BF2S Forums NRA Lawsuit: New Orleans Gun Owners' Rights Violated During Katrina

Can you explain the picture to me, I don't get it.

I'm sure all those guns were legal...lol
and as i remember.... people were shooting at rescue helicopters and police and each other... 
and Nagan is a stain... an embarassment

mikkel,  you do not understand that even if only 1 person's rights were infringed upon by the police, then all of society's rights were infringed upon.  It doesn't matter if they found 1 illegal weapon or 1 million illegal weapons.  What matters is they took weapons illegally from those who have the right to bear arms and had followed the law with regards to registration.  That is what is at stake here.  I would certainly be outraged to find out the police had searched my home without a search warrant, without informing me of the search, and then seizing my property including any weapons i might own.

DSRTurtle wrote:

mikkel,  you do not understand that even if only 1 person's rights were infringed upon by the police, then all of society's rights were infringed upon.  It doesn't matter if they found 1 illegal weapon or 1 million illegal weapons.  What matters is they took weapons illegally from those who have the right to bear arms and had followed the law with regards to registration.

DSRTurtle, we're discussing whether this is a fourth or a second amendment issue. Before suggesting what I do and don't understand, I suggest that you take your time to understand what the discussion you're commenting on is about.

DSRTurtle wrote:

That is what is at stake here.  I would certainly be outraged to find out the police had searched my home without a search warrant, without informing me of the search, and then seizing my property including any weapons i might own.

Just to make it completely humourous, you even seem to agree with me in that it's a fourth amendment issue. I don't get what you're trying to get at here.

Last edited by mikkel (2007-12-29 16:04:09)

mikkel wrote:

DSRTurtle wrote:

mikkel,  you do not understand that even if only 1 person's rights were infringed upon by the police, then all of society's rights were infringed upon.  It doesn't matter if they found 1 illegal weapon or 1 million illegal weapons.  What matters is they took weapons illegally from those who have the right to bear arms and had followed the law with regards to registration.

DSRTurtle, we're discussing whether this is a fourth or a second amendment issue. Before suggesting what I do and don't understand, I suggest that you take your time to understand what the discussion you're commenting on is about.

DSRTurtle wrote:

That is what is at stake here.  I would certainly be outraged to find out the police had searched my home without a search warrant, without informing me of the search, and then seizing my property including any weapons i might own.

Just to make it completely humourous, you even seem to agree with me in that it's a fourth amendment issue. I don't get what you're trying to get at here.

I'm saying it's both a 2nd and 4th amendment violation.  It's 4th because it's illegal search and seizure.  2nd amendment violation because it involves firearms legally owned by US Citizens.

DSRTurtle wrote:

mikkel wrote:

DSRTurtle wrote:

mikkel,  you do not understand that even if only 1 person's rights were infringed upon by the police, then all of society's rights were infringed upon.  It doesn't matter if they found 1 illegal weapon or 1 million illegal weapons.  What matters is they took weapons illegally from those who have the right to bear arms and had followed the law with regards to registration.

DSRTurtle, we're discussing whether this is a fourth or a second amendment issue. Before suggesting what I do and don't understand, I suggest that you take your time to understand what the discussion you're commenting on is about.

DSRTurtle wrote:

That is what is at stake here.  I would certainly be outraged to find out the police had searched my home without a search warrant, without informing me of the search, and then seizing my property including any weapons i might own.

Just to make it completely humourous, you even seem to agree with me in that it's a fourth amendment issue. I don't get what you're trying to get at here.

I'm saying it's both a 2nd and 4th amendment violation.  It's 4th because it's illegal search and seizure.  2nd amendment violation because it involves firearms legally owned by US Citizens.

IRONCHEF wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Your right to drive a car isn't revoked when your car is towed, rightfully or not. Your right to have children isn't revoked when social services takes your kids away rightfully or not. Your right to own a home isn't revoked if the government condemns your building, rightfully or not. Your right to bear arms is not revoked if the authorities seize your firearms, rightfully or not.

Your right to do anything is only revoked when this is explicitly stated and enforced, or de facto policy.

I'm going to assume that you read what I said about the conditions of de facto revocation, and actually believe that there were only around a thousand firearms present in New Orleans in the wake of Katrina, or that you're putting on a classic display of intellectual dishonesty and simply ignoring what you don't want to hear. In either case, I really expected better.

Dude, you're annoyingly wrong in your argument.

You do not have rights to drive, make kids, or own a home.  Driving is a privilege, having children is not specified but implied, and owning a home is also a privilege. 

Owning firearms, protesting, worshipping, being free from unlawful search and seizure, not incriminating yourself....ALL documented, agreed upon, protected RIGHTs.

If the police used firearms registrations to confiscate weapons, they are equally violating 2nd and 4th amendment rights.  If police simply dissarmed citizens through coersion or with made up authority (likely too), they violated their 2nd amendment rights.

Martial law, FEMA controlled areas, disaster areas, and pretty much any other circumstance is NOT reason, ever, for a lawful citizen to have to yield their firearms.  Every lawful citizen who had their firearms taken from them (or had their home illegally accessed) by someone has fully protected recourse in reclaiming their weapons plus steep punitive damages against said violating group (police/city/government).  I'm putting together a California legal AR15 and I keep a copy of CA DOJ legal specifics justifying the rifle I'll soon own in case it gets seen by the wrong police (who almost always don't know jack about AW legal specifics in CA).  If someone reported me shooting it (legally at a range, of course), and then I was later pulled over by police after leaving the range and they forced a search of my trunk and tried confiscating it, and continued after showing them their error, I will be a very rich man..and I'll have my rifle back..some day.  If my car is wrongfully towed, i can sue for damages..not civil rights violations.

Let's say this together now, because if anyone is annoyingly wrong, it is most definitely you. I won't even begin to address your "right or privilege" pedantry, as your predictably thoughtless interpretation is wrong, and you fail to understand what I'm saying. I just don't have the patience to deal with explaining simple concepts any more than I have to in this post.

If you can legally obtain a firearm, your second amendment rights are secure.

Simple, right?

Were an insignificant fraction of the firearms in the City of New Orleans confiscated, and were a number of these confiscations the result of an unlawful seizure? Yes, they were.

Could the insignificant fraction of New Orleans citizens who were wrongfully included in these unlawful seizures go get new guns and keep them? Yes, they could.

So, what we have here is a situation where a mistake was made, and the fourth amendment was violated by carrying out unwarranted searches and seizures. What we do not have here, is a situation where anyone was prohibited from owning firearms. The only way this could ever possibly be a second violation issue is if it was expressedly stated that the right to own a firearm in New Orleans was revoked, or if all weapons in New Orleans had been confiscated on sight, neither of which are true in any way, shape or form.

Just to make sure it sticks, if you can legally obtain a firearm, your second amendment rights are secure.

Last edited by mikkel (2007-12-30 04:13:25)

DSRTurtle wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Let's say this together now, because if anyone is annoyingly wrong, it is most definitely you. I won't even begin to address your "right or privilege" pedantry, as your predictably thoughtless interpretation is wrong, and you fail to understand what I'm saying. I just don't have the patience to deal with explaining simple concepts any more than I have to in this post.

If you can legally obtain a firearm, your second amendment rights are secure.

Simple, right?

Were an insignificant fraction of the firearms in the City of New Orleans confiscated, and were a number of these confiscations the result of an unlawful seizure? Yes, they were.

Could the insignificant fraction of New Orleans citizens who were wrongfully included in these unlawful seizures go get new guns and keep them? Yes, they could.

So, what we have here is a situation where a mistake was made, and the fourth amendment was violated by carrying out unwarranted searches and seizures. What we do not have here, is a situation where anyone was prohibited from owning firearms. The only way this could ever possibly be a second violation issue is if it was expressedly stated that the right to own a firearm in New Orleans was revoked, or if all weapons in New Orleans had been confiscated on sight, neither of which are true in any way, shape or form.

Just to make sure it sticks, if you can legally obtain a firearm, your second amendment rights are secure.

It is not that simple. Your 2nd Amendment Right(s) have been violated.  By confisicating firearms legally owned from private citizens regardless of the reasoning of elected or appointed officials, those officials have ignored the rights citizens and failed in their duties to which they have been elected or appointed to uphold.  If any governement agency can go into your house and take your firearms with or without a search warrant for any reason it is a violation of the 2nd Amendent.  The fact that a number of legally owned firearms were confiscated makes the whole effort by Nagan and the NOPD and any other government agency involved makes it a consitutional issue.  It doesn't matter if the number of legal firearms is 1 or 1 billion.

Yes, it is that simple, and no one had their second amendment rights violated. Not only does it matter if the number of legal firearms unlawfully confiscated was one or all of them, it's what makes the critical difference in this discussion. Unlawfully seizing a very small number of firearms without warrant is a breach of the fourth amendment. Taking away a firearm does not preclude the possibility of the owner using any of his other firearms, or obtaining new firearms, rendering his second amendment rights intact. Taking away all firearms, however, is a de facto breach of the second amendment. This has not happened, so we remain firmly within the realm of the fourth amendment.

DSRTurtle wrote:

Failure of us as citizens to not say anything and/or do anything about the consitution being violated is even more of a failure as we are the first gaurdians of the constitution.  Who's to say the same thing won't happen somewhere else the next time a natural disaster strikes in California or Florida or Texas.  Once any government agency can violate one constitutionally protected right, then they can violate any number of them.  That makes us no better than Fidel Castro or any other dictator you want to name.

We're not discussing whether or not people should stand up to violations of their constitutional rights. We're discussing which constitutional right is being violated. It's tremendously intellectually dishonest to ignore this fact and portray my deliberately misconstrued argument as similar in nature to supporting dictatorship, so please, cut it out.

JG1567JG wrote:

Mikkel you are still wrong. 

On Friday, September 23, 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Jay Zainey for the Eastern District in Louisiana granted NRA's request to bar further gun confiscations from law-abiding victims of Hurricane Katrina. Judge Zainey further ordered ther return of previously confiscated firearms to their lawful owners.

If this judge didn't issue this order many more guns would have been confiscated.


"We are going to take all the weapons," Deputy Police Chief Warren Riley told the Associated Press.
"No one will be able to be armed," said New Orleans Superintendent of Police P. Edwin Compass. "Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns." All firearms--lawfully owned or not-- would be seized, he said. Source

You are totally full of shit (no offence intended) if you believe this isn't a violation of my second amendment right.  The second amendment doesn't only give me the right to go out and buy a new gun, it gives me the right to possess the gun I already have and use it for my personal protection, and the personal protection of others in times when law enforcement can't be there.


And I am not saying it doesn't violate the 4th amendment also.

If anyone is full of shit, it's you. You're quoting a second amendment violation completely irrelevant to an article that explains the seizure of a thousand firearms suspected of being stolen or abandoned.

I'm just going to stop right here. I have no motivation to respond to irrelevant comments, clarify statements that would have been clear had the respondent read them, or explaining simple logic. I've explained it at least three times, and I'm not going to do it again so that people can deliberately or ignorantly misconstrue my remarks.

Last edited by mikkel (2007-12-30 07:14:25)

mikkel wrote:

JG1567JG wrote:

Mikkel you are still wrong. 

On Friday, September 23, 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Jay Zainey for the Eastern District in Louisiana granted NRA's request to bar further gun confiscations from law-abiding victims of Hurricane Katrina. Judge Zainey further ordered ther return of previously confiscated firearms to their lawful owners.

If this judge didn't issue this order many more guns would have been confiscated.


"We are going to take all the weapons," Deputy Police Chief Warren Riley told the Associated Press.
"No one will be able to be armed," said New Orleans Superintendent of Police P. Edwin Compass. "Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns." All firearms--lawfully owned or not-- would be seized, he said. Source

You are totally full of shit (no offence intended) if you believe this isn't a violation of my second amendment right.  The second amendment doesn't only give me the right to go out and buy a new gun, it gives me the right to possess the gun I already have and use it for my personal protection, and the personal protection of others in times when law enforcement can't be there.



And I am not saying it doesn't violate the 4th amendment also.

If anyone is full of shit, it's you. You're quoting a second amendment violation completely irrelevant to an article that explains the seizure of a thousand firearms suspected of being stolen or abandoned.

I'm just going to stop right here. I have no motivation to respond to irrelevant comments, clarify statements that would have been clear had the respondent read them, or explaining simple logic. I've explained it at least three times, and I'm not going to do it again so that people can deliberately or ignorantly misconstrue my remarks.

Where do you get that the article I quoted is irrelevent.  The article that I quoted is talking about the exact same firearms that the OP's article is talking about.  Where did you get that these firearms were suspected of being stolen or abandoned?  Was the lady that I talked about in the 4th post of this topic suspected of stealing her pistol?  The quotes from Deputy Police Chief Warren Riley and New Orleans Superintendent of Police P. Edwin Compass were quotes taken right after Hurricane Katrina during these same gun confiscations that this whole thread is taliking about.

And I'm off to work for the day will check back in the morning.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Mikkel,
I work in a law firm with lawyers of most practice groups.  I have attorneys who have freed gitmo prisoners, and others who have had their civil rights violated.  You don't know rights from wrongs youngster.  Keep the trap shut dude.

Nonetheless, he is correct in that the 4th amendment was violated, not the 2nd.  It is really that simple.  If the police or judge (or any other government agency) stopped the people's ability to buy a weapon without merit, it would be a 2nd amendment violation.  The fact that the police illegally confiscated the weapons makes it by definition a 4th amendment violation.

Your workplace really has no relevance to that argument.

DSRTurtle wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Mikkel,
I work in a law firm with lawyers of most practice groups.  I have attorneys who have freed gitmo prisoners, and others who have had their civil rights violated.  You don't know rights from wrongs youngster.  Keep the trap shut dude.

Nonetheless, he is correct in that the 4th amendment was violated, not the 2nd.  It is really that simple.  If the police or judge (or any other government agency) stopped the people's ability to buy a weapon without merit, it would be a 2nd amendment violation.  The fact that the police illegally confiscated the weapons makes it by definition a 4th amendment violation.

Your workplace really has no relevance to that argument.

You are wrong as well.  The 2nd amendment rights were violated because of the fact that firearms are involved in the case.  The confiscation of firearms is a direct infringement upon the right to bear arms.

Firearms have been confiscated legally without violating the 2nd amendment.  The firearms (personal property) were confiscated illegally, which makes it a 4th amendment violation.  They could be confiscating spears and arrows illegally and it would still be a 4th amendment case.

The right to bear arms as argued and interpreted by numerous levels of courts simply means the right of a single person to legally obtain weapons, with some regulation.  Numerous precedents have been set regarding the ability to regulate the purchase, storage, and confiscation of firearms, all without violating the 2nd amendment.  In this case, it is the illegal search and seizure of personal property (which happens to be firearms) that the NRA is fighting against.

It remains to be seen how this trial will unfold, but in my opinion the NRA and its brother lobbying groups would have a more solid case if they tried to fight it from a 4th amendment violation instead of a 2nd amendment violation.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-12-30 17:41:21)

IRONCHEF wrote:

First Ken, do you know what happened?  From what I've read, it isn't clear HOW things were confiscated.  If police did come for weapons, they violated both if they entered illegally.  If they asked for the firearms and were given them, it's ONLY a second amendment violation.  How is that hard to understand?

If they ASKED and people complied, its not a violation at all.

If the police threatened force or arrest, it is violation of the 4th amendment.

From what I have read, the "emergency powers act" implemented by the Louisiana governor legally allowed the police to limit gun sales and confiscate guns from owners.  Now, I haven't read much on the act itself, but if that is true, the NRA lawsuit is without merit.  I will do some more research and post what my conclusion is.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-12-30 21:15:53)

mikkel wrote:

Your right to do anything is only revoked when this is explicitly stated and enforced, or de facto policy.

Whoa, that's crazy talk.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

First Ken, do you know what happened?  From what I've read, it isn't clear HOW things were confiscated.  If police did come for weapons, they violated both if they entered illegally.  If they asked for the firearms and were given them, it's ONLY a second amendment violation.  How is that hard to understand?

If they ASKED and people complied, its not a violation at all.

If the police threatened force or arrest, it is violation of the 4th amendment.

From what I have read, the "emergency powers act" implemented by the Louisiana governor legally allowed the police to limit gun sales and confiscate guns from owners.  Now, I haven't read much on the act itself, but if that is true, the NRA lawsuit is without merit.  I will do some more research and post what my conclusion is.

This emergency powers act is not relevant if it violates multiple constitutional rights. Our rights protect us from legislation and individuals acting against us independently. In the case of New Orleans after Katrina, police both violated the 4th amendment, and in the process violated the 2nd amendment. You may believe that the 2nd amendment only legally addresses the sale of weapons, but the American people commonly believe their 4th amendment right is "the right to bear arms" and when this right is directly violated either by politicians that write laws meant to circumvent this basic right, or by cops in uniforms physically prying guns from an American's hand, then the offending party should prepare for the reorganization of his or her face.

Let me reiterate. If a cop shows up at your house demanding your legitimately acquired firearm. Shoot him. He's a criminal. Ignorance is no excuse for breaking this commonly known law and right. I realize that the amendment is written in such a way that it is not actually a straight-forward "right to bear arms" but I value the commonly held interpretation because the belief of 250,000,000+ people is more important to me than the intent of a political elite that wrote a misleading law.

Edit: And I think that gun registration is a violation of our rights in the first place, it's too effective of a fascist tool against people. Sure it can slightly improve the statistics in impoverished cities (that need decent wages, not gun laws, FFS, to really improve life), but this pales in comparison to the harm a government can do when it has the option to declare martial law and efficiently collect all weapons. For all we know, the fact that the government knows how many undeclared firearms are out there could be one reason why this has rarely been attempted against our people. Those of us that would treat the seizure of "illegal" guns as a legitimate activity on the part of the state probably do not realize that this substantially decreases the REAL military power of the U.S. citizen. A pyramidal organization like the organized military will not necessary be directed to protect you at all, but a weapon is a significant military tool that is an asset of the people so long as it is in the hands of a private citizen. You all obsess over military-political power, and yet don't realize that concentrating all of it in one part of your gov't actually deprives YOU of any power. Sorry for the rant, I'm not necessarily arguing with any of you, I just wanted to put that idea out there since this is a gun control thread.

Last edited by Marinejuana (2007-12-30 22:38:56)