The NRA versus New Orleans

[JohnRich 4]

News:

'Landmark' Victory for New Orleans Gun Owners

A federal judge on Wednesday rejected an attempt to dismiss a Second Amendment lawsuit against the City of New Orleans.

The National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation sued New Orleans, Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent Warren Riley last year to stop the confiscation of firearms from private citizens in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Judge Carl Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on Wednesday denied the city's motion to dismiss the lawsuit -- and ordered the city to submit a response.

"We're encouraged by this latest ruling," said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. "For almost a year, we've been fighting the city's delay tactics, which included outright lying by city officials that any firearms had been seized.

"Only when we threatened Mayor Nagin and Superintendent Riley with a motion for contempt did the city miraculously discover that they actually did have more than 1,000 firearms that had been taken from their owners."

The Second Amendment Foundation said the lawsuit is intended to protect the rights of New Orleans gun owners - and also to "make sure that this serves as a warning to public officials across the country to forget about seizing firearms from their law-abiding owners in the event of a natural or man-made disaster."

Source: Full story: CNS News

[quade 4]

Interesting wording on your poll.

What about un-natural disasters?

Civil unrest?

Super-natural disasters?

Further, the article doesn't go into any detail about why the arms were confiscated or where?

Let's say that in the wake of Katrina people evacuated to the Dome. Does it make sense to allow people to carry their weapons in that situation? Would they normally be allowed to carry a concealed weapon into that facility?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Rookie120 0]

For the people who voted yes I would like to hear the reason why?

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[Zing 2]

The thing that amazed me was that there weren't multiple shootings of the police officers who were doing the confiscating. Just try and take my guns away ... there's going to be a battle!

Zing Lurks

[slug 1]

Quote

The thing that amazed me was that there weren't multiple shootings of the police officers who were doing the confiscating. Just try and take my guns away ... there's going to be a battle!

I think most law abiding people respect cops and fear jail. After the dust settles in most situations shooting a cop would be hard to justify.

Might be smarter just to have a couple of unregistered guns that the police don't know about.

[kallend 2,182]

I'm pleased to see that judges are becoming inclined once again to protect the people from governmental power-grabbing. Administrations at all levels constantly use disasters to encroach on civil rights - 9/11 is perhaps the best recent example. Let's hope there are more and more decisions upholding the 1st, 4th, 5th etc. amendments too.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[craddock 0]

Quote

Might be smarter just to have a couple of unregistered guns that the police don't know about.

Louisiana does not require the registration of firearms.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Might be smarter just to have a couple of unregistered guns that the police don't know about.

Louisiana does not require the registration of firearms.

No, it doesn't...however, ATF requires regiestration of any weapon bought through a gun store... and does not destroy the paperwork afterward, as they are supposed to do by law...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Interesting wording on your poll.

How did you vote?

Quote

What about un-natural disasters? Civil unrest?

So every time a group riots in the street, you want the cops to go around to neighborhoods and confiscate guns from people that aren't rioting? Wouldn't their time be better spent dealing with the rioters directly?

Quote

Super-natural disasters?

I don't know what that is, but my response is the same: If someone isn't part of the criminal problem and is not breaking the law, their guns should not be taken from them. I don't care what the circumstances.

It is during times of lawless chaos that citizens need their guns the most, and when they can count on the government the least to provide protection for them.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

For the people who voted yes I would like to hear the reason why?

I've issued such challenges on polls like this before. They're usually unwilling to explain themselves, preferring to hide in the shadows with their gun confiscation dreams. And for the few that do speak out, they turn out to be whacko anti-gun nuts.

And some of those votes may just be simple "anti JohnRich" votes, for no other reason than to try and annoy me.

[StreetScooby 5]

We are all engines of karma

[Channman 2]

> For the people who voted yes I would like to hear the reason why?

My guns are safer in my own little hands.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Just so you all don't get too worked up over what is essentially non-news... the story details a tiny little legal wrangle at the begining of the main case. The NRA hasn't won yet, (though I don't doubt they have a good case), the report simply indicates that they have simply managed to not loose at the first hurdle.

Don't confuse this with a comment on the actual substance of the case however - I'm simply pointing out what an early stage the case is at.

[Stumpy 284]

I agree with kallend.

Regardless of whether i believe people need to own guns, I think governments should butt out a lot of the time and stop using natural disasters/ terrorism/ (insert event here) to gain more control.

Unfortunately, it does raise another point. Define law abiding. I'm sure a lot of the looters were law abiding before they went off looking for some bargains....

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[miked10270 0]

Personally, I fail to see how a natural disaster should suddenly be the cause for any rule change on gun ownership & possession.

Firstly: IF someone is allowed to have guns, then how does the destruction of the infrastructure of their abode change whether they should have guns. I fail to see the connection between one & the other. Any such (convoluted) reasoning to connect the two MUST surely come out with no change on balance.

Secondly: Don't the civil & military authorities have a lot of more IMMEDIATE things to do than drive around gun owners homes to confiscate hithertofore lawfully held weapons!

In such situations, whether someone is law-abiding has little to do with whether they own guns, and it is the unlawful which must be the priority target.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Personally, I fail to see how a natural disaster should suddenly be the cause for any rule change on gun ownership & possession.

Firstly: IF someone is allowed to have guns, then how does the destruction of the infrastructure of their abode change whether they should have guns. I fail to see the connection between one & the other. Any such (convoluted) reasoning to connect the two MUST surely come out with no change on balance.

Secondly: Don't the civil & military authorities have a lot of more IMMEDIATE things to do than drive around gun owners homes to confiscate hithertofore lawfully held weapons!

In such situations, whether someone is law-abiding has little to do with whether they own guns, and it is the unlawful which must be the priority target.

Mike.

You see Mike the problem is they were not out there PROTECTING or SAVING the CITIZENS, they were CONFISCATING WITHOUT due AUTHORITY.

Need food or water? go fuck off!

GIVE US YOUR GUNS OR WE WILL OPEN FIRE ON YOU you worthless old lady

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Define law abiding. I'm sure a lot of the looters were law abiding before they went off looking for some bargains....

As soon as the enter a closed store to steal something, then they become a criminal. And if they're carrying a gun when they do that, I have no problem with the police confiscating that gun.

However, someone just walking down the street to escape the flooding, not breaking any laws, should not be presumed to be a criminal, and have his gun taken from him.

And especially, the police should not be going door-to-door confiscating guns from people's houses.