Pages: 1 2 3

 

2007-12-28 16:43:53
Graphic-J
The Artist formerly known as GraphicArtist-J
+196|6561|So Cal
https://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d26/Woden_AK49/1775vs2005d400.jpg
....
Article: NEW ORLEANS — The National Rifle Association has hired private investigators to find hundreds of people whose firearms were seized by city police in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, according to court papers filed this week.

The NRA is trying to locate gun owners for a federal lawsuit that the lobbying group filed against Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent Warren Riley over the city's seizure of firearms after the Aug. 29, 2005, hurricane.

In the lawsuit, the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation claim the city violated gun owners' constitutional right to bear arms and left them "at the mercy of roving gangs, home invaders, and other criminals" after Katrina.

The NRA says the city seized more than 1,000 guns that weren't part of any criminal investigation after the hurricane. Police have said they took only guns that had been stolen or found in abandoned homes.

NRA lawyer Daniel Holliday said investigators have identified about 300 of the gun owners and located about 75 of them. Some of them could be called to testify during a trial, he added.

"Finding these folks has been a nightmare," Holliday said. "That is really the guts of our case — to establish that there was indeed a pattern of the police going out and taking people's guns without any legal reason to do so."

In April 2006, police made about 700 firearms available for owners to claim if they could present a bill of sale or an affidavit with the weapon's serial number.

An attorney for the city and a police department spokesman didn't return a reporter's telephone calls Wednesday.

Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Bellevue, Wash.-based Second Amendment Foundation, said the police department has returned only about 100 of the 1,000 seized guns.

"Obviously, we don't expect the city to find everybody. We only wanted to see a good-faith effort, and that's what the city didn't do," Gottlieb added. "It's a bad example to let them get away with it."

In court papers filed Monday, NRA attorneys say finding the gun owners has been difficult because the storm has scattered so many residents.

New Orleans had an estimated 455,000 residents before Katrina, but less than two-thirds of that number live there now.

The NRA is asking for a delay in the trial, set to begin Feb. 19, saying they need more time to find gun owners. U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier had not yet ruled on the request Wednesday.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318478,00.html
....

If the NOPD really did seize 1000 firearms that were no part of any criminal investigation. Then that would be a *CLEAR* violation of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Explain to me, how would confiscating the firearms of innocent law-abiding civilians make them safer during a period of almost total LAWLESSNESS? (A side effect of the poor example that is Louisiana's state and local governments)

Last edited by GraphicArtist J (2007-12-28 16:48:55)

https://i44.tinypic.com/28vg66s.jpg
2007-12-28 16:45:31
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7056|London, England
I dunno. Not trying to defend the PD. But perhaps because during a lawlessness environment, the law-abiding become just the opposite.
2007-12-28 16:48:33
G3|Genius
Pope of BF2s
+355|7061|Sea to globally-cooled sea
it was a political move, and a foolish one.  Mayor Nagin is an ass anyway.
2007-12-28 17:00:25
JG1567JG
Member
+110|7023|United States of America

Mek-Izzle wrote:

I dunno. Not trying to defend the PD. But perhaps because during a lawlessness environment, the law-abiding become just the opposite.
Then, 11 days after Katrina hit, local police began confiscating firearms from civilians in preparation for a forced evacuation of the last holdouts.

"We are going to take all the weapons," Deputy Police Chief Warren Riley told the Associated Press.

But many residents didn't want to leave, for fear of losing their pets, their possessions or their homes.

Fox News cameras caught one violent confiscation on tape. Police entered the residence of an elderly woman, Patricia Konie, demanding evacuation. "I don't want you in here, period," she said, pointing out her street was dry, she had adequate food and water, and if looters came, she had a gun.

When the police asked to see her gun, she showed them a small revolver, which she carefully held safely in her palm--no hand on the grip or finger on the trigger.

Police suddenly body-slammed the elderly woman into her kitchen wall, sending dishes and a trashcan flying.

Then they confiscated the gun and dragged her out of her home, dazed and staggering, for processing.

I doubt very much this lady was going cause too many problems do you?
Source - http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=177

Last edited by JG1567JG (2007-12-28 17:01:29)

2007-12-28 17:02:52
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6926|Northern California
Nagin should be removed of his civil rights and thrown in jail for these counts of civil rights violations.  I wouldn't doubt that the police used gun registrations to locate legally owned firearms and confiscate them.  I cannot fathom "how" these guys could follow through with such a fundamentally wrong order (from their cheif>mayor>governor>DHS maybe) from their superiors.  Clearing homes is meant to secure casualties..that's it.  You don't have ANY right whatsoever to remove firearms from abandoned or momentarily empty homes.  At the least, they could compare firearms they find with their registry and if they find unregistered weapons, THEN they could confiscate them until claimed - making efforts to locate owners independently and in good faith.

I wonder how much looting these unethical LEOs got away with...not gonna even guess how the blackwater guys did.
2007-12-28 17:08:35
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6880|The Land of Scott Walker
Bad citizen, bad!  Do not try to defend yourselves from mass looting!  Especially if you're elderly.  You should trust the New Orleans government who is totally inept to protect you.  Trust them, they know best.  That's it, good citizen.  Give us the evil gunz. 
2007-12-28 17:11:56
SEREMAKER
BABYMAKIN EXPERT √
+2,187|7003|Mountains of NC

Naggin is/was an idiot ----- New Orleans then showed their ass by electing him again

https://www.rai.it/Contents/news/32800/charlton_heston_armi_pezzo_031203.jpg
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg
2007-12-29 02:40:47
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7110|Canberra, AUS
Okay, this is just plain dumb.

There aren't many situations where I support the 2nd amendment, but virtual anarchy is one of them.

Yet another case of people getting their priorities wrong.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2007-12-29 02:54:07
mikkel
Member
+383|7036
Isn't it closer to a fourth amendment issue than a second amendment one?
2007-12-29 09:11:38
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6880|The Land of Scott Walker
Primarily 2nd with a bit of 4th mixed in I'd say.
2007-12-29 09:17:10
Magpie
international welder....Douchebag Dude, <3 ur mom
+257|6961|Milkystania, yurop
Thats they got there guns taken away from them was the most important thing to happen during hurricane katrina, not the loss of human life (hey they where just poor ppl) or that FEMA took ages to respond and help american citizens
2007-12-29 09:52:11
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6880|The Land of Scott Walker
Of course the loss of life is important.  The OP is about rights violated after the disaster. 

If you're willing to point your finger at FEMA you better think about pointing the rest of them at the state and local government that dropped the ball.  There's plenty of ancient threads on who is to blame for the aftermath of Katrina.

Last edited by Stingray24 (2007-12-29 09:52:43)

2007-12-29 10:13:07
mikkel
Member
+383|7036

Stingray24 wrote:

Primarily 2nd with a bit of 4th mixed in I'd say.
They weren't infringing on anyone's right to bear arms any more than they'd be infringing on your right to drive if they impounded your car. The article clearly states that the operation was aimed at getting illegal firearms off the streets of New Orleans. That they apparently did it indiscriminately and with a good number of unlawful seizures sounds like it has a lot to do with the fourth amendment, and absolutely nothing to do with the second.
2007-12-29 10:19:27
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6880|The Land of Scott Walker
Ok, that's your view, thanks for sharing.
2007-12-29 10:36:48
DSRTurtle
Member
+56|7121

mikkel wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Primarily 2nd with a bit of 4th mixed in I'd say.
They weren't infringing on anyone's right to bear arms any more than they'd be infringing on your right to drive if they impounded your car. The article clearly states that the operation was aimed at getting illegal firearms off the streets of New Orleans. That they apparently did it indiscriminately and with a good number of unlawful seizures sounds like it has a lot to do with the fourth amendment, and absolutely nothing to do with the second.
It is clearly a case of infringing upon citizens 2nd and 4th amendment rights.  The police arguement is an excuse to violate the constitutional rights of people.  The forced entry into homes, occupied or not, constitutes illegal search and seizure.  The confisication of firearms directly violates the 2nd amendment.  The failure of the NOPD to refuse an order they know that violates the rights of the citizens they are sworn to uphold shows the regard that some governement agencies have for the rights of people. 

The resultant break down in law and order can be blamed not on FEMA and the Federal government, but on the local and state governments for being more proactive in the days before Katrina.
2007-12-29 10:47:46
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6840|North Carolina
To be honest, I don't think there's anything clear about this.  I'm not going to trust the assessment of a situation by a lobbyist group.  Even if I find myself often agreeing with NRA, I'm not going to just assume that all the facts are here.  This is certainly a case that must be investigated, but I'll reserve my judgment until all the facts are present.
2007-12-29 11:13:42
mikkel
Member
+383|7036

DSRTurtle wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Primarily 2nd with a bit of 4th mixed in I'd say.
They weren't infringing on anyone's right to bear arms any more than they'd be infringing on your right to drive if they impounded your car. The article clearly states that the operation was aimed at getting illegal firearms off the streets of New Orleans. That they apparently did it indiscriminately and with a good number of unlawful seizures sounds like it has a lot to do with the fourth amendment, and absolutely nothing to do with the second.
It is clearly a case of infringing upon citizens 2nd and 4th amendment rights.  The police arguement is an excuse to violate the constitutional rights of people.  The forced entry into homes, occupied or not, constitutes illegal search and seizure.  The confisication of firearms directly violates the 2nd amendment.  The failure of the NOPD to refuse an order they know that violates the rights of the citizens they are sworn to uphold shows the regard that some governement agencies have for the rights of people. 

The resultant break down in law and order can be blamed not on FEMA and the Federal government, but on the local and state governments for being more proactive in the days before Katrina.
Well, again, they were confiscating what they believed to be illegal firearms, and surely that's no more of a violation of the second amendment than wrongfully confiscating a journalist's laptop is a violation of the first amendment.
2007-12-29 11:22:58
Skorpy-chan
Member
+127|6780|Twyford, UK
Well, maybe they wouldn't BE at the mecc of armed gangs whenever anything goes wrong IF:
1. America was civillised.
2. Guns weren't being sold to anyone with a fake ID and some patience.
3. They hadn't built most of the city UNDER SEA LEVEL.
4. Instead of saying 'get in your cars and go' to all the people in the below-sea-level parts without cars and instead laid on buses to get people out.
5. Black people counted to most of America as people instead of as a problem.
2007-12-29 11:40:01
DSRTurtle
Member
+56|7121

mikkel wrote:

Well, again, they were confiscating what they believed to be illegal firearms, and surely that's no more of a violation of the second amendment than wrongfully confiscating a journalist's laptop is a violation of the first amendment.
That's the excuse they are using.  "EXCUSE!"  They failed to properly obtain search warrants.  You can not search a residence occupied or not without one.  That is a violation of the 4th Amendment.  By taking anything in that illegal search they again violated the 4th Amendement.  In the case of a firearm it also becomes a violation of the 2nd Amendment. 

I suspect that there are hundreds of unregistered firearms throughout the country because they were manufactured long before you had to have a permit to carry one and passed from family memeber to family member throughout the history of our country.
2007-12-29 12:26:15
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6840|North Carolina

Skorpy-chan wrote:

4. Instead of saying 'get in your cars and go' to all the people in the below-sea-level parts without cars and instead laid on buses to get people out.
We did.  Nagin even did that much.  Some people were stupid enough to stick around though.
2007-12-29 12:29:55
stryyker
bad touch
+1,682|7155|California

I would assume that Katrina zone post Katrina was in a state of semi martial law, due to all of the looting and general upheaval. So what if the government took guns? New Orleans is still the armpit of America.
2007-12-29 13:15:31
mikkel
Member
+383|7036

DSRTurtle wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Well, again, they were confiscating what they believed to be illegal firearms, and surely that's no more of a violation of the second amendment than wrongfully confiscating a journalist's laptop is a violation of the first amendment.
That's the excuse they are using.  "EXCUSE!"  They failed to properly obtain search warrants.  You can not search a residence occupied or not without one.  That is a violation of the 4th Amendment.  By taking anything in that illegal search they again violated the 4th Amendement.  In the case of a firearm it also becomes a violation of the 2nd Amendment. 

I suspect that there are hundreds of unregistered firearms throughout the country because they were manufactured long before you had to have a permit to carry one and passed from family memeber to family member throughout the history of our country.
So, the government is conspiring to violate your second amendment rights?

Assuming a violation of the fourth amendment occurs, your possessions are seized, and you are held in custody. If you're a gun owner, would that would be a second amendment violation? If you're a journalist, would that would also be a first amendment violation? Hell, if you're a woman and it happens during an election, would that be a violation of the nineteenth amendment as well?

It just doesn't work like that. No one is infringing on anyone's right to bear arms by taking away illegal arms. If a legal weapon is unconstitutionally seized, it's a fourth amendment issue, not a second amendment, as no one has taken away the right to bear arms in the first place. You could go get a new gun and keep it if you wanted to. Conspiracy theories notwithstanding, naturally.
2007-12-29 13:20:49
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6880|The Land of Scott Walker
These were legal weapons ... their removal left people defenseless ... hence, their right to bear arms infringed.

Last edited by Stingray24 (2007-12-29 13:28:08)

2007-12-29 13:36:08
mikkel
Member
+383|7036

Stingray24 wrote:

These were legal weapons ... their removal left people defenseless ... hence, their right to bear arms infringed.
Do you just highlight on certain words and ignore what posts actually say? Legal weapons were unlawfully seized, that's a fourth amendment violation. The right to own a firearm in New Orleans was not revoked, so there was no second amendment violation. Not even a de facto violation, unless you're proposing that there were only around a thousand firearms in New Orleans by the time Katrina hit.
2007-12-29 14:13:12
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6880|The Land of Scott Walker

mikkel wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

These were legal weapons ... their removal left people defenseless ... hence, their right to bear arms infringed.
Do you just highlight on certain words and ignore what posts actually say? Legal weapons were unlawfully seized, that's a fourth amendment violation. The right to own a firearm in New Orleans was not revoked, so there was no second amendment violation. Not even a de facto violation, unless you're proposing that there were only around a thousand firearms in New Orleans by the time Katrina hit.
I simply pointed out that by seizing legal weapons and leaving citizens defenseless, the right be bear arms has been infringed.  In effect the right to own a firearm in New Orleans was revoked, otherwise legal weapons would not have been seized.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard