Katrina and Gun confiscation

Jaysann22 · Aug 9, 2010

**ALL COMMENTS, OPINIONS, AND ADVICE FROM SAID POSTERS ARE TO NOT BE TAKEN AS LEGAL ADVICE.**

Since the tragedy and tyranny of the aftermath of Katrina in New Orleans, I would like to get some of your input on the subject. How should it of been handled? How should have the citizens handled the situation? What are Missourians' options if this was ever attempted here? Since Katrina and the events in New Orleans, we now see that gun confiscation in America is very possible.

I understand that MO along with many other states have passed laws that strictly prohibit authorities confiscating firearms during an emergency.

Even George W even tried passing federal legislation prohibiting this but unfortuneatly failed. But are the state laws enough? Is it still possible and is it likely?

Just a reminder:

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

peterarthur · Aug 9, 2010

Jaysann22 said:
**ALL COMMENTS, OPINIONS, AND ADVICE FROM SAID POSTERS ARE TO NOT BE TAKEN AS LEGAL ADVICE.**

Since the tragedy and tyranny of the aftermath of Katrina in New Orleans, I would like to get some of your input on the subject. How should it of been handled? How should have the citizens handled the situation? What are Missourians' options if this was ever attempted here? Since Katrina and the events in New Orleans, we now see that gun confiscation in America is very possible.

I understand that MO along with many other states have passed laws that strictly prohibit authorities confiscating firearms during an emergency.

Even George W even tried passing federal legislation prohibiting this but unfortuneatly failed. But are the state laws enough? Is it still possible and is it likely?

Just a reminder:

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

How SHOULD they have handled it depends... if they were willing to die for liberty, they should have locked their doors and fired on American troops in defense of their home and hearth. If they wanted to live as slaves, they did the right thing by surrendering their weapons. So the SHOULD depends on the desired outcome which is different for every person...

Festus_Hagen · Aug 9, 2010

peterarthur said:
How SHOULD they have handled it depends... if they were willing to die for liberty, they should have locked their doors and fired on American troops in defense of their home and hearth. If they wanted to live as slaves, they did the right thing by surrendering their weapons. So the SHOULD depends on the desired outcome which is different for every person...

Which would have led to them being shot to death.

LMTD · Aug 9, 2010

Hind sight is always 20/20 and I am not sure open discussions of such things paint a positive light on firearms owners.

If it happened again the results would be similar but likely a bit more resistance offered.

As someone already mentioned, you would be taking on an opponent you can not defeat, no one or group ever has in history.

I actively prepare for disasters and take the reality of it very seriously. No one is going to take on our armed forces and win, all you can do is hide. I have far too much respect for our boys to bother blowing hot air about how I could defend myself from them, the only thing I might be able to do is hid from them for a while, but even then they are going to find just about anyone that was not trained by them, its what they do.

The big difference from then to now... most folks are going to dump firearms with a 4473 history into their laps and lie about any they have that do not have paper tied to them. IMHO most of what gets said beyond that is going to be blowing smoke bravado as I can assure you, most do not want to die over a 1,000 dollar or less pistol and they know billions of bullets can be aimed at them with a single order.

sohighlyunlikely · Aug 9, 2010

redundant

Festus_Hagen said:
Which would have led to them being shot to death.

I think that was his point. Die for freedom or live to be a slave.

peterarthur · Aug 9, 2010

Festus_Hagen said:
Which would have led to them being shot to death.

I think that was the implication when I said "If they were willing to die for liberty"...

peterarthur · Aug 9, 2010

LMTD said:
Hind sight is always 20/20 and I am not sure open discussions of such things paint a positive light on firearms owners.

If it happened again the results would be similar but likely a bit more resistance offered.

As someone already mentioned, you would be taking on an opponent you can not defeat, no one or group ever has in history.

I actively prepare for disasters and take the reality of it very seriously. No one is going to take on our armed forces and win, all you can do is hide. I have far too much respect for our boys to bother blowing hot air about how I could defend myself from them, the only thing I might be able to do is hid from them for a while, but even then they are going to find just about anyone that was not trained by them, its what they do.

The big difference from then to now... most folks are going to dump firearms with a 4473 history into their laps and lie about any they have that do not have paper tied to them. IMHO most of what gets said beyond that is going to be blowing smoke bravado as I can assure you, most do not want to die over a 1,000 dollar or less pistol and they know billions of bullets can be aimed at them with a single order.

True, 99.99999% of us would not take on the government. It would be suicide. Unless they were willing to die to be martyred in the cause of Liberty. American history only has a couple of these types called Stoics, like Patrick Henry. He said something like, "It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

The war was ALREADY on and there was no turning back at that point. And Patrick Henry, undoubtedly one of the first true "republicans" and probably influenced by Cato who opposed the dictatorship of Julius Caesar and would see death as a guarantee of freedom, the Stoic creed, took that approach on matters of freedom.

We have not reached that point, thankfully. I, for one, am optimistic that the Constitution that was set in place by those great thinkers may yet save us all.

Citizen · Aug 9, 2010

sohighlyunlikely said:
I think that was his point. Die for freedom or live to be a slave.

Just using your comment as a jumping off point. Not contradicting or anything.

I think the Katrina gun confiscations caught a lot of people unaware and by surprise. I think people were a little blinded by the whole "police are the good guys" thing and "the military is here to help us." Too few actually believed it was possible, myself included.

Now, it is different. A lot more people are going to be very suspicious of anything that even smells like a precusor to a gun confiscation. As Edmund Burke said in 1775 about the colonists, "They augur misgovernment at a distance. They snuff the approach of tyranny on every tainted breeze." A lot more people are going to be sniffing the air in any sort of substantial emergency.

Before single-handedly taking on a SWAT paramilitary squad, or worse, consider that you probably have several options, and try to figure out what they might be. For example, (just winging it here):

Natural disaster? OK, hide all but one long gun and one pistol. Let them confiscate them. After they leave, get out the others, but keep ready to hide in case a follow-up confiscator squad comes by tomorrow.

Man-made big disaster? OK, hide all but one long gun and one pistol. Let them confiscate them....

Man-made big disaster with martial law and national suspension of the constitution? OK, hide all but one gun...

I guess one angle is to give them what they are after to buy yourself some time to organize into an armed resistance if an organized armed resistance looks like it might be needed.

If you have a number of guns, if you see the political situation deteriotating, hide most of them, and find out which friends and neighbors only have one gun to give the confiscators. Maybe, a few of them will be needing one of your hidden guns in the event armed resistance become necessary. Of course, you don't tell anybody that is your plan. You just quietly ask, "So, you hunt? What kinda rifles you got?" and make mental notes.

If you extend this thinking, you can even get some sense of who you might elect captain of your local resistance company. Who knows first aid? Who is a great scrounger (incredibly valuable people, scroungers are. Just ask any Marine sergeant to name his most valuable subordinate). Who knows the current military doctrine for guerrilla warfare/counter-insurgency? Which cops seem like they might be real pro-freedom and willing to spy and supply intel? I'm just winging it here. I'm sure with a little thought things could be figured out.

A little Katrina scenario? Where there is an end in sight, and, the constitution is going to still be still in force afterward. It ain't worth getting shot over your gun. It is just a lump of metal. Don't invest it with too much meaning and get yourself killed. The rest of us might need you later to fill a slot in an armed resistance.

Oh, and remember, when it comes to guns, battlefield pick-ups are free!

Butch00 · Aug 9, 2010

Maybe you should research Constitutional Law.....It says the Constitution of the United States was adopted in a dire emergency, therefore there is no emergency that would justify the suspension of that document.

So the police and military violated their oath to uphold the Constitution, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law.

Citizen said:
Just using your comment as a jumping off point. Not contradicting or anything.
I think the Katrina gun confiscations caught a lot of people unaware and by surprise. I think people were a little blinded by the whole "police are the good guys" thing and "the military is here to help us." Too few actually believed it was possible, myself included.

Now, it is different. A lot more people are going to be very suspicious of anything that even smells like a precusor to a gun confiscation. As Edmund Burke said in 1775 about the colonists, "They augur misgovernment at a distance. They snuff the approach of tyranny on every tainted breeze." A lot more people are going to be sniffing the air in any sort of substantial emergency.

Before single-handedly taking on a SWAT paramilitary squad, or worse, consider that you probably have several options, and try to figure out what they might be. For example, (just winging it here):

Natural disaster? OK, hide all but one long gun and one pistol. Let them confiscate them. After they leave, get out the others, but keep ready to hide in case a follow-up confiscator squad comes by tomorrow.

Man-made big disaster? OK, hide all but one long gun and one pistol. Let them confiscate them....

Man-made big disaster with martial law and national suspension of the constitution? OK, hide all but one gun...

I guess one angle is to give them what they are after to buy yourself some time to organize into an armed resistance if an organized armed resistance looks like it might be needed.

If you have a number of guns, if you see the political situation deteriotating, hide most of them, and find out which friends and neighbors only have one gun to give the confiscators. Maybe, a few of them will be needing one of your hidden guns in the event armed resistance become necessary. Of course, you don't tell anybody that is your plan. You just quietly ask, "So, you hunt? What kinda rifles you got?" and make mental notes.

If you extend this thinking, you can even get some sense of who you might elect captain of your local resistance company. Who knows first aid? Who is a great scrounger (incredibly valuable people, scroungers are. Just ask any Marine sergeant to name his most valuable subordinate). Who knows the current military doctrine for guerrilla warfare/counter-insurgency? Which cops seem like they might be real pro-freedom and willing to spy and supply intel? I'm just winging it here. I'm sure with a little thought things could be figured out.

A little Katrina scenario? Where there is an end in sight, and, the constitution is going to still be still in force afterward. It ain't worth getting shot over your gun. It is just a lump of metal. Don't invest it with too much meaning and get yourself killed. The rest of us might need you later to fill a slot in an armed resistance.

Oh, and remember, when it comes to guns, battlefield pick-ups are free!

Citizen · Aug 10, 2010

Butch00 said:
Maybe you should research Constitutional Law.....It says the Constitution of the United States was adopted in a dire emergency, therefore there is no emergency that would justify the suspension of that document.

So the police and military violated their oath to uphold the Constitution, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law.

Huh!?! What does that have to do with what I wrote?

utbob2004 · Aug 10, 2010

I know that here in Tennessee, our legislature has passed laws stating that they can not take our firearms in an "emergency" situation. I am in agreement with one of the previous posters stating that those soldiers violated their oath to the constitution by taking those guns. A 4 star could give you an order to take the guns from the citizens and you could decline because it is not a "lawful" order. I have faith in our NCO's in the Army that they will do what is right if they were given that order on a mass scale. I know that I will not give up my firearms if it came down to it. I am going to the woods that I know and they don't. Good luck finding me out there!

jjtroutbum · Aug 10, 2010

Jaysann22 said:
I understand that MO along with many other states have passed laws that strictly prohibit authorities confiscating firearms during an emergency.

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

Yes Missouri did pass a completely limp law with no teeth as to punishment if anyone were to violate it . So in my humble opinion its another worthless feel good writ.

Ps. boating accident lost em all, all I got left is this .22 and single shot shot gun.

Jaysann22 · Aug 10, 2010

Maybe you should research Constitutional Law.....It says the Constitution of the United States was adopted in a dire emergency, therefore there is no emergency that would justify the suspension of that document.

So the police and military violated their oath to uphold the Constitution, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law.

Very well said. Words of a true American Patriot.

Yes Missouri did pass a completely limp law with no teeth as to punishment if anyone were to violate it . So in my humble opinion its another worthless feel good writ. .

please explain?

Well, My thoughts on the matter is that MO is much different than Louisiana. New Orleans was the city in which the confiscation occurred. Note, the rest of the state was not violated. They knew if they headed into wooded more rural areas, they could be facing severe armed resistance in which the terrain would best them. *hint* (Afghanistan) (Taking on a large military with a smaller civilian force IS possible.) Its been done all through out history. Think Vietnam and American Revolutionary war. Even several military generals from other countries have hesitated to invade US soil due to the fact a devasting well armed citizenry was waiting for them and would mean their absolute defeat. But I think most meant, give up some of your arms, live to fight another day. Dont take on authority alone.

MO im sure, has many more firearm die hards and more tricky rural areas. A more likely scenerio would be St Louis, Chicago, and parts of East St louis, (along with other major cities) will be flooded with troops where confiscations will occur. In the event of the emergency, i highly doubt troops will be entering rural areas to confiscate weapons. Its just too dangerous and a waste of time. Suburban areas may be affected but not all; depending on their distance from the city and the radius of the military's perimeter.

Most of the films that are up on youtube featuring confiscations are police, not military troops. Does not make it right and it violates Posse Comitatus, because the national guard was there, but we can only hope our troops avoid commiting such a crime and breaking their oath.

9026543 · Aug 10, 2010

Jaysann22 said:
Very well said. Words of a true American Patriot.

please explain?

Well, My thoughts on the matter is that MO is much different than Louisiana. New Orleans was the city in which the confiscation occurred. Note, the rest of the state was not violated. They knew if they headed into wooded more rural areas, they could be facing severe armed resistance in which the terrain would best them. *hint* (Afghanistan) (Taking on a large military with a smaller civilian force IS possible.) Its been done all through out history. Think Vietnam and American Revolutionary war. Even several military generals from other countries have hesitated to invade US soil due to the fact a devasting well armed citizenry was waiting for them and would mean their absolute defeat. But I think most meant, give up some of your arms, live to fight another day. Dont take on authority alone.

MO im sure, has many more firearm die hards and more tricky rural areas. A more likely scenerio would be St Louis, Chicago, and parts of East St louis, (along with other major cities) will be flooded with troops where confiscations will occur. In the event of the emergency, i highly doubt troops will be entering rural areas to confiscate weapons. Its just too dangerous and a waste of time. Suburban areas may be affected but not all; depending on their distance from the city and the radius of the military's perimeter.

Most of the films that are up on youtube featuring confiscations are police, not military troops. Does not make it right and it violates Posse Comitatus, because the national guard was there, but we can only hope our troops avoid commiting such a crime and breaking their oath.

The limp law with no provisions for punishment if violated can be read here:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C000-099/0440000101.HTM

This was rushed through the legislature so it could be signed by then Gov. Blunt at the NRA convention in St Louis with great fanfare.

Jaysann22 · Aug 10, 2010

9026543 said:
The limp law with no provisions for punishment if violated can be read here:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C000-099/0440000101.HTM

This was rushed through the legislature so it could be signed by then Gov. Blunt at the NRA convention in St Louis with great fanfare.

Yeah, I see what your saying, as with most state legistlature, most bills/laws have an exploitable Federal loophole. If the State law says its prohibited, but it doesnt necessarly say Federal authorities are prohibited. So its only prohibited at a State level And also, from what I understand, Federal law supercedes State law. It shouldnt, but it does.

Probably explains why a Federal law prohibiting confiscation never succeeded... :uhoh:

peterarthur · Aug 10, 2010

Citizen said:
Just using your comment as a jumping off point. Not contradicting or anything.

I think the Katrina gun confiscations caught a lot of people unaware and by surprise. I think people were a little blinded by the whole "police are the good guys" thing and "the military is here to help us." Too few actually believed it was possible, myself included.

Now, it is different. A lot more people are going to be very suspicious of anything that even smells like a precusor to a gun confiscation. As Edmund Burke said in 1775 about the colonists, "They augur misgovernment at a distance. They snuff the approach of tyranny on every tainted breeze." A lot more people are going to be sniffing the air in any sort of substantial emergency.

Before single-handedly taking on a SWAT paramilitary squad, or worse, consider that you probably have several options, and try to figure out what they might be. For example, (just winging it here):

Natural disaster? OK, hide all but one long gun and one pistol. Let them confiscate them. After they leave, get out the others, but keep ready to hide in case a follow-up confiscator squad comes by tomorrow.

Man-made big disaster? OK, hide all but one long gun and one pistol. Let them confiscate them....

Man-made big disaster with martial law and national suspension of the constitution? OK, hide all but one gun...

I guess one angle is to give them what they are after to buy yourself some time to organize into an armed resistance if an organized armed resistance looks like it might be needed.

If you have a number of guns, if you see the political situation deteriotating, hide most of them, and find out which friends and neighbors only have one gun to give the confiscators. Maybe, a few of them will be needing one of your hidden guns in the event armed resistance become necessary. Of course, you don't tell anybody that is your plan. You just quietly ask, "So, you hunt? What kinda rifles you got?" and make mental notes.

If you extend this thinking, you can even get some sense of who you might elect captain of your local resistance company. Who knows first aid? Who is a great scrounger (incredibly valuable people, scroungers are. Just ask any Marine sergeant to name his most valuable subordinate). Who knows the current military doctrine for guerrilla warfare/counter-insurgency? Which cops seem like they might be real pro-freedom and willing to spy and supply intel? I'm just winging it here. I'm sure with a little thought things could be figured out.

A little Katrina scenario? Where there is an end in sight, and, the constitution is going to still be still in force afterward. It ain't worth getting shot over your gun. It is just a lump of metal. Don't invest it with too much meaning and get yourself killed. The rest of us might need you later to fill a slot in an armed resistance.

Oh, and remember, when it comes to guns, battlefield pick-ups are free!

Assuming that YOU are not confiscated too.... lol@ battlefield pickups. I get harassed at having a Glock 32 .357 SIG because of uncommon ammo. Any scenario that requires more than I have now, I will either die before I spend my 500 rounds or find someone that stopped one of those rounds before I run out. And chances are in my favor that they will be using a more common ammo than I... so why be so worried?

And 2.23 is everywhere so I have that covered anyway!!!

HYRYSC · Aug 10, 2010

Speaking to the sheriff's deputy in the county that I live in, he said that he knows for a fact that the badges would be laid down before anyone in the office would violate their oath and confiscate firearms.

Sure makes my decision to stay put a lot easier.

Katrina and Gun confiscation

Jaysann22

Regular Member

peterarthur

Regular Member

Festus_Hagen

Regular Member

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate

sohighlyunlikely

Regular Member

peterarthur

Regular Member

peterarthur

Regular Member

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

Butch00

Regular Member

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

utbob2004

Regular Member

jjtroutbum

Regular Member

Jaysann22

Regular Member

9026543

Regular Member

Jaysann22

Regular Member

peterarthur

Regular Member

HYRYSC

Regular Member