FEDERAL JUDGE HALTS NEW ORLEANS GUN SEIZURES

Second Amendment Foundation ^ | September 23, 2005 | Second Amendment Foundation

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana this afternoon issued a temporary restraining order on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and National Rifle Association (NRA), bringing an end to firearm seizures from citizens living in and around New Orleans.

District Judge Jay Zainey issued the restraining order against all parties named in a lawsuit filed Thursday by SAF and NRA. Defendants in the lawsuit include New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Chief Edwin Compass III.

“This is a great victory, not just for the NRA and SAF, but primarily for law-abiding gun owners everywhere,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “We are proud to have joined forces with the NRA to put an end to what has amounted to a warrantless gun grab by authorities in New Orleans and surrounding jurisdictions.

“Over the past three weeks,” he continued, “residents who had lost virtually everything in the devastation following Hurricane Katrina had also essentially been stripped of something even more precious, their civil rights, and their right of self-defense, because of these gun seizures.

“SAF and NRA had no alternative but to take action,” Gottlieb added. “If these gun confiscations had been allowed to continue without challenge, it would have set a dangerous precedent that would have encouraged authorities in other jurisdictions to believe they also could suspend the civil rights of citizens in the event of some other emergency.

“What must happen now, and quickly,” said Gottlieb, “is for authorities in the New Orleans area to explain how they will return all of those firearms to their rightful owners, and do it promptly. What this ruling affirms is that even in the face of great natural disasters, governments cannot arbitrarily deprive citizens of their rights. Thanks to some great teamwork between SAF and the NRA, this sort of thing will hopefully never happen again.”

The Second Amendment Foundation is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers & an amicus brief & fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

[WKUHilltopper]

Praise be SAF and NRA!

[opticks]

I find it hard to believe the cops were taking guns from live people, but find it completely believable they were taking them from unoccupied houses. I sure hope they made note of where and who they took them from. So, under whose or what authority did they do this?

[billnaz]

A gun-grab is a gun-grab, no matter how it's done. When a law enforcement agency seizes firearms from law-abiding firearms owners, and the chief of police announces that no one but police will be allowed to have guns, I call that a gun-grab in direct violation of the Second Amendment. Chief Compass needs to be hit up the side of the head with a copy of the United States Constitution.

[Clump]

District Judge Jay Zainey is a Bush II appointee. More evidence (to the naysayers around here) of the kind of jurist he deems worthy. But nothing will satisfy some of you no matter what.

[bill1952]

Chief Compass needs to be hit up the side of the head with a copy of the United States Constitution

Among other things...

[delacoert]

I have been wondering about the extent of executive branch (police) powers when civil liberties are suspended, i.e., when Marshall law (or what ever the local equivalent) is declared.

Please don't jump my case here. I know that the term "Marshall law" does not exist in Louisiana law. I followed threads on the subject of Marshall law in NOLA, and read articles in the Times Picayune, etc. dealing with the subject.

After reading up on the subject, it seemed to me that: 1) Louisiana's constitution allowed for the declaration of a cumbersome equivalent of suspension of civil rights, and, 2) that LA's governor and NO's mayor had taken steps to invoke it.

So the question is, if civil liberties have been suspended by whatever the established means are under the state's constitution, isn't it legal to seize guns even though the civil right is granted in the US Constitution. NOTE: I'm not saying it's right, I'm asking if it's legal once civil rights have been suspended.

[dufekin]

Mayor Nagin decided that New Orleans was in international waters, not American coastal marshland and territorial waters, so the Second Amendment (or the rest of the Constitution) doesn't apply. He should be tried and convicted of piracy once repatriated to America for his gun-grabbing.

[snowsislander]

BTTT

[ellery]

Believe it -- it's much worse than you assume. They were seizing lawful citizens' guns by force.

Plaintiffs in the suit against the City of New Orleans are two local gun owners. One, whom Mr. LaPierre identified as Buell Teel, was on a boat rescuing people. "To protect himself, he had a firearm on the boat," which police saw and seized, Mr. LaPierre said.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050922-111326-6278r.htm

Compass (NO police superintendent) explained that the gun confiscation order had also been expanded to include weapons possessed by law abiding citizens, even those with valid, state-issued concealed weapons permits. "No one will be able to be armed," Compass told the Washington Post. "Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns."

Lott said he is also disappointed that police appear to be engaging in "selective" gun confiscation. After Compass expanded the original order, the New York Times reported that it, "apparently does not apply to the hundreds of security guards whom businesses and some wealthy individuals have hired to protect their property." Police officials would not respond to reporters' questions about allowing the guards, who are private citizens with firearms training similar to concealed weapons permit holders, to keep their guns.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1484419/posts

Video of forcible gun seizure and evacuation: http://www.ktvu.com/video/4946889/detail.html

At the orders of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, the New Orleans Police, the National Guard, the Oklahoma National Guard, and U.S. Marshals have begun breaking into homes at gunpoint, confiscating their lawfully-owned firearms, and evicting the residents. "No one is allowed to be armed. We're going to take all the guns," says P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1481920/posts

Waters were receding across this flood-beaten city today as police officers began confiscating weapons, including legally registered firearms, from civilians in preparation for a mass forced evacuation of the residents still living here. No civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns or other firearms, said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1481197/posts

[Just mythoughts]

bttt

[Ken H]

So the question is, if civil liberties have been suspended by whatever the established means are under the state's constitution, isn't it legal to seize guns even though the civil right is granted in the US Constitution.

IMO, a correct reading of the Constitution means such an action is violation of the Second Amendment, and therefore illegal. However, under the current sorry ass state of case law, there is no individual RKBA protected by the Second Amendment in the eyes of the courts. (the Miller case implied that there is an individual RKBA, but that seems to be ignored)

AFAIK, no anti-RKBA law has been struck down by USSC on the basis of a 2A violation.

[delacoert]

IMO, a correct reading of the Constitution means such an action is violation of the Second Amendment, and therefore illegal.

First, I'd like to correct my embarrassing spelling in the earlier post (i.e., Marshall martial). :/

Second, I think you're right about the RKBA not being part of those civil liberties that can be suspended when martial law is declared.

I'm just wondering what, if any, "logic" was behind the decision to confiscate weapons.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I dunno. I though the U.S. Constitution, with its attendant 2nd Amendment, would have supremacy over LA's suspension of civil rights, since 2a states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The interpretation of that I've read was that it applied to the federal government until just after the civil war, and then it applied to the states, too. In other words, it now overrides LA's civil rights suspension.

Personally, my reading of 2a seems to imply its application to all levels of government from ratification onward, but I'm just an angry little dust mote in the grand scheme of things. :-)

[andyk]

Second, I think you're right about the RKBA not being part of those civil liberties that can be suspended when martial law is declared.

I don't think that the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms is considered a civil right. I believe that civil rights include those rights that are granted by government, not those rights which are inalienable. Most of the bill of rights places restrictions on government, which means that the rights listed therein precede government, and are inalienable.

As far as the local LEOs justification for seizing arms, I would simply say that it was a mixture of politics, grandstanding, and possibly a completely misguided attempt to secure the city.

[andyk]

Furthermore, it's also helpful to note that under Article I (Declaration of Rights) of the Louisiana State Constitution, Section 11 says:

§11. Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

You can find it here.

[opticks]

Thanks for setting me straight. The CHP guys must have trouble sleeping at night. Then again, what is that statement about "absolute power corrupts absolutely?"

Second, where is Johnny Cochran and the like for this poor old woman? She surely has a case against the CHP, right?

Third, I wonder if the DUmmies have anything to say about this? Don't they specialize in 'justice?'

[ellery]

Haha! Great point! Clearly a case of a middle/working class person being oppressed by the authorities -- and not a peep from the left.

[stan_25]

Haha! Great point! Clearly a case of a middle/working class person being oppressed by the authorities -- and not a peep from the left.

The left was probably cheering when the cops took away her firearm. We all know how the left hates anyone that owns a gun, black, white, green, red or yellow. I don’t see any of the left wingers give up their armed security guards. I doubt that they ever will.

[Tench_Coxe]

It's a start.

[El Gato]

From the reports that I have seen, the cops and the military were taking the weapons from houses that were empty, while the houses were being searched for bodies and survivors. That does not mean that they have been frisking the people that remained to relive them of the weapons that they had on their persons.

I guess you did not see the video of the CHP (yes California Highway Patrol!) officer relieving the little old lady of her revolver. She was just showing the officers, who had come to "Talk" her into leaving, that she had food, water and protection. She was not holding the weapon by the grip, she had the palm of her hand around the cylinder. California's finest tackled her and shoved her against the wall of her kitchen, and then to the ground. The poor woman was shell shocked as they lead her away. She had previously stated to the police "I don't want you in here", yet they remained, absent both probable cause to believe a crime was being committed, and absent a warrant.

Then there is the other video of the police handcuffing, perhaps with plastic cable ties, several people in their fairly upscale (and never flooded) neighborhood. The police took their guns, but did not arrest them, or otherwise accuse them of any crime.

The NRA and SAF have reportedly documented around 40 such cases.

Both the police commissioner and chief of police have been shown on video making statements like "no one but law enforcement may have a gun" and "we are going to take all the guns". Now they both deny issuing any confiscation orders as does the mayor. They made these denials in documents filed in Federal Court, in spite of the video evidence. Federal Judges are in general not amused when people lie to them.