Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: More gun confiscation for evacuees in New Orleans

  1. #1
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    But wait, the NRA sued and won!!1

    lol, people think the courts have any bearing on how laws are actually used - fools.

    more of the same, the gov't trampling the rights of individuals. when are people going to wake up.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Florence, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    173

    Post imported post

    Wow just wow

  4. #4
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Looked all over, can't find anything else on this. It's a hoax. It's not on Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBCor even CNN. None of the websites have anything about it.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Your search - gustav gun source:cnn - did not match any documents.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    It's not a hoax but rather that anyone evacuatingnawlins on commercial transportation paid for but the gubmint is having to follow the same guidelines as normal and are not being allowed to carry their guns on the bus, plane or train. If they did not want to turn over their guns they could arrange for their own transportation. It is standard protocol and why you can't find anything on it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    418

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    It's not a hoax but rather that anyone evacuatingnawlins on commercial transportation paid for but the gubmint is having to follow the same guidelines as normal and are not being allowed to carry their guns on the bus, plane or train. If they did not want to turn over their guns they could arrange for their own transportation. It is standard protocol and why you can't find anything on it.
    I think you're right. The real test will come after the storm passes and they begin to make the rounds to see if there are any citizens in need of assistance. This should be a fairly small number tho. It would appear they did a much better job of evacuating the city this time around. That in itself should dramatically reduce the looting.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    They put a certain group of people (poor/no car, etc.) in harm's way with that policy, that you can't take your guns (even one) with you if you want to LEAVE a natural disaster area. So you have to stay homeunderdangerous/life-threateningcondtions (even in a MANDATORY evacuation order)from a dangerous storm or perhaps even worse, get jerked out of your house in handcuffs by "the authorities" if you refuse to leave and/or disarm.

    Maybe if you have the $$ to leave in your car (and be able to afford expensive lenghty hotel room stays) you can take them -- unless there are police/National Guard checkpoints,you get searched and they confiscate themthere-- but otherwise the only SURE way to keep your gun(s) is to STAY HOME and in storm's harm. If you're poor and have no way to leave, you have to be disarmed. That's discrimination against the poor.

    Much like the earlier policy of not allowing people to leave with their pets, many people just stayed home in a dangerous situation because they would not leave their pets (and they shouldn't even have been put into that position of being forced to make such a choice).

    Now, I suspect some people willSTAY in harm's (Gustav's) way because they choose NOT to rely on "the authorities" to protect them and their families, will not give up the tool(s) to exercise their right of self-defense,or want to havejack-booted thugs in their residences (or looters, which ALWAYS seem to stay) if they LEFT,to rummage around looking for their guns...which, as we know, are NOT illegal/contraband and should be left alone. I know here in Galveston I had planned to STAY regardless of how bad Gustav got -- and even if it hit here -- partly for that very reason.

    So for a nanny-state policy that is supposed to prevent violence -- guns on the bus, in citizens' possession at disaster/refuge centers, etc. -- people staying home is also a form of violence visited upon them from the storm, a direct result of the "you can't take it with you" policy.

    What also gets me is that here in TX, even if you have a CHL, it doesn't matter, you can not carry your gun. What complete crap. If "the authorities" -- or civilian bus companies -- can't trust a person who qualified to get a CHL in the first place, they shouldn't have CHLs available because the permit apparentlymeans nothing in reality.

    Yes, we need "the authorities" -- and bus companies, with won't let US cary any guns but also won't provide anarmed guard on board who could at leastTRY to prevent violence to passengers -- they need to be sued big-time.

    -- John D.

    P.S. Besides searching for firearms, did they also search for the crack and alcohol thelow-lifes were bringing with them?


    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    Armed,

    True, and most of the low-life lootertrash probably got on the city-provided buses to be evacuated to designated "safe cities," but I sure don't think those "safe cities" will be any safer when the buses get there and the trash disembarks and is then free to "do their thing."

    ...jsut like last time during Katrina.

    And some of the trash never went back home.

    -- John D.
    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    418

    Post imported post

    Cloudcroft - Yes, I remember reading about the increase in crime from the transplanted evacuees out of NOLA. I also just read todaythat peoplewere stocking up on AR-15's and ammo in advance of the storm. //www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=22379 Let's see what happens. Hopefully - nothing out of the ordinary.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Was not pleased to see this pic.


  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Or this pic. That is to get into a shelter according to the caption.
    http://tinyurl.com/56k68h

  13. #13
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    longwatch wrote:
    Was not pleased to see this pic.
    Weren't the trains with evacuees AMTRAK Trains? WTF?? Since when does a publicly owned train violate people's constitutional rights?
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    longwatch wrote:
    Or this pic. That is to get into a shelter according to the caption.
    http://tinyurl.com/56k68h
    Longwatch is this picture available in any larger size? That way one could read the company name on the polo shirts.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Ok, I'm just not really getting bunged up about this. Well over a million of people evacuated in private vehicles carrying whatever they wanted including guns and ammo. If you want the gov't to evacuate you and house you then you have to follow whatever retarded rules they make up like you can't have a gun on the bus or in the evacuation center.

    While I am sympathetic with Cloudcroft's comments I do not agree. If you choose to live somewhere that is at high risk for natural disaster/evacuation and you cannot afford to evacuate yourself then there will be a natural consequence, ie when the rest of the people of the state use their money through taxes or donations to send buses, trains or other conveyances to evacuate you, you have to follow the rules of whoever does the evacuating.

    I did chuckle at the no-firearms policy being call a nanny-state policy. Think about it. People are at home and find out about a week in advance that there is a natural disaster heading your way. So they wait around until the GOV'T tells them to leave. But then they suddenly realize that they do not have the means to leave, so they want the GOV'T to provide transportation for them. But then they have no place to go and no equipment or supplies to take care of themselves wherever they evacuate to so they want the GOV'T to provide food, water, shelter, sanitation. Then after it is over they want the GOV'T to clean up their neighborhood, make their homes habitable again and then provide them transportation home. I think that whether or not they can take a gun or knife on an evacuation bus or into an evacuation center is the LEAST of these people's "nanny-state" problems.

    Now if I hear/read about confiscations from people who left in private vehicles or who paid normal fares for transportation (beyond the normally outrageous and ridiculous TSA restrictions on our freedoms and liberty) then I am going to get pretty upset and excited about things. But if you are going to suck on the teat of government, you can't complain about the quality of the milk.

    Edit: spelling
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  16. #16
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    ...if you are going to suck on the teat of government, you can't complain about the quality of the milk.
    Nice!

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    So because you are poor, you lose rights. I do not agree.

    Yes, rich people can afford great lawyers and poor peopleMIGHT only get a public defender, and that IS the reality, but it's still not right. One shouldn't have to be able to afford (buy) justice. I have no sympathy for trash (i.e., re: behavior, not income), so I'm not talking about them, just decent poor people.

    And almost any place to live in the country has it's problems...earthquakes, mudslides, forest fires, tornadoes and hurricanes...removeall those places for residential areas and you lose lots of territory.People can live wherever they want,but that shouldn't mean they have to give up any civil rights because of THAT, either.

    Again, if "the authorities" can't even trust people who have a CHL "the authorities" issued, thenthere is a real problem.

    -- John D.

    P.S. I agree with government-provided transportation having rules, but said rules should not contravene civil rights.

    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Central, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    Were the trains leased by FEMA for the evacuation?



  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    cloudcroft wrote:
    So because you are poor, you lose rights. I do not agree.

    Yes, rich people can afford great lawyers and poor peopleMIGHT only get a public defender, and that IS the reality, but it's still not right. One shouldn't have to be able to afford (buy) justice. I have no sympathy for trash (i.e., re: behavior, not income), so I'm not talking about them, just decent poor people.

    And almost any place to live in the country has it's problems...earthquakes, mudslides, forest fires, tornadoes and hurricanes...removeall those places for residential areas and you lose lots of territory.People can live wherever they want,but that shouldn't mean they have to give up any civil rights because of THAT, either.

    Again, if "the authorities" can't even trust people who have a CHL "the authorities" issued, thenthere is a real problem.

    -- John D.

    P.S. I agree with government-provided transportation having rules, but said rules should not contravene civil rights.
    I don't agree with the government provide transportation except as a expense deal where itwill be cheaper to get them out of there than to bury them afterwards. You decide to live te feet below sea level and then complain when mother nature does what she has been doing for a million years and expect someone else to take care of you but complain about it. Heck they have two feet let them walk in they don't want to follow the rules. That would be like you wanting to stay at my house but only if you could bring your dog along.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    cloudcroft wrote:
    Again, if "the authorities" can't even trust people who have a CHL "the authorities" issued, thenthere is a real problem.
    unfortunately, that seems to be the general consensus in most places. strange really. In Tennessee, you have to take an 8 hour class, have went your entire lifetime without a felony conviction, be fingerprinted and voluntarily submit to a background check. and the State that issues the permit still doesn'ttrust you in many places, and we are one of the states with more freedom than many.

    obviously you didn't read the fine print:

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed*





    * ammendmentvalid at participating locations only . limit one right per person per visit. must show valid license, permit, or registration in order to redeem said right. right not offered in New York, California, Massachussetts, District of Columbia or other areas where right has been deemed inappropriate. other restrictions may apply, see neighborhood, city, county, state, federal and international representatives for more details.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas, USA
    Posts
    429

    Post imported post

    unreconstructed1 wrote:
    * ammendmentvalid at participating locations only . limit one right per person per visit. must show valid license, permit, or registration in order to redeem said right. right not offered in New York, California, Massachussetts, District of Columbia or other areas where right has been deemed inappropriate. other restrictions may apply, see neighborhood, city, county, state, federal and international representatives for more details.
    Now that's funny.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    cloudcroft wrote:
    So because you are poor, you lose rights. I do not agree.

    Yes, rich people can afford great lawyers and poor peopleMIGHT only get a public defender, and that IS the reality, but it's still not right. One shouldn't have to be able to afford (buy) justice. I have no sympathy for trash (i.e., re: behavior, not income), so I'm not talking about them, just decent poor people.

    And almost any place to live in the country has it's problems...earthquakes, mudslides, forest fires, tornadoes and hurricanes...removeall those places for residential areas and you lose lots of territory.People can live wherever they want,but that shouldn't mean they have to give up any civil rights because of THAT, either.

    Again, if "the authorities" can't even trust people who have a CHL "the authorities" issued, thenthere is a real problem.

    -- John D.

    P.S. I agree with government-provided transportation having rules, but said rules should not contravene civil rights.
    I'm not saying that wealth should have anything to do with someone's rights. What I am saying is that if you are going to use gov't resources to evacuate instead of your own resources you have to deal with their rules, like it or not.If they choose to stay and are forced to leave anyway, I got a problem with that. If the gov't confiscates people's guns who are NOT riding gov't transportation or staying in gov't provided shelters, I got a problem with that.

    These people didn't lose any civil rights because of where they live. They didn't lose any civil rights because they were poor. They had their constitutionally protect right to keep and bear arms infringed because they relied on gov't instead of themselves to solve their problem, ie how to get out of an area they chose to live in that gets hit with hurricanes on a somewhat regular basis and then where to stay after they evacuated. My experience would lead me to believe that relying on gov't to provide for them instead of providing for themselves is precisely why most of these people are poor in the first place.

    I'm not even saying that I could never end up in that situation or that I wouldn't be pi$$ed off. But I would be more pi$$ed off at my decisions that led to me having to rely on gov't than at the realities of the bad things that I have to deal with when I do rely on gov't.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  23. #23
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    superdemon wrote:
    Were the trains leased by FEMA for the evacuation?

    Ooooh good point,if a contractee they have to follow the fed law on not taking firearms away....
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Central, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    superdemon wrote:
    Were the trains leased by FEMA for the evacuation?

    Ooooh good point,if a contractee they have to follow the fed law on not taking firearms away....
    Yup.

    However, it seemed to be local police doing the confiscating. Did the NRA lawsuit target feds only, or fed, state and local LEAs? I'm not familiar with it at all...

  25. #25
    Regular Member Prophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    544

    Post imported post

    cloudcroft wrote:
    So because you are poor, you lose rights.

    P.S. I agree with government-provided transportation having rules, but said rules should not contravene civil rights.
    I don't think the declaration of independence espouses "Life, Liberty, and a train ride out of the Bayou". Just like it doesn't say Life Liberty and healthcare. The government shouldnt play nanny so if you dont want to take the train then dont.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •