More Katrina Gun Grabs

F is for FemaAccording to 2theadvocate.com, the East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office has asked FEMA to ban guns in an evacuee travel trailer park (via No Quarters).

But a top sheriff’s official said that while it was a “close decision,” public safety became the most-important concern rather than constitutional rights.

“I’m a member of the NRA and a firm supporter of the NRA in most instances,” said Col. Greg Phares, chief criminal deputy for the Sheriff’s Office.

“But in this instance, I had to balance the responsibility of the Sheriff’s Office with constitutional rights,” Phares added. “I think it’s the right decision. It wasn’t a comfortable decision, but it is right.”

That NRA members selectively forgot that little line ending with “shall not be infringed” once again reinforces my unwillingness to be a member of that organization.

I am a bit confused about the following segment from the article:

Phares said he doesn’t consider the ban on a guns a constitutional violation because tenants can decide whether to sign the lease or not.

“It’s a voluntary choice,” he said.

However, he did admit the evacuees who signed up for the trailers had limited choices on where to live.

“The only problem is a lot of these people don’t have any other options at this point,” Phares said.

If a lot of these people “don’t have any other options”, how can it be “a voluntary choice”?

Your displeasure may be voiced by calling Sheriff Elmer B. Litchfield at
(225) 389-5055.

posted Oct 17th, 2005 by Stephen Gordon
  • http://www.ioerror.us/ IO ERROR

    As I wrote last week, the NRA is most definitely against this and has threatened to file suit and take it “all the way to Congress and the President.” Whatever that means.

  • vforvandyke

    Sheriff banning firearms at FEMA campDamn, you beat me to this story by mere minutes! ;-P Anyways… my too-late commentary, now as a comment:

    By this logic, why not ban vehicles as well? Someone could much more easily drive their pickup truck through a bunch of trailers and cause far more destruction and mayhem than some stray bullet being fired in self-defense. The sad thing is that most people who are advocates of banning firearms don’t take into consideration that like many other tools of society, guns do not pose a danger unless they are intentionally misused.

    Hell, if his motive was to ensure that the residents don’t miss their target and shoot through the walls, he’d offer marksman classes to everyone signing a lease who owned a gun.

  • http://www.sarwark.org/writings/blog.html Mr. X

    This particular NRA member is pretty hardcore, but not all of us are. That’s the cost of a big tent.

    Yours truly,
    Mr. X

    …from my cold, dead hands…

  • Stephen Gordon

    I dropped the NRA years ago because they became apologists for the GOP. It is nice to see some resistance from them targeting Bush’s FEMA. However, I’ll not take them seriously until they quit supporting gun-grabbing Republicans.

    With respect to banning vehicles, I seem to recall a recent CSI (or some similar program) where a vehicle did drive straight through a trailer and killed someone. Perhaps Ralph Nader and Sarah Brady could work some partnership to outlaw all motorized vehicles (or at least impose a waiting period on them).

    Nick (Mr.X) gets the kudos for the blog entry of the day for Pussy Beer.

  • Julian

    I am a firm believer and practicioner of the Second Amendment. As far as I am concerned, the one exception to the rule is a convicted violent felon and even then, if it is determined he is rehabilitated, give him a firearm too.

    The more people arm themselves, the lower the crime rate. It does not work the other way. The opposite is true. When you disarm the citizens, crime increases.

    We cannot expect the police to protect us. It is our responsibility to take care of ourselves and our problems.