Katrina Gun Confiscation

[Chazzar10]

  I would like your thoughts on the police and armed government troops confiscating guns after Katrina hit New Orleans. If a state militia was available is this area would they have let this happen to the residents of New Orleans I think not. I ponder to think if a unit similar to Michigans' militia groups would have encountered these illegal seizures and tried to stop them. Police and or troops would have demanded their surrenderof their arms but when they would refuse a armed confrontation I believe would have taken place or at least a standoff and we all know how standoffs are ended. I think further troop deployment and firing upon the militia would have happened, depite the illegal confiscation that caused it in the first place. Please let me know what you think because I like understand the law.

[masfonos]

"We're from the government and we're here to help!"

I thought that what they did was outrageous when they did it and I still think it was outrageous.  I'm glad it didn't come to a head, but if it did I can see how it would have ended very badly for everyone involved.  An armed confrontation between gun-stealing jackboots and honest citizens trying to protect themselves, their families and their property could have been a big tipping point where the outcome could just as easily paint gun owners as violent extremists necessitating an all-out gun ban as it would show the fascist unconstitutional disarming of citizens during a situation when they most need the ability to protect themselves.  It doesn't take long in a discussion about this topic to see Godwin's Law come up; perhaps rightly so.

It just doesn't make sense for armed shock troops to be marching door to door, knocking 80 year old women to the floor, in order to confiscate the single most effective tool the homeowners had to protect themselves while down the street violent criminals are looting and destroying property for their own personal gain.  Heaven forbid an unarmed resident tries to stand between those criminals and what they want; we know how that would end.

Good steps were made with Vitter's amendment to the Homeland Security law:

SEC. 706. FIREARMS POLICIES.

(a) PROHIBITION ON CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS- No officer or employee of the United States (including any member of the uniformed services), or person operating pursuant to or under color of Federal law, or receiving Federal funds, or under control of any Federal official, or providing services to such an officer, employee, or other person, while acting in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency, may--

(1) temporarily or permanently seize, or authorize seizure of, any firearm the possession of which is not prohibited under Federal, State, or local law, other than for forfeiture in compliance with Federal law or as evidence in a criminal investigation;

(2) require registration of any firearm for which registration is not required by Federal, State, or local law;

(3) prohibit possession of any firearm, or promulgate any rule, regulation, or order prohibiting possession of any firearm, in any place or by any person where such possession is not otherwise prohibited by Federal, State, or local law; or

(4) prohibit the carrying of firearms by any person otherwise authorized to carry firearms under Federal, State, or local law, solely because such person is operating under the direction, control, or supervision of a Federal agency in support of relief from the major disaster or emergency.

(b) LIMITATION- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any person in subsection (a) from requiring the temporary surrender of a firearm as a condition for entry into any mode of transportation used for rescue or evacuation during a major disaster or emergency, provided that such temporarily surrendered firearm is returned at the completion of such rescue or evacuation.

but it's a sad state of affairs when we need a law to specifically say "thou [the government] shalt not do unconstitutional things."

[1slickAR15]

i couldn't believe that they were going around and taking guns during katrina.  the first thing that comes to mind for me is what's to stop the bad guys from dressing up like cops, the NG or whoever and stealing guns under the color of law.  then their victims are unarmed and easy prey for looting or whatever else they want to do.  i guess creating "target rich environments" has never stopped them before (see "gun free zones")

i hvae no idea what a militia group would do in a case like that.  many people coming here probably already know that when you say you're thinking of joining a militia you probably mean something like a local version of the national guard. several states and plenty of towns have somehting like that.  for the casual visitor who happens to find this page though, they might buy what the "main stream" news is selling them though and jump immediately to thinking of some backwoods crazies looking to overthrow something.  the militia act of 1903 says the "reserve militia" is "every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia."  sadly, one has to tread carefully with their words these days, especially in a thread discussing possible armed confrotation between a militia and police/military.

[Chazzar10]

Thanks for the replies so far, I see that the same concerns I feel are also shared. I also believe that any kind of confrontation would have been disasterous for all gun owners. They would clearly blame all of us, and further action would have been taken against any kind of resistance. I remember numerous articles written years ago in I think guns&ammo magazine by Massad Ayoob saying he felt very confident that police would not follow any kind of gun confiscation orders, and some folks wrote back stating that despite his expertise in his feild that he was wrong at his findings. At the time in the early 1980s I thought he may be right that police would possibly not follow these orders but the wakeup came at Katrina for me anyway. This showed that they will clearly confiscate guns if told to. I had a interveiw for the FBI in Washington DC for a position as a agent, during this interveiw I was asked my personel feelings about certain aspects of law enforcement and any conflicts I may have, I stated that I have no problem persuing murderers, child molesters, rapists and kidnapers but I do have a conflict going after lawful gun owners. I was never selected for any more inerviews or further  consideration for those positions. I would wonder if I was hired that maybe being on the inside of a agency I may have been able to possibely effect change in the way they see us gun owners. I say God forbid that I would become part of the problem and see things the agency wants me to see. We need agencies with morals to keep them in line with whats right and moral and to obey the laws of the land the Constitution and Bill of Rights and follow the same laws that they are trying to enforce.

[masfonos]

...I had a interveiw for the FBI in Washington DC for a position as a agent, during this interveiw I was asked my personel feelings about certain aspects of law enforcement and any conflicts I may have, I stated that I have no problem persuing murderers, child molesters, rapists and kidnapers but I do have a conflict going after lawful gun owners...

I have read on other forums where people have had interviews for various agencies and being asked outright questions along the lines of "Would you follow any order given, including confiscating guns from people not suspected of committing any crime?"

Maybe it's just a standard question, maybe they're just looking for an answer to a hypothetical question (i.e. don't hire the crazy guy that jumps up and down on the table yelling "MOLON LABE, PIGS!") or maybe they're looking for obedient muscle to carry out unconstitutional orders (i.e. do hire the guy who says "Heck yeah!  Plebes shouldn't have guns anyway").  Who knows.

[GunLink]

NRA-ILA released an article about this a couple years ago:

State "Emergency Powers" vs. The Right to Arms
NRA-ILA 10/15/2007
 

After Hurricane Katrina, many New Orleans residents legally armed themselves to protect their lives and property from civil disorder. With no way to call for help, and police unable to respond, honest citizens were able to defend themselves and their neighbors against looters, arsonists and other criminals.1

However, just when these people needed guns the most, New Orleans's Police Superintendent ordered the confiscation of firearms, allegedly under a state emergency powers law. "No one will be able to be armed," he said. "Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns."2 (Fortunately, an NRA lawsuit brought an end to the seizures—along with a far-fetched denial that confiscation had ever been ordered. Following this, Judge Carl J. Barbier, presiding over the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, held New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Chief Warren Riley in contempt for “failure to provide initial disclosures and to compel answers to discovery” during NRA’s injunction against the City for their illegal gun confiscations.)

Of course, no one condones the mindless violence of those who would loot a helpless city, or shoot at rescue workers. But one reason for the citizens to retain a legal right to arms, is precisely because the government has no legal duty to protect them.3 Legislative bodies can, and should, act to protect the self-defense rights of citizens at the times when those rights are most important.

Unfortunately, many states have "emergency powers" laws that give the government permission to suspend or limit gun sales, and to prohibit or restrict citizens from transporting or carrying firearms. In some states, authorities are authorized to seize guns outright from citizens who've committed no crime--and who would then be defenseless against disorder.

The movement to change these laws is gaining speed. Just two months after Hurricane Katrina, the Louisiana legislature--with only one dissenting vote--adopted a resolution declaring "the policy of the state of Louisiana to protect and uphold the citizens' right to keep and bear arms in their residences, businesses, and means of transport, and on their persons," condemning the seizure of firearms from New Orleans citizens, and announcing it planned to amend Louisiana's emergency powers law "to rectify the denial of these rights."4 Since then, 21 additional states have joined Louisiana by passing laws to protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners by prohibiting the confiscation of firearms during a time of emergency.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4[/youtube]

Congress and President Bush also saw the need to act to protect gun owners’ rights during emergencies. H.R. 5013, the “Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act,” was introduced in the House by Congressman Bobby Jindal (LA - 1) and passed the House on July 25, 2006 with a broad bi-partisan margin of 322-99. Senator David Vitter (R-La) introduced the Senate version of the bill and added it as an Amendment to Homeland Security Appropriations, which passed the United States Senate by 84-16, the largest margin of victory for a NRA-backed measure. On October 9, 2006, President George W. Bush signed this legislation into law.

In the past, America has balanced emergency needs with respect for constitutional rights. Months before Pearl Harbor, the U.S. Congress passed the Property Requisition Act of 1941, which allowed the President, as a last resort, to seize needed war materials "upon the payment of fair and just compensation."5 The Congress, concerned about the prospect of gun confiscation, included language to prohibit registration or seizure of privately owned firearms. America and its allies went on to win the greatest armed conflict in history. Today, Congress and the state legislatures should follow that lead.[/size]






The Disaster Recover Personal Protection Act mentioned in the article was later written into the DHS laws, as posted above.

The Wikipedia article on the government response to Katrina says the following about the subject:

Confiscation of firearms

Controversy arose over a September 8 city-wide order by New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass to local police, National Guard troops, and US Marshals to confiscate all civilian-held firearms. "No one will be able to be armed," Compass said. "Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns." Seizures were carried out without warrant, and in some cases with excessive force; one instance captured on film involved 58 year old New Orleans resident Patricia Konie. Konie stayed behind, in her well provisioned home, and had an old revolver for protection. A group of police entered the house, and when she refused to surrender her revolver, she was tackled and it was removed by force. Konie's shoulder was fractured, and she was taken into police custody for failing to surrender her firearm. Even National Guard troops, armed with assault rifles, were used for house to house searches, seizing firearms and attempting to get those remaining in the city to leave.

Angered citizens, backed by the National Rifle Association and other organizations, filed protests over the constitutionality of such an order and the difficulty in tracking seizures, as paperwork was rarely filed during the searches. Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association, defended the right of affected citizens to retain firearms, saying that, "What we’ve seen in Louisiana - the breakdown of law and order in the aftermath of disaster - is exactly the kind of situation where the Second Amendment was intended to allow citizens to protect themselves." The searches received little news coverage, though reaction from groups such as the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, and Gun Owners of America was immediate and heated, and a lawsuit was filed September 22 by the NRA and SAF on behalf of two firearm owners whose firearms were seized. On September 23, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana issued a restraining order to bar further firearms confiscations.

After refusing to admit that it had any seized firearms, the city revealed in mid-March that it did have a cache of some 1000 firearms seized after the hurricane; this disclosure came after the NRA filed a motion in court to hold the city in contempt for failure to comply with the U.S. District Court's earlier order to return all seized firearms. On April 14, 2006, it was announced that the city will begin to return seized firearms, however as of early 2008, many firearms were still in police possession, and the matter was still in court. The matter was finally settled in favor of the NRA in October 2008. Per the agreement, the city was required to relax the strict proof of ownership requirements previously used, and was to release firearms to their owners with an affidavit claiming ownership and a background check to verify that the owner is legally able to possess a firearm.

Louisiana legislator Steve Scalise introduced Louisiana House Bill 760, which would prohibit confiscation of firearms in a state of emergency, unless the seizure is pursuant to the investigation of a crime, or if the seizure is necessary to prevent immediate harm to the officer or another individual. On June 8, 2006, HB 760 was signed into law. 21 other states joined Louisiana in enacting similar laws. A federal law prohibiting seizure of lawfully held firearms during an emergency, the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006, passed in the House with a vote of 322 to 99, and in the Senate by 84-16. The bill was signed into law by President Bush on October 9, 2006.

[Uncle Buck]

Scary stuff.  But I have to wonder why the order was given?

  Was it because they could not single out the criminal element, it would not have been politically correct?

[masfonos]

Scary stuff.  But I have to wonder why the order was given?

  Was it because they could not single out the criminal element, it would not have been politically correct?

Now that's an interesting side of the subject.  It feels so good to shout "Ah, they just wanted to keep the population under their thumb" but perhaps they had what they thought was a legitimate reason for the order.  Maybe you're right. Then again, maybe they just didn't want any of the "poor looters and other misguided criminals" to get popped.

[Chazzar10]

                               I see that we have a bunch of smart folks with alot of information out their. This is what bothers me as far as failing to comply with confiscations of any kind. You think you have undeniable rights and can defend yourself on the side of the law that are guaranteed by are Bill Of Rights, but with all these "emergency powers" they will consider resistance or failure to comply a crime and arrest or kill you while trying to uphold your God given rights. We have to demand a change in these emergency power laws because are rights are unconditional and do not have exceptions in them. Example the right to keep and bear arms except when their is a emergency or law makers don't like that type of firearms you have. My duty is to protect my family and I will do so no matter what "emergency powers" they try to impose on us.

[GunLink]

rights are unconditional and do not have exceptions in them. Example the right to keep and bear arms except when their is a emergency or law makers don't like that type of firearms you have.

"Shall not be infringed...unless it suits our needs to infringe upon"

[Chazzar10]

 sadly, one has to tread carefully with their words these days, especially in a thread discussing possible armed confrotation between a militia and police/military.                

                                Thanks for bring the above to my attention. I can honestly say I'm not looking for any kind of confrontation, just trying to bring up some thoughts concering how or when you can defend yourself against rights abuse no matter who it is that is trying to take them away whether criminals or the government etc. I was just pondering what I would have done if this happened in my hometown. I don't think I will post anymore comments because I know the paranoia that is out their sadly, I thought we lived in a free Country. It's a shame what some Officials are turning are country into! Signing off