Printable View
NRA to settle suit over Katrina gun seizures - Yahoo! News
here is the article. Thanks to the NRA and the second amendment group over 1200 guns will be returned that never should have been taken in the first place! One for the good guys. Sound out if you by chance were one of these.:congrats::congrats:
Here's hoping they actually kept accurate records so that the owners can get the right guns back.
It's a sad day when it takes a political activist group to pressure the government into doing what they agreed to do in the first place. Also a good example of why we shouldn't allow our guns to be confiscated, no way, no how.
Peace,
Pete Zaria.
Three years later and how much money spent to make New Orleans politicians correct their unlawful actions? This is justice?:gah:
A real sad chapter in America, unfortunately probably not the last. "No way, No how" plus one, bullets 1st!
It's still not a resolution. You know darn well that they probably didn't keep any sort of accurate records so half the folks probably aren't going to get their stuff back.
#2 EVERY ONE of the folks involved in the confiscations should be in JAIL period. Everyone from the individual officers doing the confiscations all the way up to Nagin.
In the words of Forrest Gump...That's all I have to say about that.
In what condition? I'd sue for damages no matter what. And if I had a real good lawyer, I'd sue for the rest of the city.Quote:
New orleans to give back Guns
+1 absolutely !!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ram Rod
and for "emotional distress" (can't think of the right term)
I do not understand the below line from the article can anyone explain what it means?
In response, the city argued that federal law doesn't apply to the plaintiffs' claims against city officials "because the right to keep and bear arms has never been recognized as a fundamental individual right."
Can you sue for the same thing twice?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ram Rod
I wonder if the race card will be played in any following law suits; "they took my guns because they don't trust me because I'm (fill in any race here)" It really won't matter what race is added either, since New Orleans has (had) a mixture of various races.
We all really know the seizure was to keep the Thibideax and Budreaux families from killing each other :rofl:
I had my brother, the family shyster, look it over. IHO it appears that the plaintiffs were going to sue for or demand damages from the city for violating their constitutional rights. The city is maintaining that there is no such right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craiger
I guess that is where I'm getting lost if:Quote:
Originally Posted by automatic slim
"In the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, the Justices declared a new constitutional right to have a gun for self-defense in the home, and struck down a 1976 law so far as it barred possession of handguns in the home for self-defense"
How do we get:
The city is maintaining that there is no such right
What condition? Here's a picture of some of 'em:
http://www.rayrandolph.com/nolaguns85.jpg
http://www.rayrandolph.com/rustynolagunmodel17.jpg
Plain and simple, the second amendment was never incorporated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craiger
The Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government and not state governments unless the individual amendments have been incorporated (forced upon the state governments). The second amendment has never been incorporated. That was one of key benefits of the Heller decision, it was finally declared an "Individual" right, opening the door for it to be incorporated.
During the founding of our country the individual states were afraid of an "all powerful" tyranical federal gov. So they created the Bill of Rights to limit the fed gov. and protect the individual citizens. The individual states also wanted to be self governing and independent of the fed gov. so they created their own governments and constitutions. Some included parts of the Bill of Rights (BOR) in their state constitutions, some didn't. Either way the states were not bound by the Bill or Rights, only the fed gov. was. The states could trample an individuals rights anyway they wanted, they were not bound by the BOR, only the feds were. Most states did fairly well by their citizens because it was in their best interest to do so, if they didn't their citizens could just move to a state that did. This worked fairly well until the civil war and they whole slavery issue came to a head.
After the slaves were freed the southern states passed state laws that restricted the freedoms of the slaves. They wanted to keep them in the same conditions they were in before they were freed and deny them any freedoms (sore losers). The fed gov. added the 14th amendment to the BOR. Here's a link to the whole amendment if you want to wade through it all: Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here's the part of the Wiki link that applies to incorporation:
"By way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, nearly all of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been applied to the states, under what's known as the incorporation doctrine. As a result, the Fourteenth Amendment not only empowered the federal courts to intervene in this area to enforce the guarantee of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, but also to import the substantive rights of free speech, freedom of religion, protection from unreasonable searches and cruel and unusual punishment, and other limitations on governmental power. At the present, the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause incorporates all of the substantive protections of the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments and all of the Fifth Amendment other than the requirement that any criminal prosecution must follow a grand jury indictment, but none of the provisions of the Seventh Amendment relating to civil trials. Thus, the Court has also greatly expanded the reach of procedural due process, requiring some sort of hearing before the government may terminate civil service employees, expel a student from public school, or cut off a welfare recipient's benefits."
Incorporation isn't all or nothing, The courts have to decide which parts of the BOR apply. The Second Amendment argument has been going on for a LONG time (individual right vs state militia), so the courts have avoided the subject of incorp. SCOTUS has finally cleared up the argument and now we can work on getting it incorporated. After the SCOTUS ruling the NRA picked which lawsuits it would file very carefully. They chose the cases that would lay the ground work for incorportation. Did you ever wonder why the NRA filed a lawsuit and went after San Fransisco instead of the much bigger cases out there (NY for example). It's a case of the city gov. trampling the rights of citizens and would go the furthest toward incorp.
Sorry for being long winded, but the history lesson is needed to understand what it is and how it applies to the current situation in New Orleans. The Fed court cannot impose the 2nd Amendment on the state or city level.
From what I understand, they took the guns without issuing a receipt to the owner. I hope the owners still have a record of their serial numbers.
Far to many people toss the papers after buying something. When it comes to firearms I keep all the pertinant info. I do have firearms that I have no paperwork for because they were recieved from private owners( family) or they have no serial number (to old). One thing people can do if they no longer have their paperwork is have your Drivers License number scriben on the reciever or under the butt plate, or someother Identifying mark (such as done by some service members, putting the name you gave the rifle).
FYI, If anyone should remove the butt plate of the following rifles and find transcribed "Lizzy" please PM me. 1. pre-64 Winchester model '70, McMillan stock, Match barrel, 2. Custom 303 British, stock carved and painted, 3. Custom Winchester 30WCF, stock carved and painted, 3/4 length Magazine, 4. Winchester 38-40 model 92 saddel ring carbine.