1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

SAF, NRA ASK FEDERAL COURT TO HALT NEW ORLEANS GUN SEIZURES

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by poncho, Sep 22, 2005.

Top Posters
  1. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    For Immediate Release: 9/22/2005

    BATON ROUGE, LA (Sept. 22) – The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and National Rifle Association (NRA) joined with individual gun owners in Louisiana Thursday morning, filing a motion in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana seeking a temporary restraining order to stop authorities in and around the City of New Orleans from seizing firearms from private citizens in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

    Arbitrary gun seizures, without warrant or probable cause, have been reported during the past three weeks since the Crescent City was devastated by the hurricane. In cases reported to SAF, police refused to give citizens receipts for their seized firearms. Earlier, SAF insisted that police account for all seized firearms, disclose their whereabouts, and explain how they will be returned to their rightful owners. Authorities have not responded.


    Gun confiscations have been highly publicized since the New York Times quoted New Orleans Police Superintendent P. Edwin Compass III, who said, “Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons,” and ABC News quoted Deputy Police Chief Warren Riley stating, “No one will be able to be armed. We are going to take all the weapons.”

    SOURCE
     
    #1 poncho, Sep 22, 2005
  2. Nonsequitur

    Nonsequitur New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    637
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, we'll see how well that works (gun seizures) here in Texas after Rita comes through.
     
    #2 Nonsequitur, Sep 22, 2005
  3. hillclimber

    hillclimber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    What a terrible assault on the 2nd. Ammendment. I hope Texans put a halt to it. So far it sure answers some age old questions.
    So much for "cold dead fingers" and the like.
     
    #3 hillclimber, Sep 24, 2005
  4. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Catch 22

    During martial law, they can take extreme measures.

    Weapons don't need to be receipted because they are supposed to be registered ...

    It is an assault, but within the confines of existing law, it will be difficult to argue much in the courts. Reaasonably, it is easy to argue that emergency workers were jeapordized by the lawless with weapons. That people were not at home defending their property (2d ammendment). And that it was necessary to remove weapons from people that WERE NOT defending their property.
     
    #4 El_Guero, Sep 24, 2005
  5. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    When did we start registering our weapons? Living in New York state I reckon we would have been the first to hear about all that. Well second anyway, right behind California.
     
    #5 poncho, Sep 24, 2005
  6. prophecynut

    prophecynut New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    #6 prophecynut, Sep 24, 2005
  7. rivers1222

    rivers1222 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    0
    ------------------
    Register your weapons? ALL of em? right. :D
     
    #7 rivers1222, Sep 24, 2005
  8. hillclimber

    hillclimber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    Martial law had not been declared. Disarming citizens is a direct violation, and 99% of those affected were law abiding folks defending their property. (my guess) But even if one citizen is so abused it makes confiscation wrong.

    Just confiscate weapons being used in a crime.
     
    #8 hillclimber, Sep 25, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...