NRA Sues New Orleans

[pmoon6]

NRA SUES NEW ORLEANS MAYOR RAY NAGIN


NRA has filed a motion for contempt against the City of New Orleans, its mayor, Ray Nagin, and the acting chief of police for failure to comply with a temporary restraining order handed down September 12, 2005, ordering an end to all illegal gun confiscations that occurred in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.


"With looters, rapists, and other thugs running rampant in New Orleans, Ray Nagin issued an order to disarm all law-abiding citizens," declared NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. "With no law enforcement or 911 available, he left the victims vulnerable by stripping away their only means of defending themselves and their loved ones. Now Ray Nagin thinks he's above the law, and that's just wrong."


Attorneys for NRA have exhausted all efforts to cooperate with the defendants, Mayor Nagin and Chief Riley, who repeatedly ignored the court's permanent restraining order against their illegal gun confiscations.


"Ray Nagin is a colossal disappointment," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. "During a federally declared emergency, he abused his power and abandoned the very people he was sworn to protect. He took away the victims' freedom and their basic means of self-defense during an ill-fated and perilous time."


The motion also includes an order that all seized firearms must be returned to their rightful owners.
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=7272

[sukie]

I'm surprised Nehe isn't chiming in about this blatant stomping of the constitution...Oh, My bad, Nagin is a Democrat.

[nehemiah]

this is a stupid thing to say: "With looters, rapists, and other thugs running rampant in New Orleans, Ray Nagin issued an order to disarm all law-abiding citizens," declared NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. "With no law enforcement or 911 available, he left the victims vulnerable by stripping away their only means of defending themselves and their loved ones. Now Ray Nagin thinks he's above the law, and that's just wrong."

but the constitution doesn't go away after a flood. (or during a war - sukie). i would be interested in just how many law-abiding gun owners had their weapons taken away.

[sukie]

Nehe, one would be too many.

[nehemiah]

Nehe, one would be too many.LOL. now you're a Constitutionalizationist?

i agree with ya, btw. i would like to know if there was even one, though.

[sukie]

I thought you'd appreciate the sarcastic bravado.

[pmoon6]

Katrina Educates World On Need For Owning Guns
by Erich Pratt
"All our operators are busy right now. Please remain on the line and an operator will be with you shortly. Your call is important to us."

Can you imagine any words more horrifying after dialing 9-1-1? Your life's in danger, but there's no one available to help you.

For several days in September, life was absolutely terrifying for many New Orleans residents who got stranded in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. There were no operators... there were no phone calls being handled.

Heck, there was no 9-1-1. Even if the phone lines had been working, there were no police officers waiting to be dispatched.

Hundreds of New Orleans police officers had fled the city. Some took their badges and threw them out the windows of their cars as they sped away. Others participated in the looting of the city.

While there were many officers who acted honorably -- even apprehending dangerous thugs while grieving the loss of their own family members -- most residents were forced to fend for themselves.

Many did so successfully, using their own firearms, until New Orleans Police Commissioner Edwin Compass III issued the order to confiscate their guns.

Anti-gun zealots confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens
On September 8, several news outlets began reporting that officials in New Orleans were confiscating firearms... not from looters, but from law-abiding citizens who legally owned firearms!

"No one will be able to be armed," said Deputy Chief Warren Riley. "We are going to take all the weapons."

It was like a scene out of the former Soviet Union or Communist China.

The Associated Press quoted Compass, the police commissioner, as saying, "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons."

Well, there you have it. Given the chance, gun control advocates will always implement their real agenda -- confiscation of firearms from everyone... except the police!

ABC News video on September 8 showed National Guard troops going house-to-house, smashing down doors, searching for residents, and confiscating guns. Every victim of disarmament was clearly not a thug or looter, but a decent resident wanting to defend his or her home.

Many of the troops were clearly conflicted by their orders. "It is surreal," said one member of the Oklahoma National Guard who was going door-to-door in New Orleans. "You never expect to do this in your own country."

Many never would have expected it -- confiscating firearms from decent people who were relying on those firearms to protect themselves from the looters.

It was an outrageous order -- one that should not have been obeyed. There was no constitutional authority for the directive, and it ignored the fact that many good people had already used firearms to successfully defend their lives and property.

Guns were saving lives and protecting property prior to the confiscation order
http://www.gunowners.org/no02.htm

[coastal]

All those guns did a lot of good when Katirna blew through town.

[pmoon6]

The certainly did in the aftermath until the started taking them. Go to the gunowners link and read the whole article.

[twosheds]

I'm surprised Nehe isn't chiming in about this blatant stomping of the constitution...Oh, My bad, Nagin is a Democrat.

Doesn't the constitution just mention an "armed militia"?

[sukie]

TWOSHEDS, That's the problem with all this constitutional crap that's bandied around oh the PRS. It's all in the interpretation.

[pmoon6]

Read the whole thing with the part about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed". The liberal argument with the second amendment is that you can only do that if you are a part of a militia. I believe that is false.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The first part is a preamble to the second. A well regulated militia, being necessary for a secure state is the reason that the right to keep and bear will not be infringed, not a condition.

I'll have to look it up, but I don't know if the second amendment has ever been challenged, I doubt it. The Supreme Court can't repeal it, they can only interpret it and that would depend on the Court and on the justices that occupy it. Congress has to with a 3/4 vote of the states. That's why the anti-gunners try to get more and more laws and restrictions enacted at a state and national level. If they can't do it one way they'll try to do it another.

[nehemiah]

I'll have to look it up, but I don't know if the second amendment has ever been challenged, I doubt it. They could never garner enough votes to repeal it. The Supreme Court can't do it, Congress has to with a 3/4 vote of the states. That's why the anti-gunners try to get more and more laws and restrictions enacted at a state and national level. If they can't do it one way they'll try to do it another.you can't challenge an amendment directly.

well, except gw bush and the fourth...

good stuff at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/#annotations

[pmoon6]

Ahhh, good stuff indeed Nehemiah. I was starting to look and I came across that very site. As it says there, it was actually challenged, and the challenges were inconclusive, with exceptions. Do we need sawed off shot guns? No, they really serve no purpose anymore other than the guy that's gonna walk into a business and hold them up. Do we need the public to have fully automatic weapons? No, but they have been outlawed since 1934. Those laws and programs are already in place, but if you ask me that we need a database on anyone that legally buys a firearm, I say no. Registration is the first step. What happened in New Orleans could happen across the country. Gun confiscation, when you're trying to protect you and your family in circumstances that are unusual is the second step and a product of the first. Do you want martial law anytime the government feels it's appropriate and you have no recourse to defend yourself? I will not depend on the government to protect myself or my family I can do that all by my lonesome.

[nehemiah]

Those laws and programs are already in place, but if you ask me that we need a database on anyone that legally buys a firearm, I say no. Registration is the first step. What happened in New Orleans could happen across the country. Gun confiscation, when you're trying to protect you and your family in circumstances that are unusual is the second step and a product of the first. Do you want martial law anytime the government feels it's appropriate and you have no recourse to defend yourself? I will not depend on the government to protect myself or my family I can do that all by my lonesome.i agree that we do not need/want a database kept. the federal govt shouldn't have a database for anything, IMO. all that does is allow sukie to stick his nose in everybody's bizness.

i have no problem with reasonable waiting periods (1 week or so) and background checks, though.

[pmoon6]

I have gone through backround checks and it doesn't bother me, but with those backround checks you have all the information you need to assemble that database. The guys that are worried about a backround check, just go on the blackmarket. How are you going to regulate them?

[35Pete]

i agree that we do not need/want a database kept. the federal govt shouldn't have a database for anything, IMO. all that does is allow sukie to stick his nose in everybody's bizness.

i have no problem with reasonable waiting periods (1 week or so) and background checks, though.
I don't have my concealed carry permit (yet). EVERY handgun and long gun that I have ever purchased required, by law, a 7 day waiting period and an FBI background check. So far the FBI hasn't discovered my meth lab so I am cool.

[sukie]

i agree that we do not need/want a database kept. the federal govt shouldn't have a database for anything, IMO. all that does is allow sukie to stick his nose in everybody's bizness.

i have no problem with reasonable waiting periods (1 week or so) and background checks, though.



Bold part... WTF???:wtf:

[nehemiah]

Bold part... WTF???:dunno:

:guy:

[twosheds]

The first part is a preamble to the second. A well regulated militia, being necessary for a secure state is the reason that the right to keep and bear will not be infringed, not a condition.

'well-regulated' could be a point of discussion, though. But thanks for the clarification. :)

[35Pete]

'well-regulated' could be a point of discussion, though. But thanks for the clarification. :)

230 years our nation has existed. It is only in the last quarter of that period that people (like you) have wanted to reinterpret that amendment. Were the people before this period stupid? Are you smarter than them? BTW. Are you even an American?

This is liberalism at its finest. This is the type of thinking that just kills me. This group of modern intellectuals think that they are SOOOO MUCH SMARTER than ALL the people that existed before them.

So if the founding fathers meant for the amendment to mean militia only then why the hell did they allow all the states to allow their private citizens to have firearms on a much more massive per capita scale than even exists today? And only a fraction of those owners would have qualified for duty in the militia.

Why was the 2nd amendment NEVER questioned until recently? I'll tell you why. Because as of recent history a social agenda popped up in the pointy intellectual circles that wanted to disarm the nation because their misguided theory suggests that this would make society safer. Can't get rid of the amendment? That's OK. We'll just reinterpret it, even though it has been a rock solid amendment for over 180 years. "Those people before us were stupid".

[Lucidvizion]

The funny part about people who say that the 2nd amendment applies only to a militia is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

The current United States Code, Title 10 (Armed forces), section 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes), paragraph (a) states "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard." Section 313 of Title 32 refers to persons with prior military experience who could serve as officers. These persons remain members of the militia until age 64. Paragraph (b) further states, "The classes of the militia are: (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

And even has history as far back as 1792:

The militia act of 1792 clarified whom the militia consists of; " I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years"

[nehemiah]

militia, baby... :rockon:

[35Pete]

The militia act of 1792 clarified whom the militia consists of; " I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years"

You make my point exactly. Before the liberal pointy headed intellectual idiots (almost ALL liberals) tried to reinterprete the 2nd amendment, a significant number of firearm owners did not meet this classification. So tell me then. Why were they not restricted in firearm ownership?

[rob on the job]

The liberals are right about this.

Follow Sean Penn's example.

http://kobbah.knaak.dk/upload/seanpenn.jpg

[35Pete]

Liberals are arrogant intellectuals that want to change what 180 years of wisdom has proven otherwise. Granted. There are a few things that I agree with them should be changed. And are CONGRUENT with the constitution such as civil rights. But they want to reinterpret (read CHANGE) the constitution to meet the arrogant social agenda that they want to FORCE upon American society.

[nehemiah]

Liberals are arrogant intellectuals that want to change what 180 years of wisdom has proven otherwise. Granted. There are a few things that I agree with them should be changed. And are CONGRUENT with the constitution such as civil rights. But they want to reinterpret (read CHANGE) the constitution to meet the arrogant social agenda that they want to FORCE upon American society.horse manure.

it's your republican buddies that are destroying the constitution.

for all the talk about the assault on the 2nd amendment - what has actually been accomplished? you have an arsenal, don't you?

[35Pete]

horse manure.

it's your republican buddies that are destroying the constitution.

for all the talk about the assault on the 2nd amendment - what has actually been accomplished? you have an arsenal, don't you?
Yeah but nehe. You DO want to desperately reinterpret the 2nd amendment after over 230 years of precedent. Don't you? You liberal democrat bastard. :D

[twosheds]

230 years our nation has existed. It is only in the last quarter of that period that people (like you) have wanted to reinterpret that amendment. Were the people before this period stupid? Are you smarter than them? BTW. Are you even an American?

Am I smarter? Very likely. :)
Am I American? No. Neither North, South, nor Middle.

I've heard the militia argument from some Americans, so I brought it up for clarification. I'm just pointing out that it's a possible interpretation, given the text of the amendment. Why would I want to reinterpretate it? It doesn't affect me at all. :)

This is liberalism at its finest.

Don't call me a liberal. Over here, that's a neo-con. *yuck*

[35Pete]

Am I smarter? Very likely. :)
Am I American? No. Neither North, South, nor Middle.

I've heard the militia argument from some Americans, so I brought it up for clarification. I'm just pointing out that it's a possible interpretation, given the text of the amendment. Why would I want to reinterpretate it? It doesn't affect me at all. :)



Don't call me a liberal. Over here, that's a neo-con. *yuck*
Not an American? Then no offense meant but your opinion does not really count in this discussion, does it? How would you like it if I stuck my nose into German politics? Probably would not like it at all. And I could not blame you for that.

I have LIVED her for 39 years. I KNOW my constitution and its HISTORY. Let guys like me, who vote here, decide the interpretation of the UNITED STATES constitution.

Thanks.

[twosheds]

Not an American? Then no offense meant but your opinion does not really count in this discussion, does it? How would you like it if I stuck my nose into German politics? Probably would not like it at all. And I could not blame you for that.

You're free to do so. And you did, for example in threads about holocast deniers who were arrested in Germany and Austria. Hey, I like to hear your opinion on German politics. Unless I don't care myself, then I ignore it.

We're not voting here, it's just a discussion on an internet forum. Besides, you are discussing with Canadians who make me look like a conservative. So you've really got no excuse. ;)

[35Pete]

The holocaust, by nature, is an international event. (It was a crime against humanity and therefore NOT an internal german political event). We are talking about a discussion of the constitution of the United States. The constitution is the GREATEST document EVER created. In fact, you germans should adopt it in it's entirety. That way you will truly be a free people. Instead of jailing people for thought crimes (I.e Neo nazis, who I personally think are the scum of the earth).

[35Pete]

If I were going to mass murder anyone (and I would not!) the nazis would be the first.

I would love toi have a HOT jewish wife (beautiful eyes they have!!). If I did and had 1/2 jewish children then these F 'ing bastards would want them dead. I say kill the bastards if they are that hell bent on that.

[twosheds]

If I were going to mass murder anyone (and I would not!) the nazis would be the first.

I would love toi have a HOT jewish wife (beautiful eyes they have!!). If I did and had 1/2 jewish children then these F 'ing bastards would want them dead. I say kill the bastards if they are that hell bent on that.

Good lord, Pete, I know you're not a nazi in any way. I just cited a case where you voiced an opinion about a German law. I see the problems with that law, but given the history of Germany, I still think it's okay.

We can't adopt your constitution, btw. German laws have to be extensive and complicated. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we had the most bloated and complicated laws in the world (especially tax laws). :D

[35Pete]

Good lord, Pete, I know you're not a nazi in any way. I just cited a case where you voiced an opinion about a German law. I see the problems with that law, but given the history of Germany, I still think it's okay.

We can't adopt your constitution, btw. German laws have to be extensive and complicated. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we had the most bloated and complicated laws in the world (especially tax laws). :DGood lord. Why do laws have to be extensive and complicated in the first place. Are not the basic rights of people pretty striaghtfoward?

[sukie]

Then if it were all straight forward... There would bee no need for massive law firms with huge legal fees and then... there would be no "Law and Order" television franchise.:odie: