NYT: "Police Begin Seizing Guns of Civilians"

[Rose Siding]

NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 8 - Local police officers began confiscating weapons from civilians in preparation for a forced evacuation of the last holdouts still living here, as President Bush steeled the nation for the grisly scenes of recovering the dead that will unfold in coming days.
....
Mr. Compass, the police superintendent, said that after a week of near anarchy in the city, no civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns, or other firearms of any kind. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said.

That order apparently does not apply to the hundreds of security guards whom businesses and some wealthy individuals have hired to protect their property. The guards, who are civilians working for private security firms like Blackwater, are openly carrying M-16s 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.

http://nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09storm.html?ei=5094&en=237f5d69ab4c0b83&hp=&ex=1126238400&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1126237192-t9ci5USXDNG4CXVfnxEkAg

[Eric J in MN]

1. So the police superintendent just makes up the law as he goes along.

Never mind whether someone is legally allowed to carry a gun.

P. Edwin Compass III is the self-appointed dictator of New Orleans?

[brokensymmetry]

3. That's what scares me.

At least in theory, we're a nation of laws, not men...

[andino]

2. Quick, Someone Call The NRA!!!

[AntiCoup2K4]

11. Funny how the NRA has several NOLA related links on their site.....

....but not a word about this.

Do you think the NRA would bite the hand that feeds it? They proved their partisanship in 2004 when they refused to endorse Howard Dean, regardless of the fact that they had done so when he was governor.

[benEzra]

12. Actually, they do (I checked yesterday @3:30)...and re: Dean

Actually, the NRA site does/did have a link to the NYT story (I checked yesterday) and word on the gun boards is they were having a bunch of meetings yesterday to decide on the most effective course of action. Everyone I know on the High Road was emailing and phoning the NRA, their congresspeople, the ACLU, and anyone else they can think of.

Re: not endorsing Dean, Dean shot himself in the foot during the primary when he endorsed the 1994 Feinstein ban on all guns holding over 10 rounds or having two or more of a list of cosmetic features. That is THE main issue for most gun owners I know, and if the NRA endorsed someone who endorsed the Feinstein bait-and-switch, they'd immediately lose 75% of their membership. I personally think Dean is pro-gun (after all, he was "A" rated by the NRA as governor of Vermont), but was taken in by the anti-gun lobby's bait-and-switch just like the Kerry campaign was. Dean has since backed off that position, which I am glad to see.

[AX10]

16. 75+million gun owners in the USA. 4 millon NRA members.

[Lefty48197]

22. What do 95% of legal gun owners in the USA know that the NRA doesn't?

They know that Republicans are idiots, that's what.

[stickdog]

4. Wow! Talk about unequal protection. (nt)

[BurningDog]

5. This is a textbook 2nd amendment trial

I've been wanting to make a post about this all night, but I don't have to post count to start threads.

As of right now under the mandantory evacuation, they're allowed to threaten and intimidate people to leave the city. After they take away all means of self defense, the next step will be removal by force.

Here is a video showing it in progress, it shows police kicking down doors with guns drawn and 100% innocent citizens sitting on the sides of the road with their hands tied as the police take away their weapons: http://tradecraft.us/Videos/NewOrleansGunConfiscationSmall.avi

This is the day that half of us never thought would come and the other half feared coming.

If you could, put a link in General Discussion too, i think its important enough for everybody to see.

[AX10]

15. I respect the US Military much more. The General....

in charge said that the US Military will be in NO to keep the peace and they will NOT use FORCE against their FELLOW citizens to evacuate them.

[benEzra]

6. There are a lot of Federal, state, and local law enforcement officers

on another board I frequent, and every single one of them is outraged beyond words that any official would try to pull this stunt.

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. The video was heartbreaking...U.S. citizens who had done nothing wrong, handcuffed and sitting on the sidewalk while troops ransacked their house...THIS IS NOT AMERICA. It is contrary to everything America stands for.

Words fail me.

[AX10]

14. How many officers on that board are appalled?

I'm just wondering becuase I'd like to know that there are MANY officers of the LAW and PEACE who OPPOSE this bullcrap.

[jody]

7. Must all firearms in LA must be registered?

§1783. Registration with department of public safety
QUOTE
Every person possessing any firearm shall register with the department the number or other mark identifying the firearm, together with his name, address, and place of business or employment, the place where the firearm is usually kept, and, if the person is other than a natural person, the name and home address of the executive officer thereof having control of the firearm and the name and home address of the person having actual possession thereof.
UNQUOTE

I assume this law pertains only to Title II firearms and pistols/revolvers.

QUOTE
3) "Firearm" means a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length; a rifle having a barrel of less than sixteen inches in length; any weapon made from either a rifle or a shotgun if said weapon has been modified to have an overall length of less than twenty-six inches; any other firearm, pistol, revolver, or shotgun from which the serial number or mark of identification has been obliterated, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive, if that weapon is capable of being concealed on the person; or a machine gun, grenade launcher, flame thrower, bazooka, rocket launcher, excluding black powder weapons, or gas grenade; and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm, whether or not the firearm is included within this definition. Pistols and revolvers and those rifles and shotguns which have not previously been defined in this Paragraph as firearms from which serial numbers or marks of identification have not been obliterated are specifically exempt from this definition.
UNQUOTE

[derby378]

8. Police prefer unarmed evacuees...

Punishing the whole of NOLA for the actions of a diseased few. This is sad.

[iverglas]

9. oh me oh my

http://www.studdying-with-bonzo.co.uk/chkval04.htm

[Lasher]

10. I've got guns

Seeing all the anarchy in NOLA, I'm glad I have a small arsenal. Who knows if something like that would happen here? In that case I would want to be able to defend myself, my family, and my possessions. But the government is taking away people's weapons just when they most need them for self defense!

They should be going around GIVING guns to people who don't have them, not taking them away!

[AX10]

13. This is another case in which I find myself unable...

to support local law 'enforcement'. It's bad enough when they break rules and laws and get away with it. Now they are making up their own rules and laws to! :wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf:

Not all police are this way, but too many are. I have ZERO respect for the NO cops. They CANNOT do this. What's next, 'involuntary servitude"? :argh?

[aikoaiko]

17. NWA said it best.....

F*** the police!

[aikoaiko]

18. maybe the popo saw this and got worried,

[TX-RAT]

19. Kinda miss leading.

Weapons were confiscated from people going into the Stadium, and Convention Center, and anybody being transported by city, state, or Federal means. I would have done the same.

[Wickerman]

21. Thanks, Tx-Rat

your calm look at detail and your experience are always enlightening.

[aikoaiko]

23. It started at the superdome and convention center.....

... but now its everyone. Except the security guards hired by the rich and LEO. No guns for regular folk.

The CNN footage of the police asking if an elderly woman who didn't want to leave her house had a firearm, her taking out her revolver and showing that is was unloaded, the police grabbing the gun and tackling her was the next step. Would you do that too?

The old gun nut nightmare of a "knock on the door" and gun confiscation is just a state of emergency away.

[TX-RAT]

24. Unaware of the situation your talking about.

If i'm transporting or in charge of the transportation and welfare of these people, none of them will have a weapon. I personally don't think a person who doesn't want to be evacuated should be forced to. With that said i think it's imperative that they all be identified and counted, you'd have to know how many people you have remaining. Heres where i think a major problem exists, that nobody talking about. You would be amazed how many people will have warrants for their arrest, city, state,and federal, they don't want to be helped, they don't want to be identified, they don't want to be found.
I haven't seen one instance where LEO have went into a home and remove weapons, simply because they have them. The only person i've seen running around with a weapon that they shouldn't have, is Sean Penn, unless he brought it with him, i suspect he removed it from a home.

[aikoaiko]

27. see the first video in this link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=112984&mesg_id=113071

It made me very unhappy.

[iverglas]

26. well *that* was going to be a big help

her taking out her revolver and showing that is was unloaded

So either the state is going to have to provide the means of ensuring her security -- given that she's pretty durned vulnerable to crime in that situation -- or somebody's gonna come along and STEAL that unloaded revolver of hers.

If anybody imagines that whatever bogeymen are the reason for her having that firearm, real or imagined, aren't going to get her *and* her firearm before she gets any of them, well, a dose of reality might be the best medication.

[aikoaiko]

28. The state should provide some level of security to all NOLA residents

and they should have throughout this whole freakin ordeal. I would think from your other posts that you would agree with that. But the state can't provide enough security and she wants to stay in her house with her revolver. Thats her choice.

I don't know when she unloaded it -- maybe she unloaded it before the jack booted thugs came in so that they wouldn't be so threatened or maybe she always keeps it unloaded like Barney Fife. You;d be suprised how fast some people can load their revolvers. But I suppose you prefer to underestimate her. I wonder why. Anyone who thinks they know for sure what the reality is of this situation thinks too much of themselves. But thats par for course around here.

[iverglas]

29. absofuckinlutely

The state should provide some level of security to all NOLA residents

I've been taking a severe bashing myself for making that point, all over DU, as you seem to have been noticing -- although, of course, I was talking about the time of the immediate emergency, which has now passed, the time when removing everyone from the insecure situation wasn't a possibility in the very instant.

That doesn't mean that the state is *capable* of protecting every vulnerable person anywhere in or near the disaster zone while the abnormal conditions persist, as I have also said.

And it doesn't mean that the state should divert precious resources from all the things they are needed for to patrol any individuals' home when that individual has the option of moving to a safer location.

And it doesn't necessarily mean that the security should not be provided by offering to remove them from the situation of insecurity, and if they choose not to accept that offer and are permitted to remain, placing conditions on their remaining to reduce the risk that *they* present to *others*.


But the state can't provide enough security and she wants to stay in her house with her revolver. Thats her choice.

Well, sez you. There really are many situations in which individuals' choices don't trump every other consideration present, and there are very certainly other considerations present here -- the excellent possibility of her firearm falling into bad hands being but one among many.


But I suppose you prefer to underestimate her. I wonder why.

Well, before you spend too much time wondering, you might want to establish that there is subject matter for it.

*You* might suppose that I "prefer to underestimate her". *I* might suppose that there are little green individuals lurking in the hills across the river. Who else would care what either of us might suppose?

I would "underestimate" the capacity of just about anybody to survive an effort by a considerably larger, stronger, younger, better-armed individual, and a fortiori a group of such individuals, to take what s/he's got, oddly enough. I just wouldn't call my expectation as to who will win and who will lose, in such a situation, "underestimating" anyone. But I suppose you prefer to call it that. I wonder why.

Anyone who thinks they know for sure what the reality is of this situation thinks too much of themselves. But thats par for course around here.

And isn't it humid today?

[benEzra]

30. Am I to understand that you support the door-to-door confiscations, then?

Or am I misreading you?

[iverglas]

31. Gosh, do you think "over-reading" might be the problem?

I'm not like a lot of people, you know. I actually don't think that I need to have an opinion about absolutely everything, or blat it in public, if I do, but don't have persuasive facts or argument to support it.

So ... what I said was:

There really are many situations in which individuals' choices don't trump every other consideration present, and there are very certainly other considerations present here -- the excellent possibility of her firearm falling into bad hands being but one among many.

There are other considerations present. My acknowledging and stating that fact does not mean that I find the considerations that are present to trump the individual's interest.

I don't happen to be familiar with the details of the situation on the ground where this is (or was) an issue. While it might be my own personal opinion that people who insist on staying in that situation are acting in a way that is sufficiently contrary to the public interest, and creates sufficient risks and problems for the public, to justify removing them or placing stringent conditions on their staying ... or, to put it bluntly, that at least some of them are sufficiently foolish or self-centred that their own assessment of the situation can be disregarded ... that isn't really a basis for public policy.

So that opinion wouldn't really be worth trumpeting in public, because it's not discussable. My opinion that people I don't know are pretty obviously fools or piggies isn't worth much of anything to anyone else. It isn't based on any common premise.

And that's pretty much what I said about the opinion "that's their choice". That's just an opinion. Not based on any common premise. There just isn't any common premise that people get to do whatever the hell they want and their choices may not be interfered with in the public interest.

If I wanted to defend the decision to remove firearms from homes in the area, I'd have to come up with something more than my personal opinion that people who object are fools or piggies.

And if someone wants to attack that decision, s/he really has to come up with something better than "that's their choice".

Y'see?

I tend to think that if the people in question have been offered an alternative to staying in the area, and if their staying in the area creates somewhat serious problems for authorities in terms of maintaining order, protecting public health, carrying out emergency and post-emergency work, or some other aspect of a legitimate and necessary public activity, then it would be justifiable either to remove the people, if no other course of action would allow those activities to be carried out, or to put such conditions on their remaining as it can be expected will ensure the necessary minimum such interference.

And then, a discussion can ensue as to what legitimate and necessary public activities are involved, how the presence of these people could be expected to interfere in them, how their having firearms could be expected to cause problems, what the minimum necessary interference might be, and so on.

I might also imagine that if the authorities believe it to be essential to remove these people from the area but are reluctant to do so by force, making the conditions of staying unacceptable to the people in question might be a tactic to get them to leave. That's another discussable subject.

But like I said, I haven't stated an opinion. I just don't find it necessary to respond to anyone else's bald statement of opinion, other than by pointing out what it is: "blah blah blah"; "sez you".

[benEzra]

34. "Making the conditions of staying unacceptable"

was indeed the motivation behind the confiscation order, according to some police/National Guard who were party to the original briefing (at least according to the Federal law enforcement grapevine). Because some people in unflooded, essentially undamaged areas didn't want to abandon their perfectly good homes just because the power was out, the decision was made, apparently at a relatively low level (municipal or lower), to confiscate residents' firearms, the thinking being that if they felt at the mercy of looters then they might become fearful enough to leave the city.

The problem being, of course, that the U.S. Constitution does not allow the suspension of the 4th Amendment during times of crisis (merely the writ of habeus corpus, and then only in extremis), and the confiscation order also violated both the Louisiana state constitution and Lousiana state law (as did the camera-confiscation order that was likewise quickly rescinded).

Apparently, enough of the officers and National Guard on-scene revolted and raised hell to cause the order to be quickly rescinded, but not before a few forcible confiscations were actually carried out. The fact that it was even attempted, however, is quite troubling to me, just as if the police had been kicking in people's doors and confiscating their food in order to persuade them to leave. Regardless of how one feels about the desirability of civilian gun ownership per se, the fact that the chief of a major police department thought he was THAT far above the rule of law is rather scary.

The fact that city authorities have done a 180-degree turn and are now trying to get residents with intact homes to return to the city also seems to demonstrate that the initial order was unjustifiable on its face. I expect there will be quite a bit of legal fallout over this, personally.

[TX-RAT]

32. I think your misreading the whole situation.

If i'm remembering correctly, the Mayor gave an order for mandatory evacuation (that means everybody), at the time that video was shot. The lady was told she had to leave, instead she wanted to argue, and wave around a pistol and a knife. Once it was determined she wasn't going to cooperate, they had to physically disarm her, and remove her from her home. I've yet to see any evidence of house to house seizures of weapons.

[iverglas]

33. I'm just talkin hypothetical like ;)

I could have looked at the video, but I didn't mean to address any particular situation. It certainly sounds a little wilder and woollier than I'd expected. Will take a look later ... when some work has been done ...

[benEzra]

35. I was referencing the ABC video in which the NOPD chief said that all guns

would be confiscated, and NOPD/DEA officers were shown forcefully entering homes and searching for guns, and a couple of homeowners were sitting handcuffed on the sidewalk after being disarmed. The clip starts off with forced evacuations but shifts to gun confiscations from people who are NOT being made to evacuate about halfway through, and then cuts to the NOPD chief saying that no one but police/military (and Blackwater guys guarding rich people's houses) were going to be allowed to keep their guns.

I hadn't see the video of the elderly woman with the revolver at that time. To me, the ABC video is MUCH more disturbing than that one.

[enfield collector]

20. this is just f***ing great, disarm law-abiding citizens

but let the blackwater mercenaries have machine guns to protect the elites.

[benEzra]

25. UPDATE--Gun Confiscation Halted

from a law enforcement officer in New Orleans, via the High Road:

The confiscations are over about as soon as they started.

Contrary to much of the ranting posted on THR over the last 24 hours, not all cops and NG are out to kick in your door. The confiscation order from the NOPD didn't go over real well with many of the people who would be the confiscators.

As soon as word got out, the political freak out was quick. Yes, the order was given. In order to disarm the independant, to make them defenseless, to force them to leave. But as soon as word started to leak out, that plan was killed.

Still immensely disturbing that it happened in the first place, but glad to see it halted so quickly.