Andy9o8 3 #1 July 4, 2009 http://www.wdsu.com/news/19930035/detail.html Quote ACLU Sues Cannizzaro, Riley Over Gun Confiscation Plaintiff Challenges District Attorney's Policy POSTED: 2:39 pm CDT July 2, 2009 NEW ORLEANS -- A branch of the American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit against New Orleans' top law enforcement officials for refusing to return a handgun to its owner. Erroll Houston, Jr. is a painting contractor who says he carries a weapon for personal protection. He is licensed to do so, according to the suit. Police confiscated the gun when they arrested Houston last July. But the District Attorney's office never pursued charges and Houston never went to trial. He also never got the gun back. "For the government to keep property that someone is legally entitled to own, there must be good cause, and the owner is entitled to due process," ACLU Executive Director Marjorie Esman said. "Mr. Houston has done nothing wrong. There are no criminal charges against him. "His firearm, which he is and was entitled to carry, has been confiscated for no reason. It is past time for NOPD and the District Attorney to return it." Esman said Houston made repeated requests for the return of his property, but was told policy prohibits the return of weapons confiscated during an arrest. The City of New Orleans, Police Superintendent Warren Riley and District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro are named in the lawsuit, which was filed Thursday in federal court. WDSU has requested a response from both Cannizzaro and Riley but has not yet heard back from their offices. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #2 July 4, 2009 Sorry, that contradicts right wing dogma, so it must be false.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #3 July 4, 2009 Well that is refreshing. All this time I've been a member of NRA because they defend the 2nd amendment, and the ACLU because the defend the rest. A co-worker once had his house burglarized, (in IN), then a few months later he was contacted by the authorities in AZ when they arrested a perp on other charges and found his gun. It took nearly a year, and the assistance of his lawyer, just to get his gun back. Until the lawyer got involved, the authorities showed no interest at all in returning the property to it's rightful owner."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #4 July 4, 2009 QuoteWell that is refreshing. All this time I've been a member of NRA because they defend the 2nd amendment, and the ACLU because the defend the rest. ACLU defends the entire US Constitution. Naturally this means a smaller percentage of their cases are going to involve the Second Amendment, but they absolutely 100% defend Second Amendment cases. They also do something that's a bit confusing to people in that they'll frequently take cases that the majority of people might have an issue with like defending the free speech rights of the KKK. They understand that unless we're ALL free to speak, then none of us are, but that point gets lost on some folks and so the ACLU gets demonized. I think they've got their act together pretty damn well and have gotten a bad rap over the years from "conservatives" that don't really understand what the word means.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #5 July 4, 2009 Quotebut they absolutely 100% defend Second Amendment cases. If by 'defend', you mean "defend those who propose MORE gun control", you would be correct.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #6 July 4, 2009 QuoteQuotebut they absolutely 100% defend Second Amendment cases. If by 'defend', you mean "defend those who propose MORE gun control", you would be correct. Uh . . . see article in the original post of this thread?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #7 July 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuotebut they absolutely 100% defend Second Amendment cases. If by 'defend', you mean "defend those who propose MORE gun control", you would be correct. Uh . . . see article in the original post of this thread? Yes, I saw it. Did you read the ACLU position on Heller? Isn't it amazing how "the people" in all the REST of the BOR means individuals, but ONLY in the 2nd amendment, it means the state? Regardless - in this case, the Louisiana ACLU appears to have argued more over property rights than the 2nd Amendment. Quote"For the government to keep property that someone is legally entitled to own, there must be good cause, and the owner is entitled to due process," said ACLU Executive Director Marjorie R. Esman. "Mr. Houston has done nothing wrong. There are no criminal charges against him. His firearm, which he is and was entitled to carry, has been confiscated for no reason. It is past time for NOPD and the District Attorney to return it." While I hope this is a sign of the ACLU turning over a new leaf, there is plenty of information out there showing ACLU supporting the 'collective right' interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, which favors gun banners like the Brady folks and DC. I hope that the ACLU continues this new trend of fighting for gun OWNERS and not the people who confiscate guns from them.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #8 July 4, 2009 Quote ACLU defends the entire US Constitution. Naturally this means a smaller percentage of their cases are going to involve the Second Amendment, but they absolutely 100% defend Second Amendment cases. They make it very clear here, that they do not defend the Second Amendment: http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res20020304.html"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #9 July 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteWell that is refreshing. All this time I've been a member of NRA because they defend the 2nd amendment, and the ACLU because the defend the rest. ACLU defends the entire US Constitution. In much the same way that censorship protects the First Amendment? Here is the ACLU's official position on the 2nd Amendment: QuoteThe ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized. The ACLU filed an amicus brief in favor of the DC gun ban in Heller. Calling that a pro-2nd position is either a huge stretch or a blatant attempt at misinformation.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #10 July 4, 2009 QuoteThey make it very clear here, that they do not defend the Second Amendment: http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res20020304.html You're misinterpreting what they've written. You assume that because they don't agree with ALL of what you believe with that they don't support the 2nd. That's not the case at all.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #11 July 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteThey make it very clear here, that they do not defend the Second Amendment: http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res20020304.html You're misinterpreting what they've written. You assume that because they don't agree with ALL of what you believe with that they don't support the 2nd. That's not the case at all. So unlike all the other rights, this one is a collective right and not an individual right? So the "people" have a right to bear arms as long as they are members of the military or the police? I don't call that defending the 2nd Amendment at all. Even people living in a police state have that "right". Lot's of other unhappy people here: http://blog.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment/ Great line from the link: Q: How does an ACLU lawyer count to 10? A: 1, 3, 4, 5 . . ."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #12 July 4, 2009 Quotehttp://www.wdsu.com/news/19930035/detail.html *** ACLU Sues Cannizzaro, Riley Over Gun Confiscation Plaintiff Challenges District Attorney's Policy POSTED: 2:39 pm CDT July 2, 2009 NEW ORLEANS -- A branch of the American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit against New Orleans' top law enforcement officials for refusing to return a handgun to its owner. I hate it when I have to agree with the ACLU. But, I've always been mixed up about the judicial process. It took years for me to come to the understanding that defense attorneys had any honor. My opinion changed in 2006 when a lady, former defense attorney, came to work in my substance abuse treatment program and became my trainee. She was very bright and very friendly. We had a good working relationship. During her training John Couey was arrested and charged with the brutal rape / murder of Jessica Langsford. I asked her if she could defend him, expecting to put her on the spot. "Absolutely," she replied. Then she went on to explain. "If the defense attorney presents the best possible defense and the client is found guilty, there is little chance for successful appeal. That is what makes the system work." My eyes were opened.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #13 July 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteThey make it very clear here, that they do not defend the Second Amendment: http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res20020304.html You're misinterpreting what they've written. You assume that because they don't agree with ALL of what you believe with that they don't support the 2nd. That's not the case at all. Come on Quade, that's pure double speak. It's a bit like the government of Iran saying that they support free elections and respect the will of the people. It's true, so long as you agree with their interpretation of "free" and "will of the people." Even the KKK clothes their bile in lofty rhetoric about how it would be "better" for ethnic minorities.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #14 July 5, 2009 QuoteCome on Quade, that's pure double speak. So what you're saying is the ONLY way the Second Amendment can be interpreted is the one you have decided is the correct one? That there is no ambiguity in the wording? I think that's a pretty narrow minded way of looking at it because the collective/individual issue has been debated for a number of years. If it was so cut and dried, it would have been a settled issue long ago. That said, it doesn't mean they don't defend it even with the ambiguity in place. It's a little like the difference between what you consider to be a "safe" pull altitude and what I might. That's not to say we wouldn't both defend the ability of all people to skydive if they choose, but we certainly can have a difference of opinion about certain aspects. That's one of the things I will probably never understand about the NRA et al.; unless you agree with them 100% and even if you do support them in a number of ways, then you're still seen as "the enemy."quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #15 July 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteCome on Quade, that's pure double speak. So what you're saying is the ONLY way the Second Amendment can be interpreted is the one you have decided is the correct one? An interpretation that supports eviscerating private rights to the point that would find outright confiscation legal? Yeah, I'm going to go with "that's a smokescreen for opposing that right." There's certainly room for various views (both in support and opposition) but calling your opposition "suport" is dishonest at best. For example, there are several 2nd Amendment organizations that disagree with the NRA on specifics (machine gun ownership, for example). That doesn't make the NRA anti-2nd Amendment. It just means they have a more restrictive view than some others (like me)-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #16 July 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteCome on Quade, that's pure double speak. So what you're saying is the ONLY way the Second Amendment can be interpreted is the one you have decided is the correct one? That there is no ambiguity in the wording? That is correct. Linguistic analysis, as well as supplementary writings of the Founders themselves support it. QuoteI think that's a pretty narrow minded way of looking at it because the collective/individual issue has been debated for a number of years. If it was so cut and dried, it would have been a settled issue long ago. Then perhaps you can explain how all the REST of the BOR concern individuals, but NOT the 2nd? QuoteThat's one of the things I will probably never understand about the NRA et al.; unless you agree with them 100% and even if you do support them in a number of ways, then you're still seen as "the enemy." Maybe because the only time you ever hear about 'compromise' is when it's the NRA and gun owners giving something up. They feel like their back is against the wall, and rightly so - that's why Heller was such a huge decision.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #17 July 5, 2009 I am on my iPhone with out 3 update so I can't cut and paste... But the National ACLU has posted on it's website that they do not support the right of an indvidual to have a gun. They claim it is a State right. Some of the local ACLU chapters do support the right of an individual, but not the National org. This came to light right after Heller. Quade, you are a smart guy... Please find one quote from a founding father saying the individual should not be allowed arms... Then explain what Jefferson really meant in my sig line."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #18 July 5, 2009 QuoteAll this time I've been a member of NRA because they defend the 2nd amendment, and the ACLU because the defend the rest. Several years ago I stopped carrying my ACLU card and started donating to the Institute for Justice instead, because I think they do a much better job than the ACLU (or the NRA, for that matter--they were supporters of Heller from the beginning) at supporting the Bill of Rights. You should check them out. Quote"The Institute for Justice has become a major pillar of our free society. In area after area — economic liberty, school choice, private property rights — it has provided legal defense against assaults on human freedom. In the process, it has strengthened and deepened liberty." -Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #19 July 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteCome on Quade, that's pure double speak. So what you're saying is the ONLY way the Second Amendment can be interpreted is the one you have decided is the correct one? That there is no ambiguity in the wording? I think that's a pretty narrow minded way of looking at it because the collective/individual issue has been debated for a number of years. If it was so cut and dried, it would have been a settled issue long ago. Nah, the collectivist crap was invented out of thin air. If you claim it's debatable long enough, people might think it's true. But I'm interested in hearing other cases where the ACLU believes the people had more limited rights than the SC said. Their mission has always been to protect the individual's rights against attempted incursions by the state or the majority. No one is buying your spin. This case is not about gun rights, it's about improper seizure of property. This is a matter the ACLU is interested in - most noted in lack of due process is seizing property in drug charges or soliciting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #20 July 6, 2009 QuoteNah, the collectivist crap was invented out of thin air. No, it wasn't. It's a direct product of the Framers' drafting style when they decided they just had to add a "legislative intent-style" preamble ("A well regulated militia...etc...") to the 2nd Amendment. Virtually no other Article or Amendment to the Constitution has that, but the 2nd Amendment does. And that opened up a real kettle of fish. For the record, my legal analysis is that it's an individual right; and I've explained it in detail in prior threads. But if I could, I'd love to kick the authors of that preamble in the ass for making it as clear as mud for all the future generations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #21 July 6, 2009 QuoteNah, the collectivist crap was invented out of thin air. If you claim it's debatable long enough, people might think it's true. Bullshit. It was being debated at the time the Constitution itself was being drafted. In fact, the reason it got bumped to the Bill of Rights rather than being included in the Constitution is because they couldn't agree if it was an individual right or a collective one. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=227 So, as to YOUR claim that I'm only repeating it enough so that people might think it's true . . . I think you might want to reconsider the propaganda you've apparently been brainwashed with.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #22 July 6, 2009 Quote So, as to YOUR claim that I'm only repeating it enough so that people might think it's true . . . I think you might want to reconsider the propaganda you've apparently been brainwashed with. yawn...when you can figure out how to equate "the people" with states, get back to us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,162 #23 July 6, 2009 >Nah, the collectivist crap was invented out of thin air. The collectivist interpretation was emphasized in the first draft: ======== A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. ======== It's pretty clear that the "right to bear arms" was VERY closely associated with the desire to maintain militias. (I think it's an individual right as well, but I can see how it can be interpreted both ways.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #24 July 6, 2009 Quote It's pretty clear that the "right to bear arms" was VERY closely associated with the desire to maintain militias. (I think it's an individual right as well, but I can see how it can be interpreted both ways.) Stop trying to use today's definition of a militia. I know it's more convenient, but quite dishonest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #25 July 6, 2009 Quote>Nah, the collectivist crap was invented out of thin air. The collectivist interpretation was emphasized in the first draft: The first draft built on the English Bill of Rights circa 1689 which only allowed Protestants arms appropriate to their station in life. While defending themselves against highway men was OK, poaching the King's deer wasn't, and regicide was right out regardless how the king was behaving. Defense against a government as part of a militia wasn't part of it, especially when the tree of liberty needed to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Putting the important background into the bill of rights was a good contrast against the English traditions with peasants and kings but made it too easy for people wanting to pervert the second amendment's words. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
