Could Gun Registration Have Prevented Katrina Gun-Grab?

[Nakatomi]

We started to talk about this in another thread, until it was spammed to death with hello kitty.

When the military started going door to door snatching up guns in Katrina, what was the point? I am guessing their good intention was to gain control of the lawlessness and bring some measure of safety to the area. Unfortunately, they had no way of determining friend from foe as far as who could remained armed (and a potential threat). So somewhere along the line, they decided to disarm everyone...in a way one could easily argue violated the Constitution. But under marshal law, do they really have to follow it?

We all sweat gun registration, the very idea of it. From history, we have learned that in many regimes, registration leads to confiscation. However, in Katrina, we saw the playbook: just go door to door and assume everyone has a gun. In America, that's not a far fetched idea, as most homes DO have at least one gun. So really, registration for the purpose of confiscating in the US would really be almost pointless. They are going to have to go door to door in any case.

But could registration have actually helped in Katrina? If the soldiers going door to door could verify instantly that not only were you a law abiding citizen, that your weapon of choice was lawfully possessed? In this way law abiding citizens could have remained armed, and anyone afoul of the law would have been disarmed....which is what I think they were aiming for, before they adopted a "kill em all and let god sort em out" gun-grab methodology.

I gave my picture, fingerprints, and DNA to the military. I have a social security card and a drivers license. I also have a LTCH, lifetime edition.
Having the Gov know the serial number of my HK doens't scare me much. I also wouldn't mind having to transfer my weapons to new owners, I wouldn't lose sleep at night wondering if the ones I sold or traded away ended up in bad hands. A lot of us insist on FFL transfer anyway.

 

[ATF Consumer]

The whole idea is that we as citizens are innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. You cannot just come into our homes and take or even check to see if we are legally possessing our weapons without a proper search warrant. Marshal Law does not warrant an illegal search and seizure. Unless you provided proper documentation of such a search of my home, you would be presented with my defending measures to protect myself and my home from illegally operating intruders.

With this registration of guns and such, that isn't any different than the KGB days of asking people for their papers. While you may be willing to give up your freedoms for security, the rest of us constitutional citizens would like to keep our freedoms that our forefathers fought for. I simply can't understand while anyone would want to give up on any one of our freedoms that have been secured under the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of The United States. What part of "Don't Tread On Me", don't you understand?
The second amendment has specific wording that says "shall not be infringed." By placing registrations and licenses as conditions to be able to exercise your right to carry are direct infringements and should be abolished.

 

[Lucas156]

"Could Gun Registration Have Prevented Katrina Gun-Grab?"

The answer is no.

 

[BloodEclipse]

We started to talk about this in another thread, until it was spammed to death with hello kitty.

When the military started going door to door snatching up guns in Katrina, what was the point? I am guessing their good intention was to gain control of the lawlessness and bring some measure of safety to the area. Unfortunately, they had no way of determining friend from foe as far as who could remained armed (and a potential threat). So somewhere along the line, they decided to disarm everyone...in a way one could easily argue violated the Constitution. But under marshal law, do they really have to follow it?

We all sweat gun registration, the very idea of it. From history, we have learned that in many regimes, registration leads to confiscation. However, in Katrina, we saw the playbook: just go door to door and assume everyone has a gun. In America, that's not a far fetched idea, as most homes DO have at least one gun. So really, registration for the purpose of confiscating in the US would really be almost pointless. They are going to have to go door to door in any case.

But could registration have actually helped in Katrina? If the soldiers going door to door could verify instantly that not only were you a law abiding citizen, that your weapon of choice was lawfully possessed? In this way law abiding citizens could have remained armed, and anyone afoul of the law would have been disarmed....which is what I think they were aiming for, before they adopted a "kill em all and let god sort em out" gun-grab methodology.

I gave my picture, fingerprints, and DNA to the military. I have a social security card and a drivers license. I also have a LTCH, lifetime edition.
Having the Gov know the serial number of my HK doens't scare me much. I also wouldn't mind having to transfer my weapons to new owners, I wouldn't lose sleep at night wondering if the ones I sold or traded away ended up in bad hands. A lot of us insist on FFL transfer anyway.

They were looking to disarm everyone and gun registration would have made it easier. They were beating up old ladies to take their guns. I'm sure they were all gang members. They would know exactly how many and what kinds you had, so you couldn't possibly hide one.
What else would you like us to register? Bows, knives, hammers, axes?

 

[Chefcook]

Registration is the first step towards confiscation. I am very happy that I did not reside in New Orleans during the Katrina disaster. Even if I had survived the storm I would not have survived the gun confiscations, nor would have some of the confiscators...

 

[Lucas156]

Registration is the first step towards confiscation. I am very happy that I did not reside in New Orleans during the Katrina disaster. Even if I had survived the storm I would not have survived the gun confiscations, nor would have some of the confiscators...

Need I repeat the phrase, " over my dead body"?

 

[ATM]

History is enough for me. I do not see an event or a future bleak enough to warrant voluntarily giving our government any more control than that which they have already wrestled away from we the people. The cost would be Liberty. Security (and especially a false sense of it) just can't compete. No registration. When it comes time to ban and confiscate, please send the legislators door to door to collect.

 

[5.56'aholic]

The whole idea is that we as citizens are innocent until proved guilty in a court of law.

Tell that to the media. To them, accusations means guilt. Our society has been dealing with an insane, almost discriminatory, rise in the fear of citizen gun ownership thanks to the media.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Much better approach with this one, Nakatomi. Keep it up!

The saying is that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1928, Germany established gun control.
From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1935, China established gun control.
From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were unable to defend themselves and were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1956, Cambodia established gun control.
From 1975 to1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1964, Guatemala established gun control.
From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1970, Uganda established gun control.
From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives — because they were unable to defend their liberty — at approximately 56 million in the 20th century. Note that these people were not victims of foreign invaders, but of their own governments.

Let us also not forget that the British Regulars, under the command of Gen. Gage, practiced "gun control" as well, confiscating powder and shot, which was one of the sparks that lit the flame of revolution in our forbears in 1775.

Gun registration making it easier to ID "friend or foe"? Probably not- the government has already pared that ID down to pretty simple terms: If you're going door to door confiscating, you're a friend. Where does that leave the rest of us?

"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're probably on the menu."

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Buckaroo]

I am sure "they" would want to keep my guns "safe" at some point and would use that excuse in an attempt to confiscate.

Buckaroo

 

[SavageEagle]

The answer is a simple HELL ****ING NO.

Gun Registration would have allowed the gun grabbers not to go door to door, but to a list of SPECIFIC doors. What would have happened to those people on the list with no more guns? They get beaten, arrested, or worse because they couldn't produce the guns or reciepts of sale for said guns?

Yea. A great big HELL ****ING NO in my book.

I was enraged at the question but this is as civil as I could possibly be.

 

[Donnelly]

When the military started going door to door snatching up guns in Katrina, what was the point? I am guessing their good intention was to gain control of the lawlessness and bring some measure of safety to the area. Unfortunately, they had no way of determining friend from foe as far as who could remained armed (and a potential threat). So somewhere along the line, they decided to disarm everyone...in a way one could easily argue violated the Constitution. But under marshal law, do they really have to follow it?

1. One would wonder if their intentions were good. When it comes it government, it is always about control.

2. "In a way one could easily argue violated the Constitution". I don't see any argument. They violated the 2nd amendment, pure and simple.

3. "But under marshal law, do they really have to follow it?" The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is the basis for all other law within this country. WE, THE PEOPLE, have empowered the government with this document. We are the master of the government, not the other way around. If the government wants to try to suspend the document that gives it it's power to begin with, then the government just became a tyranical dictatorship, not unlike Stalinist Russia or Kim Jung Il's North Korea. I fear that if the government were to do this on a nation-wide scale, it would be the beginning of the 2nd American Revolution. I truly believe the only reason that New Orleans was not the match that set off the powder keg of the 2nd American Revolution was that the gun confiscation in New Orleans affected such a small area and relatively small group of people.

I can speak for no other, but if the government decides to "suspend" the Constitution or Bill of Rights, it is time to fight, by whatever means necessary. Thomas Jefferson spoke of it as a duty in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

I don't think it would have had any affect on the Katrina gun grab except to speed up the process of removing guns from law abiding citizens. The premise of your hypothesis is that the military (though I thought it mainly the New Orleans PD that was doing the seizures) differentiated friend from foe. The only piece of information that was of importance was that somebody had a firearm, that made them a foe. It was not important whether the person was bad guy or a grandma. The authorities of New Orleans at the end of the day didn't respect their citizens rights or believe in their citizens rights. It would not have mattered to them whether the gun was registered, unregistered, owned by a licensed person or unlicensed person. What made them a bad guy was owning the gun.

On the whole, gun registration may seem appealing at a superficial level. Similar to insurance and drivers license requirements for cars. I would assert that the more dangerous of the two is certainly the car, and heaps of requirements, licensing and regulation do nothing to stop bad people from acquiring and using automobiles in an illegal manner. What instead has happened, is that because the government is allowed to be the only solution, the problem has been forced onto us (responsible people) to bear through increased fees, insurance premiums, and regulation.

 

[Nakatomi]

They were looking to disarm everyone and gun registration would have made it easier. They were beating up old ladies to take their guns. I'm sure they were all gang members. They would know exactly how many and what kinds you had, so you couldn't possibly hide one.
What else would you like us to register? Bows, knives, hammers, axes?

You make a good point. From the documentaries I have seen, the troops simply went to most houses, asked "are there guns here" and if the home owner answered "yes" honestly, they were disarmed. They likely did not have time to actually tear houses apart looking for weapons. But if they saw you in the street carrying, game over.

 

[Nakatomi]

1. One would wonder if their intentions were good. When it comes it government, it is always about control.

2. "In a way one could easily argue violated the Constitution". I don't see any argument. They violated the 2nd amendment, pure and simple.

3. "But under marshal law, do they really have to follow it?" The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is the basis for all other law within this country. WE, THE PEOPLE, have empowered the government with this document. We are the master of the government, not the other way around. If the government wants to try to suspend the document that gives it it's power to begin with, then the government just became a tyranical dictatorship, not unlike Stalinist Russia or Kim Jung Il's North Korea. I fear that if the government were to do this on a nation-wide scale, it would be the beginning of the 2nd American Revolution. I truly believe the only reason that New Orleans was not the match that set off the powder keg of the 2nd American Revolution was that the gun confiscation in New Orleans affected such a small area and relatively small group of people.

I can speak for no other, but if the government decides to "suspend" the Constitution or Bill of Rights, it is time to fight, by whatever means necessary. Thomas Jefferson spoke of it as a duty in the Declaration of Independence.

I saw an NRA documentary on this, one that struck me was two older gentlemen, clean cut and well spoken, were stopped in their boat by a patrol, and had their rifles confiscated. If I recall, they were not even given receipts, even though they asked for them.

Looking at these guys, there is no way you could think they were a danger to anyone, people that any rational LEO would just let go with their guns. But they were treated no differently than any of the others.

 

[jeremy]

The MILITARY was not involved in these actions. These were the actions of the New Orleans Police Department.

 

[dburkhead]

2. "In a way one could easily argue violated the Constitution". I don't see any argument. They violated the 2nd amendment, pure and simple.

The 2nd is a gimme. They also violated the 4th (I didn't see any warrants issued for the search and seizure), the 5th ("nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use*, without just compensation."), and possibly the 3rd (depends on whether a church--which the NG troops took as a headquarters--counts as a "house" for purpose of the amendment).

* if "public use" includes handing it over to a private corporation to develop and thereby generate more tax revenues--and, unfortunately, the courts say it does--then simple confiscation should also be included.

 

[jeremy]

possibly the 3rd (depends on whether a church--which the NG troops took as a headquarters--counts as a "house" for purpose of the amendment).

Uhhh...
The structures and grounds that were utilized by the military had to go though contracting to insure contractual obligations. Even on of the lots that the owners volunteered the grounds and facilities for the use. I a can not speak for non-military groups that were there however.

 

[dburkhead]

Uhhh...
The structures and grounds that were utilized by the military had to go though contracting to insure contractual obligations. Even on of the lots that the owners volunteered the grounds and facilities for the use. I a can not speak for non-military groups that were there however.

The specific case I'm thinking of was on an ABC news report (the video is on Youtube) where they were using a church as a base of operations and had to "leave a note" because the pastor could not be found.

 

[dross]

I don't think that martial law reasonably applied to the Katrina situation. The things that happened there are very scary.

Gun registration would have made things worse, not better. They would still have to go house to house - criminals won't register - but in the law-abiding registered houses who couldn't produce the guns on the list, they would then have reason to tear the house up looking. It would put the onus on the gun owner to account for the gun.

Registration would do very little to stop crime.

Under the OP's logic, why not just have everyone's DNA and fingerprints on file? Just require it. Also, why not allow the government to have surprise house inspections? I mean, as long as they're polite and don't wreck anything, why not allow agents to come to your house and check that you don't have any drugs or illegal weapons, or stolen goods in your house? What do honest citizens have to fear from that?

Only that it means they're not free.