| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| New Orleans Now Admits It Seized Firearms From Citizens |
| 2006-03-16 |
| (CNSNews.com) - A Second Amendment group calls it a "stunning reversal." After denying it for months, the City of New Orleans on Wednesday admitted that it does have a stockpile of firearms seized from private citizens in the days following Hurricane Katrina. The city even took lawyers to the place where some 1,000 firearms are being stored. "This is a very significant event," said attorney Dan Holliday, who represents National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation in an on-going lawsuit seeking to stop the city from seizing privately-owned firearms. The city's disclosure came as attorneys for both sides prepared for a court hearing on a motion to hold the city in contempt. (On March 1, The Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association filed a motion to have New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent Warren Riley held in contempt of court for refusing to comply with an injunction to stop illegal gun confiscations and return all seized firearms to their rightful owners.) "We're almost in disbelief," said Second Amendment Foundation Founder Alan Gottlieb on Wednesday. "For months, the city has maintained it did not have any guns in its possession that had been taken from people following the hurricane. Now our attorneys have seen the proof that New Orleans was less than honest with the court." Under an agreement with the court, the hearing on the contempt motion has been delayed for two weeks, and during that time, the city reportedly will set up a process to return the guns to their lawful owners. "While we are stunned at this complete reversal on the city's part, the important immediate issue is making sure gun owners get their property back," Gottlieb said. "What happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina was an outrage," he added. "Equally disturbing is the fact that it apparently took a motion for contempt to force the city to admit what it had been denying for the past five months." As Cybercast News Service reported in February, the National Rifle Association used images of law enforcement officers confiscating legally possessed firearms from New Orleans residents to rally conservatives at a recent conference in Washington. National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre urged people attending the Conservative Political Action Conference to "Remember New Orleans!" |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #16 Miami: FTAA Police Rampage http://tinyurl.com/r3qu2 Hundreds of abused and injured FTAA protesters were partially vindicated this week as the Miami-Dade Independent Review Panel released drafts of its scathing report on police misconduct at the FTAA. According to the report, Miami lived under "martial law," civil rights "were trampled," and protesters were met with "unrestrained and disproportionate use of force." (Link has pdf files of the reports of the Review Panel.) My point was that, in future, US cities that play host to G8, WTO, FTAA, etc. meetings are being encouraged to "abuse now and pay later", since there is no great penalty for them to do so. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-03-16 20:00 |
| #15 Danielle: are you asking for receipts or for a de-facto registration system? |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-03-16 19:02 |
| #14 Of course, the legal owners would have to prove their claim to ownership. Any bet that many of the owners aren't legally possessing a weapon to begin with? Proof is no problem if you were a home or business owner protecting your property. This sounds much like the Lancaster County police sting, betting on the human tendency toward greed and selfishness to catch stupid criminals. |
| Posted by: Danielle 2006-03-16 15:49 |
| #13 Typical "we're the government, we're here to protect you" bull shit. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-03-16 14:30 |
| #12 pretty typical US city behaviour, I live in Tacoma and we're far from transparency in Gov. |
| Posted by: bk 2006-03-16 13:29 |
| #11 Execute order 66! *laughs* Nice! |
| Posted by: Crusader 2006-03-16 13:00 |
| #10 Wonder how Nagin's reelection campaign is coming along. It takes a certain special talent to get so wrong on so many issues including a Constitutional ammendment. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-03-16 12:51 |
| #9 Execute order 66! |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-03-16 11:46 |
| #8 Just reasonably concerned about how these precedents will be used in the next Clinton administration. |
| Posted by: Unomomble Spamble8637 2006-03-16 10:23 |
| #7 'moose, you been smoking the strong stuff again? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-03-16 10:21 |
| #6 "beat down against ordinary citizens" You're referring to the professional legions of anarchists, funded by the socialist - our mortal enemies - who fly around the world to these conferences and meetings with nothing but havoc in mind as ordinary citizens? LOL. Try re-tuning that a bit - assuming you wish to remain within reality. |
| Posted by: Glert Thetch2165 2006-03-16 10:04 |
| #5 The government (as a whole) has learned that it can abuse the hell out of civil liberties during the event and pay the price later, unless they can weasel out of it. It started with a lot of G8 and WTO protests, when the police did clearly illegal things that protected the conferences, because they knew that it would only come out later at trial, and long after the conference was over. If it cost them a few million, no problem, it was taxpayer money anyway. It peaked at Miami, when they imported police to abuse people. It was close to a police rampage against anyone on the street, the constitution be damned. Journalists were attacked, even a State judge was pulled off of his bicycle and beaten. They didn't even wait for the protest to begin, sort of pre-emptive beat down against ordinary citizens. And they mostly got away with it. Maybe paid out a few hundred thousand dollars in fines to themselves. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-03-16 09:58 |
| #4 “I don't think this will get anywhere for several reasons…” 'Moose, you are correct that charges of “illegal gun confiscations” will be challenged and for the reasons you state possibly dismissed. However, don’t underestimate the substantial accomplishments this lawsuit has brought. Contrary to previous testimony, the city has admitted that they do in fact posses a stockpile of confiscated weapons. First, what was previously dismissed as accusations is now reality allowing the legal owners to get their property back. Also, the contempt charges have only been delayed, not dismissed. Without reading the transcripts it’s hard to say but in light of this admission the accusers contempt case has become dramatically stronger. If the courts award a victory to The Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA look for them to ride the wave and challenge the legality of the confiscation itself. And given the shenanigans surrounding the defense thus far it’s unlikely a judge would throw out the lawsuit based on lack of merit. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2006-03-16 09:34 |
| #3 The problem Moose is that the hand wringers all along said that 'Martial Law' was not declared. |
| Posted by: Hupomoling Creremp5509 2006-03-16 09:00 |
| #2 I don't think this will get anywhere for several reasons. First of all, in a state of martial law, government can do damn near anything it wants; and typically, the public approves of that. Second, unlawful confiscations will be dealt with on a "case by case" basis, which will muddy the waters beyond recognition. Finally, the police will say that "most" of the guns were just "picked up" from abandoned buildings to "keep them out of the hands of looters". Lies, of course. But prove otherwise. In other words, nobody will get squat out of this deal. For future reference, it is almost never better to "brandish" a weapon than to conceal it. The lesson should be that in future disasters, do not let lawmen see your weapons. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-03-16 08:45 |
| #1 They're surprised that Police don't pay attention to the law? Naive fools. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2006-03-16 08:44 |