Government takes away your guns?

Question

Last year in New Orleans the government took peoples guns away from them. These were law-abiding people that posed no threat to anyone. I believe this was a violation of their rights. What do you think.

Answer 1

Yes they did in fact violate the rights of the people in the New Orleans area. I think now they have gone back and had to return all of the confiscated weapons to their rightful law abiding owners. I think that La., AL., FL., MS., have all now passed legislation that forbids the government of doing this during any future disasters. I know my state Kentucky when our politicians heard about this quickly put this bill forward and it passed overwhelming in Kentucky so now if any disaster happens here they will not be taking guns either. I could not believe when I heard the Chief of Police in New Orleans saying they were taking guns I was floored to think that they would do this. Now, of course the chief is saying this never happened but CNN has it on film he said it during a press conference. Myself I think that the chief and others involved with this kind of thing should be brought up on charges of civil rights violations. This kind of thing should never happen again.

Answer 2

I'm not in law enforcement, but I've noticed that whenever there is a volatile situation and it's unknown who the actual gunmen are, everyone in the "crime scene area" is under suspicion. In gunmen-hostage situations, when the "innocent" come running out (as seen on the news coverage) you see them all coming out with their hands on their heads. I've heard that the reason for this is to make sure the gunmen don't try to also sneak out...everyone has to be under suspicion until the place is safe and secured.

Do you remember the anarchy that broke out in New Orleans after Katrina? Thugs were taking potshopts at innocents, including trying to shoot down the very folks who were trying to perform rescues.

I suspect that in a scenario like that, it would make PERFECT sense to suspect everyone and take away their guns. It was a dire situation and the rescue manpower who were on hand needed to deal with the situation, then get back to the task of rescuing.

Confiscating guns was simply a necessary evil (for law-abiding citizens with guns) and a godsend for those being shot at. It was not an omen of "things to come." It was an efficient way of dealing with a dangerous situation.

Answer 3

Could you supply more information? What were these law abiding citizens doing at the time? Consider the following, if the government was attempting to evacuate the citizens of New Orleans, but these citizens were going to leave their weapons behind, where they could be found by looters (NOT law abiding citizens), then what was the option? Were these law abiding citizens given a receipt, and allowed to reclaim their weapons?
And a source would be nice.

Add some relevant information, please.

Answer 4

To "plus fute que toi" -- You say "Another civil liberty taken away, get used to it"?

No, not likely! The American people, including many MILLIONS of law-abiding sportsmen and others aren't about to give up their Constitutional right to own and bear firearms, despite the efforts of far-left liberals like Senators Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, Barbara Boxer, and the Dianne Feinstein who said "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in". Violent criminals will never give up their guns anyway.

To "Briang731" -- Would you like to comment on exactly why Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans has refused to return illegally seized personal firearms to the citizens of New Orleans a year later, despite a federal court order to do so? Isn't contempt of a federal court order a criminal act?

Answer 5

Uh, nokilleye the Retarded, are you able to grant a link to a valid internet site the place Joe the Plumber mentioned all of that? -- Oh, look, you made up one million/2 the crap. He did no longer say something approximately Obama and genocide, and the idiotarian internet site you referenced is likewise as dumb as you, as a results of fact he did no longer say or mean that gun administration led to genocide, yet that it fairly is a mandatory precurser for genocide. Gun administration never actual ends up in superior circumstances for regulation-abiding voters. they're inevitably reliant upon government to guard them, and government can not, so as that they typically grow to be extra matters than voters. In worldwide places the place weapons have been allowed and then have been taken (great Britain, Australia), the consequence became into extra desirable crime, alongside with gun crimes, as a results of fact the victims have been now no longer waiting to guard themselves. homestead invasions and assaults extra desirable heavily. And the criminals have the run of the streets. this is why they put in maximum of cameras. it fairly is a vicious cycle that can not and could no longer end nicely for the a lot abused citizenry.

Answer 6

As i reported in a earlier post there has been an amendment passed against that , i could be wrong but i believe it passed June 16th . It loosely states that even in the event of natural disasters , law enforcement is not allowed to confiscate firearms for any reason

Answer 7

The problem with the New Orleans fiasco was elderly citizens with guns, ready to shoot looters who dared show their faces anywhere near their property. This vigilante mentality stood to exacerbate an already serious problem! The police were justified, in this case, in doing what they did in disarming these citizens.

Answer 8

Based on the crime stats in New Orleans, probably a good idea. Illegal sure. But I bet the Liberals loved it.

Answer 9

Yes they did. The Supreme court voted against the ability of law enforcement doing that in the future.
Big error in a bad time.

Answer 10

I agree..
The LAST group you would want to rely on for
protection would be the New Orleans police dept.