Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

finboy · Sep 9, 2005, 01:25 PM

I just saw a headline on AOL (bleck) that cops were taking guns away from those who decided to stay behind. I couldn't find any more on it. Pretty drastic.

Macrobat · Sep 9, 2005, 01:49 PM

Judging from the NOLA citizens' recent history, I should think it would be necessary. Besides, they'll simply loot new guns.

GSixZero · Sep 9, 2005, 01:55 PM

I think even the conservatives will agree that restricting personal liberties in times of emergencies is warranted, even if it means restricting the 2nd amendment.

greenamp · Sep 9, 2005, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by GSixZero

I think even the conservatives will agree that restricting personal liberties in times of emergencies is warranted, even if it means restricting the 2nd amendment.

Yeah, b/c they're really going to be successful in getting the guns away from gang members.

Sky Captain · Sep 9, 2005, 02:28 PM

And criminals.
Works great in New York, DC and Chicago.
No criminals have guns there.

turtle777 · Sep 9, 2005, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by finboy

I just saw a headline on AOL (bleck) that cops were taking guns away from those who decided to stay behind. I couldn't find any more on it. Pretty drastic.

Why drastic ?

NO is under mandetory evacuation. Those remaining dumbasses shot and kill at policemen and rescuewrokers doing their jobs. It's necessary to take away the guns.

-t

greenamp · Sep 9, 2005, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Why drastic ?

NO is under mandetory evacuation. Those remaining dumbasses shot and kill at policemen and rescuewrokers doing their jobs. It's necessary to take away the guns.

-t

Do you really think people who voluntarily give up their firearms are the one's shooting at cops?

Do you really think the one's who are shooting at cops are going to voluntarily give up their firearms?

von Wrangell · Sep 9, 2005, 02:38 PM

ummm, I'm usually on the "liberal" side of the gun argument but IMO this is just dumb. Do they really expect to get every gun left in what is left of NO? If not, who do they think will actually keep their guns? And if it's the ones I think we all realise will keep their guns how do they expect the innocent people to defend themselves against the gangs?

This is just weird....

MacNStein · Sep 9, 2005, 02:43 PM

"... pry it from my cold, dead hands." etc..

Spliffdaddy · Sep 9, 2005, 06:58 PM

Taking guns from the hands of Americans couldn't be more wrong.

zerostar · Sep 9, 2005, 07:01 PM

I thought N.O. is under mandatory evacuation? The tazers should be brought out and they should be stuffed in a truck with the rest of the idiots.

loki74 · Sep 9, 2005, 08:09 PM

heh.. tell me about it. They'll probably kill each other if they're allowed to have guns--they will need to fight to survive, given that they will not have any resources because they are staying. Kill and steal, that will be their law. Stupid, stupid people.

ghporter · Sep 9, 2005, 08:32 PM

Has anyone found the text of the emergency ordinance that requires this? I'd be really interested to read the thing-in its entirety.

finboy · Sep 10, 2005, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Has anyone found the text of the emergency ordinance that requires this? I'd be really interested to read the thing-in its entirety.

I haven't seen any more about it on AOL or other news, either.

Taking the means of defending themselves away from law-abiding citizens is the latest in a line of bad local/state decisions (the Feds don't have the authority to do that w/o local support).

ghporter · Sep 10, 2005, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by finboy

I haven't seen any more about it on AOL or other news, either.

Taking the means of defending themselves away from law-abiding citizens is the latest in a line of bad local/state decisions (the Feds don't have the authority to do that w/o local support).

Aren't they making these people leave at the same time? Let's see-if you take the people out of the dangerous environment, and take away their ability to make trouble when they get where they're going, won't that be a "good thing?"

dampeoples · Sep 10, 2005, 09:04 PM

No, it will be a violation of their rights. That's never a good thing under any circumstance.

dcmacdaddy · Sep 10, 2005, 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

"... pry it from my cold, dead hands." etc..

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Taking guns from the hands of Americans couldn't be more wrong.

Originally Posted by dampeoples

No, it will be a violation of their rights. That's never a good thing under any circumstance.

Can there ever be a set of circumstances where temporarily depriving people of their right to possess firearms would be acceptable?

dampeoples · Sep 10, 2005, 10:00 PM

Perhaps under martial law. I don't know enough about it to speak on that though.
It will never work anyway, how would they know who has them? I have 4, only one of them is registered. Two are not even at my house.

finboy · Sep 11, 2005, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Aren't they making these people leave at the same time? Let's see-if you take the people out of the dangerous environment, and take away their ability to make trouble when they get where they're going, won't that be a "good thing?"

For folks who were being evacuated to common shelters, it would be OK if they gave receipts and stored them, but they could also just make folks remove the ammo and put a zip-tie through them like they do at gun shows. Takes 10 seconds. That way, folks get to retain their property.

Again, I haven't heard of it since. But I have heard about the "mandatory" evacuation -- it's mandatory unless you're one of Mayor Nagin's buddies, or your last name is Landriew, or for whatever reason that the law doesn't apply to you on that particular day. It's not being enforced uniformly, but that's really no surprise.

Sky Captain · Sep 11, 2005, 01:35 PM

§329.6. Proclamation of state of emergency; conditions therefor; effect thereof
A. During times of great public crisis, disaster, rioting, catastrophe, or similar public emergency within the territorial limits of any municipality or parish, or in the event of reasonable apprehension of immediate danger thereof, and upon a finding that the public safety is imperiled thereby, the chief executive officer of any political subdivision or the district judge, district attorney, or the sheriff of any parish of this state, or the public safety director of a municipality, may request the governor to proclaim a state of emergency within any part or all of the territorial limits of such local government. Following such proclamation by the governor, and during the continuance of such state of emergency, the chief law enforcement officer of the political subdivision affected by the proclamation may, in order to protect life and property and to bring the emergency situation under control, promulgate orders affecting any part or all of the territorial limits of the municipality or parish:

[...]

(6) Regulating and controlling the possession, storage, display, sale, transport and use of firearms, other dangerous weapons and ammunition;

This makes it "legal".

NO=Chicago/DC/NYC now.

ghporter · Sep 11, 2005, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

This makes it "legal".

NO=Chicago/DC/NYC now.

But ONLY during the state of emergency. And they had better be very careful about how they keep track of everything they confiscate-folks in the South don't cotton to people takin' their stuff without gettin' it back later. That is no joke.

Chuckit · Sep 11, 2005, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Can there ever be a set of circumstances where temporarily depriving people of their right to possess firearms would be acceptable?

When they're under arrest?