From: Stephen Grammont (islander@midmaine.com)
Date: Sun Sep 11 2005 - 21:27:37 PDT
Are we even sure it is illegal? Like it or not, looking at the US
Constitution and LA State Statute that has been invoked as part of the
State of Emergency it looks perfectly legal. In fact lots of civil
liberties have been suspended as well, such as the suspension of habeas
corpus (which basically means they can arrest anybody for anything),
confiscation of personal property, forced evacuation, etc. All of
these things are certainly legal under the US and LA Constitutions.
However, since nobody is supposed to be in New Orleans anyway... in
theory nobody should be affected.
Personally, what I find troubling was that Federal government (in the
form of the incompetent head of FEMA) did in fact try to illegally bar
the news media from reporting on body recoveries. Fortunately the Feds
realized they didn't stand a chance, so they spun a "it was all a big
misunderstanding" story and backed down when faced with a lawsuit.
Score one for the Constitution.
Steve
P.S. I think the gun confiscation idea is dumber than dumb. Legal as
it may be, I can't see how it could possibly help things. Law
enforcement has a lot more important things to be worried about.
>
> --------- Forwarded message ----------
>
>
> DO NOT LET THIS ALERT DIE! PASS IT ON!
>
> 11 September 2005
> ++++++++++++++++++
>
> Confiscation Of Firearms In New Orleans, Louisiana??
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> You are receiving this message because you requested our alerts.
> Subscribe/UnSubscribe instructions near the bottom of the alert.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Republication permitted only if this e-mail alert
> is left intact in its original state.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
> http://johnlongenecker.mensnewsdaily.com/blog/longenecker/
>
> Wednesday, September 07, 2005
>
>
> And they said it would never happen.
>
> But when conditions change, officials swing into action to break their
> word, violate their oath of office, violate the law and bluff or force
> their will on the public.
>
> This is the source of lawlessness: when officials break the law in
> professional incompetence, delaying of proper response and because-
> we-say-so oppression of the People.
>
> To a constituent, officials lied.
>
> The Condition: lawlessness in New Orleans.
>
> The Problem: thugs shooting and civil unrest.
>
> The Solution: Take away everybody’s guns and force evacuation, leaving
> the neighborhood unprotected.
>
> The Reality: only the criminals will have guns, perpetuating the
> original problem as they return to the evacuation zone.
>
> Exactly, please, how does law enforcement discern the good guys from
> the bad guys in what to confiscate from whom? If guns are being
> confiscated from thugs, what becomes of the thugs to follow-up on
> the suspicion of crime that justifies the confiscation?
>
> Don’t expect much, folks, because the jails were opened there to
> release the felons for their own safety.
>
> Brilliant, just brilliant.
>
> There's a very sickening feeling about this. First confiscation, then
> they come for you. They call it mandatory evacuation, but they are
> still confiscating weapons and coming for you.
>
> New Orleans already has one of the highest murder rates in the country,
> but it wasn't the law-abiding shooting at EMS. And it wasn't the
> law-abiding shooting it out with police.
>
> Who do they think they're fooling? If they really wanted to stop the
> unrest, they could have taken into custody and relocated the thugs
> they released, but they didn't concentrate on the thugs they had in
> hand; they concentrated on the guns. Everybody's guns.
>
> As an aside, I was contacted this morning by the Republican Party and
> asked for a $150 donation. Like Hell.
>
> I answered that I was a member of my Party's Assembly District, and
> that we, along with other Republicans, decided to withhold donations
> and fundraising for the Party until the Conservatives did two things:
> secure and control the borders, and stop the restrictions on gun rights
> for the law-abiding.
>
> My unwelcome telemarketer caller asked me if I would like to see
> Hilary Clinton in the White House for lack of conservative funding:
> the thrust of my reply was let the heavens fall.
>
> No wonder the rescue efforts were delayed. No wonder the thugs were let
> out. The situation was allowed to deteriorate so officials would be
> able
> to cite unexpected changed conditions as an excuse to break their word
> and confiscate weapons as a dress rehearsal for other communities. This
> is not good. Where the hell were the conservatives in looking out for
> the individual?
>
> To protect the community and our way of life, armed citizens are the
> most effective modality. Police can be overwhelmed and the people have
> an interest in defending their homes and their community as a whole.
> When facing a thug, the people have a very good idea of who is
> law-abiding
> and who isn't, and it is they who are best qualified to sort things out
> as they participate in the recovery of their community.
>
> I dislike intensely the government's freezing people out of their own
> recovery plans. And I dislike the idea of disarming the law-abiding.
>
> The mandatory evacuation -- where the community is one cesspool -- may
> make sense for the next several days; I'm for non-mandatory evacuation;
> but confiscation of weapons is downright illegal, stupid, and I dare
> say predictable.
>
> To use human tragedy to effect unauthorized and unwelcome political
> change is not new. Officials have been doing this for a very long time.
> Change the conditions and the consent of the people will follow in a
> spirit of cooperation.
>
> What's next, confiscation of weapons in California following an
> earthquake? Why?
>
> Confiscation of guns -- for whatever excuse -- is part of that use of
> human tragedy to effect political change, the kind the community
> doesn't
> want and which runs counter to the interests of the community. But, for
> some, it's now too late. They're disarmed and defenseless, and by their
> own consent. Even those with permits turn them in? Why?
>
> What do you believe will happen next? What do you believe will happen
> this Fall when the City of San Francisco votes to ban guns, which they
> have on the ballot?
>
> We've been had, friends.
>
> And we're going to be had in the next crisis, too.
>
> And the next, and the next.
>
> ====
>
> John Longenecker is a former Los Angeles Paramedic, now a businessman,
> commentator and author.
>
> Visit his website at http://nationwideconcealedcarry.com/
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to
> <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 28 2005 - 23:27:05 PDT