NOLA exempt from 2nd Amendment?

[dajoga]

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Today, in a landmark victory for NRA and law-abiding gun owners, Judge Carl J. Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied the City of New Orleans’ motion to dismiss NRA’s lawsuit against the city and held that the Second Amendment applies to law-abiding residents in the State of Louisiana and the City of New Orleans. Straining the bounds of credibility and reflecting the true sentiment of anti-gunners, the City of New Orleans contemptuously argued that the Second Amendment does not apply to residents in the State of Louisiana and the City of New Orleans.

more (http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=8039)

[Timberwolf]

After denying the illegal confiscations for months, on March 15, 2006, Mayor Nagin and the New Orleans Police Department finally conceded in federal court that the seized firearms were stored in two trailers. The city then agreed in court to a process by which law-abiding citizens would be able to file a claim to receive their confiscated firearms. However, few firearms were returned because the NOPD never notified gun owners how to claim their guns, and turned many away citing impossible standards for proof of ownership.
Would citizens who are able to own firearms (sane, no felony convictions, etc) be justified in shooting LEOs who attempt to illegally confiscate their LEGAL property?

Seems to me that they would...just as they would be justified in shooting ANYONE who entered their home for the purpose of ROBBERY.

I think charges of theft of property ought be filed against Nagin, Compass and all involved in this ILLEGAL activity.

[BuckeyeMike]

Would citizens who are able to own firearms (sane, no felony convictions, etc) be justified in shooting LEOs who attempt to illegally confiscate their LEGAL property?

In other words, the scumbags just took a person's firearms, and didn't bother to issue PROPER paperwork reflecting the "transaction", such as a simple effing RECIEPT for any and all firearms illegally confiscated. Seems to me there's some room for a malfesance charge in there.

Seems to me that they would...just as they would be justified in shooting ANYONE who entered their home for the purpose of ROBBERY.

I think charges of theft of property ought be filed against Nagin, Compass and all involved in this ILLEGAL activity.


This whole confiscation bullshit has me freakin' pissed off to the extreme, I just hope somebody can legally get to this Hershey toned Niggin (sp?)
and make him and all his chocolate "brothas" and "sistas" get pucker marks and nicotiene stains in their underwear! Or worse!

[Wolfcounsel]

"Would citizens who are able to own firearms (sane, no felony convictions, etc) be justified in shooting LEOs who attempt to illegally confiscate their LEGAL property?" --Timberwolf

I call it self-defense against an illegal act by corrupt police. He wants to leave you defenseless because some clown higher up maybe ordered him to confiscate your weapons. Look at what happened to those border patrol agents who (prosecutors say) broke the law. Another example, an easy one--does a husband have the right to kill a police officer who places him under arrest and then proceeds to rape his wife and daughter? What is the difference between the two illegal acts, besides the level of barbarity?

Some of you people, if you want, go ahead and tell me the severity of the first crime is not enough to merit killing of the criminal. Some time ago, a horse thief would be hanged, because the loss of a horse could lead to the owner's dying in the wilds, unable to reach a town in time. The same way, the loss of your firearm can mean some intruder breaking in and killing everybody in your house, if all you have are your fingers and a BANG! sound from your mouth.

LEAVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT ALONE, YOU LIBERAL CANDY ASSES!

[Rocketman]

In Texas we couldn't shoot em......

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

[Rhino]

That doesn't say you couldn't shoot them.

And by the way, the court has just recently ruled NOLA in contempt for not complying with their rulings.

[libertyman]

more (http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=8039)

Putting the 2nd Amendment aside for a moment, doesn't the Constitution of the STATE OF LOUISIANA say that the people retain the right to keep & bear arms? I thought that most State constitutions do, & in fact, they may be even stronger in supporting the right of citizens to own firearms than the US Constitution is. I guess I'll hafta take a look @ the Louisiana state constitution to find out for myself.

[libertyman]

Putting the 2nd Amendment aside, doesn't the Constitution of the STATE OF LOUISIANA say that the people retain the right to keep & bear arms? I thought that most State constitutions do, & in fact, they may be even stronger in supporting the right of citizens to own firearms than the US Constitution is. I guess I'll hafta take a look @ the Louisiana state constitution to find out for myself.

A-HA! Here 'tis:

Sec. 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.

Sounds pretty reasonable to be, altho if I had my druthers, I'd eliminate the 2nd clause of that Section.

Notice that it says "...on the person"--does that mean w/in a vehicle, since keeping a firearm w/in the glove compartment of a car is not directly ON a person? I certainly hope so.

[Wolfcounsel]

No government on this planet can grant a citizen the right to bear arms. The right is UNALIENABLE.

[Rocketman]

All the know it all politicians need to read the definition of unalienable:
UNA'LIENABLE, a. Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights.

[uncommon1]

No government on this planet can grant a citizen the right to bear arms. The right is UNALIENABLE.

That statement presumes the ability of lawmakers to read and write. Seeing those in charge of Congress and NOLA, I would have my doubts.

[Rhino]

Referring to Nagin as a lawmaker. That's a scary thought.

[LiberalHunter]

My Dad was a police officer for 26 years,and I asked him what would happen if the police busted in to my home mistaking my house as a drug dealers and I shot 1 or 2 or 3 and killed them,he told me not to plan on dueing anything after that day,because the police would probobly kill you.Now that was a few years ago that I asked that question(he retired in 1978) all i'm saying is if you kill a cop justified or not you will probobly pay the price.


I thought all the new orleans police abandoned their posts,your telling me their back?

[Wolfcounsel]

"...all i'm saying is if you kill a cop justified or not you will probobly pay the price." LiberalHunter


They can go ahead and try to kill me if I'm justified in blowing one of their asses away. I have plenty of armed friends who would love nothing better than..."

Yikes! How did I screw the quote up?