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.
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.
It's not true that the all the circuit courts do not recognize an individual RKBA. The fifth circuit does, and it just so happens that the fifth circuit, and the Federal District Court for Southern Louisiana which is in the Fifth Circuit, are headquartered in New Orleans, although temporarily operating out of other locations. That's gonna end up being kind of hard on Hizzoner the Mayor, the Police Commish, the Chief of Police and possibly the Guvn'r. It's already beginning to be.
This is just a temporary injunction, AFAIK, and so is just a beginning. A good one, but still just a beginning.
True, but there hasn't been any ruling on an anti RKBA law where the second amendment was invoked, since the late 1930s. Lots of them passed since then of course. The action has been in the lower courts, including the Circuit Courts of Appeals.
The Supreme Court has been loathe in the extreme to take a Second Amendment case. The last time, they got off easy, there was no representation for one party to the case, and it wasn't the government side. That won't happen again, should they take such a case.