Court rules on illegal firearms seizures

[CARLHAYDEN]

Someone (I believe it was JFern aka Brownie) had a few days ago claiming that Bush had ordered illegal firearms seizures in Louisiana, and alledging further that the NRA, ect. was not concerned as it was being done on Bush's orders.

Well, here's the truth:

The U.S. District Court of the Eastern District in Louisiana yesterday sided with gun rights groups and issued a restraining order to stop authorities from confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
    "This is a significant victory for freedom and for the victims of Hurricane Katrina," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the 3 million-member National Rifle Association.
    "The court's ruling is instant relief for victims who now have an effective means of defending themselves from the robbers and rapists who seek to further exploit the remnants of their shattered lives."
    The federal court's ruling came just one day after the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation jointly filed a motion to halt the seizures of firearms from private citizens who are not breaking the law.
    The groups described the action by the New Orleans Police Department as "arbitrary," "without warrant or probable cause," and thus unconstitutional.
    Mr. LaPierre said the NRA has evidence that as many as 100 guns were seized from New Orleans residents by armed police, who went door-to-door in different neighborhoods. An exact count is not available, he said, as New Orleans typically confiscated the guns without providing any paperwork.
    He said the NRA learned about the policy two weeks ago from statements made by top New Orleans police officials in reports in the New York Times and ABC News.
    Given the lawlessness that pervaded New Orleans after the damage wreaked by Katrina and her floodwaters, Police Superintendent P. Edwin Compass III was quoted as saying only law-enforcement personnel would be allowed to have weapons.
    Mr. LaPierre said this was unfair, given that New Orleans police were unable to control crime in that city after Katrina, and citizens were rendered defenseless without their guns.
    Two plaintiffs in the lawsuit were private citizens whose guns had been seized, Mr. LaPierre said.
    After yesterday's court ruling, the NRA's chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox said: "This is an important victory. But the battle is not over. The NRA will remedy emergency statutes in all 50 states, if needed, to ensure that this injustice does not happen again."

[Emsworth]

The seizure of firearms by New Orleans authorities undoubtedly violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments; I am quite glad that the court agreed. The Bill of Rights is not suspended during emergencies.

[AkSaber]

Finally!! Disgraceful police chief they have. Now if only the cops could give back the guns they stole.

[KillerPollo]

The seizure of firearms by New Orleans authorities undoubtedly violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments; I am quite glad that the court agreed. The Bill of Rights is not suspended during emergencies.

See how much of a nuisance firearms are?

[opebo]

The seizure of firearms by New Orleans authorities undoubtedly violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments; I am quite glad that the court agreed. The Bill of Rights is not suspended during emergencies.

What does the second amendment have to do with individual citizens owning firearms?

[John Dibble]

The seizure of firearms by New Orleans authorities undoubtedly violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments; I am quite glad that the court agreed. The Bill of Rights is not suspended during emergencies.

What does the second amendment have to do with individual citizens owning firearms?

Apparently you read just as badly as you reason.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[Emsworth]

The seizure of firearms by New Orleans authorities undoubtedly violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments; I am quite glad that the court agreed. The Bill of Rights is not suspended during emergencies.

What does the second amendment have to do with individual citizens owning firearms?

Apparently you read just as badly as you reason.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

And besides the Second Amendment, there is also the Fourteenth:

"... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

[© tweed]

And besides the Second Amendment, there is also the Fourteenth:

"... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

So you support civilians being allowed to own atomic bombs and nuclear missiles?

[Emsworth]

And besides the Second Amendment, there is also the Fourteenth:

"... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

So you support civilians being allowed to own atomic bombs and nuclear missiles?

It does not follow from my argument that civilians should be able to own atomic bombs. If the law prohibits civilians from owning atomic bombs, then so be it.

The Fourteenth Amendment only prohibits the executive branch from confiscating private property (whatever it may be) without specific legal authorization.

[Bono]

The Marc Rich Case: A Primer

Wrong thread.

[Bono]

And besides the Second Amendment, there is also the Fourteenth:

"... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

So you support civilians being allowed to own atomic bombs and nuclear missiles?

It does not follow from my argument that civilians should be able to own atomic bombs. If the law prohibits civilians from owning atomic bombs, then so be it.

The Fourteenth Amendment only prohibits the executive branch from confiscating private property (whatever it may be) without specific legal authorization.

Is there actualy any law prohibiting people from owning atomic bombs?

[© tweed]

And besides the Second Amendment, there is also the Fourteenth:

"... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

So you support civilians being allowed to own atomic bombs and nuclear missiles?

It does not follow from my argument that civilians should be able to own atomic bombs. If the law prohibits civilians from owning atomic bombs, then so be it.

The Fourteenth Amendment only prohibits the executive branch from confiscating private property (whatever it may be) without specific legal authorization.

Is there actualy any law prohibiting people from owning atomic bombs?

My question is, would such a law be 'unconstitutional'?  I don't know if any exists, but they're probably impossible to attain.

The point is, when the bill of rights was written, atomic bombs weren't an apple in anyone's eye, and the second amendment doesn't account for the possibility.

[Emsworth]

The point is, when the bill of rights was written, atomic bombs weren't an apple in anyone's eye, and the second amendment doesn't account for the possibility.

I don't think that "arms" includes atomic bombs. I don't think that we can turn to the Supreme Court for answers, as the Supreme Court has only considered two gun rights cases (United States v. Miller and United States v. Cruikshank).

[AkSaber]

The point is, when the bill of rights was written, atomic bombs weren't an apple in anyone's eye, and the second amendment doesn't account for the possibility.

I don't think that "arms" includes atomic bombs. I don't think that we can turn to the Supreme Court for answers, as the Supreme Court has only considered two gun rights cases (United States v. Miller and United States v. Cruikshank).

I don't think atomic weapons are protected under the Second Amendment either. The very definition of "arms" as the Founding Fathers meant it to be was to protect any hand-held weapon. Rifles, pistols, swords, anything that is designed to be hand-held, was meant to be owned my the public.

[King]

What does the second amendment have to do with individual citizens owning firearms?

That one is going in the sig.