/

[SecularMotion]

14. This is a poor example of a "gun grab"

It seems like the police did the right thing here. They were requested to check on the situation by the VA hospital where she was receiving treatment. Was the disability her physical or mental condition? The article isn't clear on that point.

The guns were confiscated until it was determined that the disability was not a issue and then they were returned. Again, the article is not clear on the details.

"Rice’s arsenal has been restocked and her legal action tabled." Everyone seems okay with results.

Using this as an example of a "gun grab" is a real stretch.

[X_Digger]

16. I can't believe you are supporting an illegal action

How about if the cops stole your car keys and drove your car away because they thought you were depressed and might drive drunk?

That's very.. authoritarian of you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. The ends justify any means, for some.... n/t

[X_Digger]

31. And fuck due process, apparently. n/t

[SteveM]

105. Libs & Cons agree: When in doubt, bash the Fifth Amendment.

Stepped on even more than the Second.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Warrantless confiscations?

For no lawful reason? Well, that lady in Lakewood did skew the statistics, but lets keep in mind, what the police chief ordered (and mayor), and the police, in and out of state, and national guard carried out, do not related to firearms siezed from suspects detained, or with valid warrants and court orders around the country.

Firearms siezed for no lawful reason usually make headlines. (Our subject from Lakewood being a prime example).

[gravity556]

13. Oh those kooky gunners,

First they bitch about the second amendment being infringed, then they get all pissed off about violations of the 4th and 5th amendments as well? What, do they actually expect the goverment to color inside the lines?




The above is sarcasm. Anyone who participated in warrantless searches and siezures without due process, and anyone who continues to interfere with the retrieval of said illegally siezed property should be hung by their thumbs and publicly flogged. Since we're ignoring the bill of rights now, there's no reason not to employ a bit of cruel and unusual punishment.

[Atypical Liberal]

27. Oh, but they were just SECURING all those gun, doncha know. n/t

[Xela]

38. Gun grabbing was a disgrace...

I agree. The Katrina gun grabbing should continue to be a warning to all legally armed residents in this country.

But this other scenario (the case of Roland Bourgeois, Jr.) should also be a warning to us all:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/law-disorder/blog/2010/04/new-evidence-in-post-katrina-vigilante-shooting.html

http://www.thenation.com/article/katrinas-hidden-race-war

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1295191/Roland-Bourgeois-charged-Hurricane-Katrina-race-hate-shooting.html

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2011/02/federal_trial_delayed_for_man.html

Xela

[SecularMotion]

59. This was not a "gun grab". This was a public safety issue.

Police Superintendent Warren Riley said police had legitimate reasons for confiscating weapons.

"We took guns that were stolen that were stashed in alleyways. If we went into an abandoned house and a gun was there, absolutely we took the weapons," he said. "Obviously there were looters out there. We didn't want some burglar or looter to have an opportunity to arm themselves."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192347,00.html#ixzz1YRHsqtbv

I am glad that the police took the initiative to confiscate unsecured weapons in this extreme emergency.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

63. What is the difference....

...between the police taking property which didn't belong to them and refusing to return it, and J. Random Idiot taking property which doesn't belong to him and refusing to return it?

The police have no authority to simply confiscate property of any kind based on potential misuse. Using that logic, they should have confiscated all of the gasoline, cars, fertilizer, bleach, or any number of potentially dangerous chemicals and/or devices. They did not. They stole firearms.

The fact that they say they had legitimate reasons is irrelevant. I can claim the same, but it in no way would excuse my actions if I took guns from someone's house just because the owner wasn't home.

What they did was plain and simple theft. You don't see a problem with it because they claim some authority you wish to pretend they have, but the fact is, they have no more authority to take property than anyone else.

[SecularMotion]

65. It's disingenuous to portray this as theft

The police made a call under extreme conditions to collect unsecured firearms in anticipation of widespread looting.

The OP is attempting to use a small number of incidents where guns were taken from individuals to mis-categorize this as dis-arming of gun owners, while the majority of guns were not taken from gun owners, but removed from vacated homes and businesses. The talk of "gun grab" is blatant NRA propaganda.

I'm glad the police took this action although they should have taken more care to tag and identify the locations of the weapons confiscated so the the owners could be notified. It's too bad that some people were not able to retrieve their weapons, but considering the great loss of many lives and homes, I'm not going to cry over a few lost guns.

[gravity556]

87. So call it "widespread warrantless confiscation without due process"

Because that's what it was. The mayor and chief of police stated that no one was to be permitted arms except the police. No trial, no warrants, no compensation. He wiped his ass with the 3 amendments, to what end? Think the survivors who were disarmed were safer having their most effective means of defense take from them? You think they got all the guns in the houses where folks hid them? Figure someone who plans on doing a bit of light looting might be the kind of person who would hide the tools of his trade, particularly knowing that the honest folks were likely to be disarmed?

What do you do when some shithead breaks into your house in a disaster zone? Hope for ADT to magically materialize a cop? Bummer about the power and phones being down. Better grab that cell phone and hope you have service. Better hope there's a cop that can get to you in less than 10 minutes. Scream for your neighbors maybe, but most of them probably had the good sense to get the hell out of a city below sea level in the face of a storm like that.

How many illegal searches do you think they did per gun found? It would have been a more effective use of manpower to increase patrols to catch actual bad people with bad intentions instead of violating rights and illegally searching houses. It certainly would have been a better move on the part of the mayor and chief of police, not shitting on the Constitution-wise.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

91. I don't think it is.

The police made the choice under conditions where they knew they could get away with it to steal personal property under the guise of public safety. Nothing more.

Had you or I done the same, we would be facing criminal charges. Somehow the fact that the cops did it makes it legal? Not even close.

[SteveM]

107. Would you defend your neighbor's RKBA if the police chief ordered confiscation?

[gejohnston]

68. since when did liberals blindly believe anything the police said?

Damn, the sixties and before are gone. It is the conservatives are believers in the state and its functionaries as always good. Or is it only guns?

[SecularMotion]

69. Generally I don't, but I'll cut them some slack for Hurricane Katrina

[gejohnston]

70. Sorry, not even then

I would like to see the racial break down of those gun owners. Did they mostly do it in African American neighborhoods? Or mostly blue collar and poor regardless of race? Maybe I'm cynical but I doubt it was racially and/or economic status equal.

[GreenStormCloud]

73. It is interesting that you ignore the statement of the Police Chief.

He clearly says, on camera, "No one will be able to be armed. We will take all the weapons." Why do you ignore such an obvious statement? Further the news clip cleary says that the police had orders to confiscate all guns for all people.

[SecularMotion]

75. I'm not ignoring anything

What he says is not what actually happened.

The anti-regulation crowd cries whenever laws are pushed in the wake of tragedies like Columbine or Virginia Tech. Yet they'll exploit judgments made under the duress of Katrina to push their own agenda.

[friendly_iconoclast]

76. True, you are not ignoring it. You're flat-out *denying* it.

Links to eyewitness videos, news reports from reliable sources, links to court filings. None of these things make a difference to you. Your position on this is in no eesentials different than a creationists' view of paleontology- Evidence that does not support
your preexisting worldview is denied or ignored.

[SteveM]

108. Precisely. And none of this info will mean a thing to him/her...

He does not believe the Second Amendment is a right, and he will sacrifice the Fourth and Fifth to see to that.

[gejohnston]

78. must point out a straw man

anti-regulation crowd

unless you don't have the slightest idea of current laws. Guns have been regulated in the US on the federal level since the 1930s (not counting the Pistol Act of 1927) State and local regulations have been place since the founding.
We are not saying all gun laws be repealed, only the stupid ones.

[GreenStormCloud]

81. What about the finding of a Congressional investigation?

Read the text of Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006. Specifically the Findings of Congress. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-5013

Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution states that a `well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed', and Congress has repeatedly recognized this language as protecting an individual right.

(2) In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, State and local law enforcement and public safety service organizations were overwhelmed and could not fulfill the safety needs of the citizens of the State of Louisiana.

(3) In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the safety of these citizens, and of their homes and property, was threatened by instances of criminal activity.

(4) Many of these citizens lawfully kept firearms for the safety of themselves, their loved ones, their businesses, and their property, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and used their firearms, individually or in concert with their neighbors, for protection against crime.

(5) In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, certain agencies confiscated the firearms of these citizens in contravention of the Second Amendment, depriving these citizens of the right to keep and bear arms and rendering them helpless against criminal activity.

(6) These confiscations were carried out at gunpoint by nonconsensual entries into private homes, by traffic checkpoints, by stoppage of boats, and otherwise by force.

(7) The citizens from whom firearms were confiscated were either in their own homes or attempting to flee the flooding and devastation by means of motor vehicle or boat, and were accosted, stopped, and arbitrarily deprived of their private property and means of protection.

(8) The means by which the confiscations were carried out, which included intrusion into the home, temporary detention of persons, and seizures of property, constituted unreasonable searches and seizures and deprived these citizens of liberty and property without due process of law in violation of fundamental rights under the Constitution.

(9) Many citizens who took temporary refuge in emergency housing were prohibited from storing firearms on the premises, and were thus treated as second-class citizens who had forfeited their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

(10) At least one highly-qualified search and rescue team was prevented from joining in relief efforts because the team included individuals with firearms, although these individuals had been deputized as Federal law enforcement officers.

(11) These confiscations and prohibitions, and the means by which they were carried out, deprived the citizens of Louisiana not only of their right to keep and bear arms, but also of their rights to personal security, personal liberty, and private property, all in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States.

The above is the finding of a congressional investigation, and you insist that it didn't happen?

[Union Scribe]

83. So is the Patriot Act

and the TSA fingerbanging grandma. I guess you're cool with those, too. Anything for safety.

[Remmah2]

92. Paperwork

What I find interesting about this is the lack of paperwork and documentation by police.

Firearms have serial numbers, any firearm that was taken from a house would have been easily logged. The situation was looser than an (alleged) gun show loop hole.

Why not? The government loves paperwork. Actions suggest they were in no way intending to return the firearms. I wonder how many firearms ended up in someone else's collection (ie. police throw away weapons)? Way in excess of the 700 allegedly legally confiscated firearms??

[SteveM]

106. So, now you admit that "confiscation" took place. At long last.

Of course, that is the "Christian" expression for "Grab," but you knew that.

One's property remains constitutionally protected, even during a storm, even during an emergency. So now we have the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments violated. Got some more?

[DWC]

60. In the last week or two

there was a thread on this subject and MyrnaLoy was hammering for names of people that had their guns taken, holding the position that the Katrina gun seizures did not happen.

The OP provides a solid list of names and testimony to the fact that it actually did happen to them.

This thread is here. Names of victims are here. MyrnaLoy is not.

BTW, Great Post !!!!!!

Semper Fi,

[GreenStormCloud]

84. I found six names in the court filings.

She kept claiming that there was only one name listed in the suit filed by the NRA against New Orleans. She must not have read it carefully.
Here is a PDF of the filing. http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/NAGINcontempt.memo022606.pdf

Here are the names of people who had guns taken away: Teel and Konie we already know about. Add to them, Jason Kleem, Joseph Hooper, Robert Zas, and Ashton O'Dywer.

[MyrnaLoy]

86. Heyy

I'm here! thanks for noticing. BTW, 7 names? Really? You do know that taking guns in a private business like the convention center wouldn't be allowed today? You know that right? Ok. 5 names. Guy walking around with a reporter gun in hand, brandishing anywhere in America today. Right call once again. Now you have 4 names. You always had two, so you provided 2 more. Now since this case never went to trial there was no cross. Do you think any judge or jury would have allowed guns in a crowded convention center? No, you know they wouldn't, case dismissed.

Now, see I read the complaint a long time ago, I knew what it said. What happened is exacly what I knew would happen. The numbers would embarrass those who suffer from mock outrage. The responses here show that. 700, 8,7, or 4? Looks like 4 with any merit whatsoever. Well not really. I could also eliminate two more. Want me to? Here goes. How many police officers in America today would question someone with a gun in their hand? Yup there goes another one. Now 3. One more? Sure, the guy getting on the bus with his shotgun. Would you let a guy get on a bus with a shotgun during a crisis? Down to 2. If the NRA hadn't bullied a broken city my guess is those would have been shown to be just as silly.

Yup, I'm right here. This post reinforced just how silly your gun grab claim really is. 7, LOL. 700 guns, ahahahaha. Guns in the convention center, guns on buses, brandishing, man any first year law student would have wiped the floor with this case.

I'm here and you still have nothing.

[GreenStormCloud]

88. You are ignoring the results of the congressional investigation. N/T

[gravity556]

95. You stamped your little foot and proclaimed that there were NO victims

Now you waffle and spin to try and discount that there were indeed victims of unlawful confiscations. It was a large enough problem to spur a congressional investigation, but still you deny it. Nevermind blinders, you're looking at the world through a glass bellybutton.

[PavePusher]

98. It seems to be a public entity....

http://www.mccno.com/about-us

...or is there another one?


I can carry all day long in the Tucson Convention Center...

[MyrnaLoy]

85. research

so six or 8? WOW what a gun grab!!!! Man I can see why you were scared!!! You do know that this was the court filing, none of it saw cross examination. Oh, and is it confiscation or impounded when you get it back? I congratulate you on finding 7 names, I didn't know it was so widespread LOL

700 huh?

I'm still reading the document but I'll hand it to you, you didn't give up you found 7 names and it took what 7 years? I really love the one about the guy they wouldn't let take weapons to the convention center. Yeah, weapons in the convention center would have worked out GREAT, being private property and all!!. See this was not confiscation, it was securing and impounding for security. Most people responding see that. NRA Fear fed gun owners don't.

Affidavit on page 30 or 31, "gun in hand". Umm confiscation? Guy was walking around with a gun in hand, you could call it brandishing. You won't because you need the numbers. But if he did that in any place in America he would be detained and most likely arrested. You know it, won't admit to it. Lets see these numbers are shrinking aren't they?

Guns allowed in the convention center? Not likely, brandishing? No where I know of. Looks like law enforcement doing their job. Under cross examination this would have all been proven but the city can't fight the NRA you fund.

Unfortunate the the city caved, reading these affidavits I can see law enforcement doing the job they were tasked to do. No confiscation here at all.

Just finished reading the entire thread and many others did a much better job than I could pointing out the mock outrage of 7 people being called a Gun Grab. Carry on, the other sensible members did a great job pointing out the fallacy of this so-called confiscation. The small amount of names you found actually hurt you didn't it? It actually proved just how trivial this "confiscation" was. And just the little bit of reading I did eliminated 3 of them. Guns in the convention center, brandishing, yup. Good work in proving how trivial this was. Great responses sensible DUers!!

[Remmah2]

89. The award goes to.

[GreenStormCloud]

93. You wanted five names. I found 15 people.

BTW - Katrina was in 2005. This is 2011. 2011 - 2005 = 6 years. I guess you have problems with grade school arithmetic.

I have only in this past few days encountered anyone who denies that the New Orleans Gun Grab happened. So I have only spent a few days finding names.

The TOTAL evidence is impressive.

*Congressional investigation.
*Video statement by Chief of Police that they will confiscate all weapons.
*Video statement by 10 people who guns were confiscated.
*Five more people listed in the court filing.
*Various news reports from the time.

And you have nothing but denial.

[friendly_iconoclast]

94. Iit's like trying to defend the theory of evolution to a young-Earth creationist

Nothing you say will change their mind...

[SteveM]

109. They have climate-change deny-ers; we have gun-confiscation deny-ers. nt

[PavePusher]

97. What company did you hire to carry those goal posts around?

'Cause you'd have ruined your back by now doing it yourself....

[burf]

110. For those deniers on the NO confiscations,

may I offer for your viewing pleasure:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr8bjU3Yavw

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=kf8trl69kzo