Judge refuses New Orleans' request to dismiss NRA lawsuit

[seriousstan]

NEW ORLEANS -- A federal lawsuit accusing the city of illegally confiscating firearms during the chaos that followed Hurricane Katrina was kept alive by a federal judge Wednesday.


U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier denied a motion by the city of New Orleans to dismiss a suit by the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation. The gun-rights groups sued Mayor Ray Nagin and New Orleans Police Chief Warren Riley over the confiscation of guns following Hurricane Katrina.

The city asked the judge to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction, saying "the states, and by extension their political subdivisions, are free to proscribe the possession of firearms."

The court rejected the motion, ruling the city did nothing to back up "the brazen assertion" that the second amendment did not apply.

http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=5289736

[virginia mountainman]

1. Good!

The Bill of Rights, applies, even during emergencies.

This is even more important today. Especially with this current administration.

[Vidar]

2. Considering what Law Enforcement was up to, I can see why

the people need weapons.

[poverlay]

3. I totally missed that! Un-Fu$%%$^ believable! Was there an outcry

from the fundies, or do they only complain when their church tells them to?

[SlipperySlope]

4. The city attorney should be fired

Whoever cooked up the half-assed argument that the second amendment doesn't apply to cities needs to go back to law school.

[Charlie Brown]

5. the aftermath of Katrina has made me a believer in the second amendment

I hope the Administration never has the power to take away the people's weapons.

I'll support registries and permits, and bans on assault weapons, but stop there.

[seriousstan]

6. With registries they have the power.

[Charlie Brown]

7. maybe, but it's the one of the only ways keep them out of the wrong hands

If people have a criminal record, or a history of violence, I'm not sure they deserve to carry guns. Thugs and militias can be just as oppressive as an authoritarian government. Just look at Somalia and Iraq.

I think that, if managed properly, registries can be a good tool to protect others and guarantee the right to bear arms for law-abiding citizens.

[seriousstan]

11. Why would a criminal register their gun?

[Toots]

13. They wouldn't and probably couldn't so another crime would be committed

A felon can not now own a gun so if they are caught with one they could go back to jail for a long time. Owning an unregistered firearm could also have severe penalties so as to force people to obey. If our goal is to get criminals off the street this is just one more tool. I am not saying I favor this although I am not sure at this time that I don't either. IMO America is way too gun happy and something needs to be done. Guns make it so damn easy to kill or injure people, either on purpose or by accident. I wish in a perfect world people would not think them necessary.

[benEzra]

16. The Supreme Court has already ruled that a criminal cannot be prosecuted

for possession of an unregistered firearm, because since the criminal is prohibited from possessing a gun in the first place, registering it would be self-incrimination. Hence, prosecuting a criminal for possession of an unregistered firearm would be prosecuting him for failing to incriminate himself, and would therefore be a violation of the 5th Amendment.

A criminal can be prosecuted for possessing a gun (or even a single round of ammunition) under the Gun Control Act of 1968, but in the United States, only those with clean records can be prosecuted for failing to register a gun.

[Bacchus39]

18. DC bans handguns yet has a very high murder

rate by guns. bans are ineffective.

[benEzra]

14. "Assault weapon" = rifle handgrip that sticks out

I'll support registries and permits, and bans on assault weapons, but stop there.

If you're speaking of automatic rifles (AK-47's, M-16's) or submachineguns (Uzi's, MP5's), I'm with you. But those have been controlled since 1934.

An "assault weapon" is a non-automatic civilian rifle or shotgun with a handgrip that sticks out, or any civilian firearm that holds more than 6 or 10 rounds, depending on who's doing the defining. I personally don't see the point in legislating 19th-century-fogey stock styling for civilian rifles and shotguns, or mandating Civil-War-era capacity limits, particularly since rifles and shotguns are rarely used in homicides anyway.

[w4rma]

8. Very good. (nt)

[slackmaster]

9. The states are free to regulate manufacturing and commerce in firearms

The states are not free to summarily seize peoples' lawfully owned personal property without due process of law. Neither are the cities.

The court rejected the motion, ruling the city did nothing to back up "the brazen assertion" that the second amendment did not apply.

I don't believe the Second Amendment has anything to do with this case. It should be a Forth Amendment case.

[Richard Steele]

10. Well-said, slackmaster. nm

[robcon]

12. No suspension of the constitution is allowable.

A storm does not overthrow the right to bear arms, IMO.

[sgxnk]

15. bravo

this was a blatant civil rights violation

over and over again gun civil rights advocates (including myself) have made the point that gun control is all about govt. control of citizen freedom. nowhere is this more clear

when civil order breaks down, when govt. is nowhere to be found (and if you are waiting even 5 minutes for a 911 first responder, with a rapist in your house - that's too long), when thugs are trying to make you a victim, it is your right to defend yourself

mayor nagin's response was an even worse civil rights violation than mayor paul ("i am not a wuss") schell's response to WTO rioting

his planning and initial response was WOEFULLY meek and stupid. he failed to prepare for rioting (when it had happened elsewhere several times), then he under-responded to blatant criminal rioting, THEN he over-responded by creating "zones" where people were not allowed any free speech whatsoever, or even people who were dressed like protestors were not allowed to enter

it was disgusting

nagin's response (and preparation to katrina) were even worse.

disarming citizens was an absolutely disgusting, heinous act. unlike most civil rights violations by our govt. this one actually turned citizens into disarmed subjects/victims in waiting

[benEzra]

17. Good. (n/t)