I'm sure this is bound to cause a debate over the merits of gun control, but I found this incredibly interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/08/national/nationalspecial/08cnd-storm.html?hp&ex=1126238400&en=efe0a58b7fc8e12c&ei=5094&partner=homepage

No civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns, or other firearms, said P. Edwin Compass, the superintendent of police. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said.

But that order apparently does not apply to the hundreds of security guards whom businesses and some wealthy individuals have hired to protect their property. The guards, who are civilians working for private security firms like Blackwater, are openly carrying M-16's and other assault rifles. Mr. Compass said he was aware of the private guards, but that the police had no plans to make them give up their weapons.

Boy, talk about class warfare. The rich are allowed to protect their property with private security guards, but the average Joe... not so much.

But is this even legal?
http://www.nola.com/weblogs/print.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_Times-Picayune/archives/print075262.html

But even though no martial law exists, Gov. Kathleen Blanco's declaration of a state of emergency gives authorities widespread latitude to suspend civil liberties as they try to restore order and bring victims to safety. Under the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act of 1993, the governor and, in some cases, chief parish officials, have the right to commandeer or utilize any private property if necessary to cope with the emergency.

Authorities may also suspend any statute related to the conduct of official business, or any rule issued by a state agency, if complying would "prevent, hinder or delay necessary action'' to mitigate the emergency.

It also gives authority the right to compel evacuations, suspend alcohol and weapons sales and make provisions for the availability and use of temporary emergency housing.

The law gives mayors similar authority, except they do not have the right to commandeer private property or make provisions for emergency housing, according to a background brief prepared by the state Attorney General's office.

Now, this summary just says that the suspension of weapons sales is allowed... not the ownership of firearms. The state Constitution says:

The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

When I first started hearing about this story this afternoon, I put a call into the Louisiana Attorney General's office. They hadn't heard about the decree and were checking into it. I'm supposed to hear back from them tomorrow.

So here are my problems with this:

1- if it's legal, then I'm thinking these private security guards shouldn't get a special exemption.

2- if it's not legal, then the supervisor of police really stepped in it. I understand the desire to get a handle on the lawless behavior, but shredding the constitution isn't a great way to do it.

When Wyatt Earp become Marshal in Dodge City, he enforced a ban on carrying guns in town. He and his deputies collected the guns at the entrances into the town proper - to cut down on the rash of gunfights and senseless, random shootings.

When Wyatt Earp become Marshal in Dodge City, he enforced a ban on carrying guns in town. He and his deputies collected the guns at the entrances into the town proper - to cut down on the rash of gunfights and senseless, random shootings.


What was Wyatt Earp like?

When Wyatt Earp become Marshal in Dodge City, he enforced a ban on carrying guns in town. He and his deputies collected the guns at the entrances into the town proper - to cut down on the rash of gunfights and senseless, random shootings.
Sounds like a good plan to me.

When Wyatt Earp become Marshal in Dodge City, he enforced a ban on carrying guns in town. He and his deputies collected the guns at the entrances into the town proper - to cut down on the rash of gunfights and senseless, random shootings.

And we know how well similar programs have worked in Washington, D.C. :)

You have given me the idea to start marketing WWWED bracelets to urban police chiefs, however.

What was Wyatt Earp like?
Believe it or not, he didn't pass away until 1929 or something.

Believe it or not, he didn't pass away until 1929 or something.


Where you there when he died, too? :eek:



(Anybody who has seen "Tombstone" 50,000 times (like me) knows that well. Tom Mix wept.)

2- if it's not legal, then the supervisor of police really stepped in it. I understand the desire to get a handle on the lawless behavior, but shredding the constitution isn't a great way to do it. A constitutional law expert would be more appropriate to answer this, but I think what you're describing wouldn't be appropriate for the supervisor of police. It's not the job of the police to determing constitutionality, it's a question for the courts.

I think this is a poor precedent, but since the thread is marked "political," I'll just say that getting a handle on lawless behavior by shredding the constitution is almost America's real national pastime. We've be doing that intermittently for 200-plus years.

Does the state constitution even apply when martial law is imposed?

Does the state constitution even apply when martial law is imposed?

There is no state of martial law that has been imposed. Martial law has to be declared by the president.

What exists in Louisiana is a state of emergency declared by the governor. That gives her some expanded powers, and also grants some expanded powers to Mayor Nagin... but I haven't seen that those powers extend towards curtailing any constitutionally guaranteed activities (and if you want to go all "collectivist" on me, the Louisiana State Constitution also guarantees a right to keep and bear arms that doesn't even mention a militia).

Cam: I'm surprised, but I agree with you completely. The article in the WSJ discussing how white upper class New Orleans is generally dry and in some places has running water and is using private security really angered me. No way guns should only be held by those with the money to hire a lackey to do it for them.

Forget about the guns. If the residents can't stay in New Orleans, the private guards have no business being there, either.

Cam: I'm surprised, but I agree with you completely. The article in the WSJ discussing how white upper class New Orleans is generally dry and in some places has running water and is using private security really angered me. No way guns should only be held by those with the money to hire a lackey to do it for them.
That's not what everyone was saying last week.

I saw this and it troubled me too. Sorta like the quickness in which martial law was declared.

What came first, the shooter or the gun?

On a positive note, the price of gas has cut down on the number of drive-by shootings...

This is how far the Liberal Slant on this board reaches: Even our pro-gun discussions revolve around class warfare.

Seriously, though, I'm with Cam on this one.

now federal agents are apparently involved.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/08/AR2005090802089.html


But on Wednesday night, Guidos said, armed federal agents identifying themselves as U.S. marshals confiscated her weapons and ordered her and six friends to leave by noon Thursday.

"When you get 15 M-16s pointed at you and they line you up against the wall, it's kind of scary," said Guidos, 55.

So to solve this problem.. the lower class needs to "hire" each other for 1 buck to carry a gun..

I'm definitely with Cam on this one. Seizing guns from private citizens is definitely out unless there is some kind of special exemption in the emergency powers decree.

1- if it's legal, then I'm thinking these private security guards shouldn't get a special exemption.

2- if it's not legal, then the supervisor of police really stepped in it. I understand the desire to get a handle on the lawless behavior, but shredding the constitution isn't a great way to do it.

I agree on both counts. (You're all shocked, aren't you? :p )

With regard to #2, in that case I'd say it's simply another area where pre-disaster planning was lacking. Adequate law & order provisions could have been agreed upon years ago for the eventuality of this situation. Heck, even a special session of the state legislature a few weeks ago may have been enough to clarify the potential situation.

But noooooooooo, let's not think ahead.... :rolleyes:

Does the state constitution even apply when martial law is imposed?

If I remember correctly, the state legislature took away the governor's ability to declare martial law some time ago.