Louisiana Gun Confiscation

Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
478
September 10, 2005
Gun Confiscation in Louisiana

This past week Louisiana officials began taking registered firearms from law-abiding citizens.

"Taking" and "confiscating" are euphemisms for stealing. City officials are arguing that taking firearms away is necessary to restore order. I haven't had a knee-jerk reaction, but I do consider it interesting on a lot of levels.

Much of the order was restored by these same gun toting citizens... but now the officials will dictate their version of order! Where were these same officials a few days ago... not doing their jobs... that is apparent!

Federal law 18 USC § 241. "Conspiracy against rights", The Gist: If two or more people conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured under the Constitution or laws of the United States, they shall be fined, or imprisoned up to ten years, or both. The same penalty applies if two or more people go, in disguise, on the highway, or on the premises of a person, with similar intent to prevent or hinder such rights or privileges.

If death results from such acts, or if such acts include kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, attempted aggravated sexual assault, or an attempt to kill, they may be fined, imprisoned for any term of years up to life, or put to death.

What's ironic about this is that firearm ownership is most needed in times where reason sleeps. Indeed, just a few days ago the police were part of the lawlessness.

State and federal officials argue that because there isn't any order, only the police may have guns. But those same officials were responsible for the Katrina-related aftermath. The same government responsible for the carnage now expects Louisiana citizens to surrender their right to self-defense on "Trust us" grounds. How deliciously ironic!

What's also funny is that the ACLU is nowhere to be found.

If the government censored speech or separated people by race, arguing both were necessary to preserve order, the ACLU would be outraged.

Here, the government is infringing on a constitutional right in a concrete way: Where is the ACLU?

The recent government action is a scary precedent. One commentator aptly noted, "We are all living just 72 hours from the 18th century."

The gun-confiscation order showed us that we are all living one natural disaster away from martial law. I learned that there is a federal law, "18 USC 241" that provides a ten-year prison sentence for anyone who interferes with, and I'm quoting, "the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States."

Where do you think Louisiana Senators would stand on indicting the apparently illegal gun confiscators? Would Louisiana Senators support disarming the public during emergencies? Apparently so.

The aftermath of the hurricane has featured prominent stories of citizens legitimately defending lives and property.
New Orleans lies on the north side of the Mississippi River, and the city of Algiers is on the south. The Times-Picayune detailed how dozens of neighbors in one part of Algiers had formed a militia.

After a car-jacking and an attack on a home by looters, the neighborhood recognized the need for a common defense; they shared firearms, took turns on patrol, and guarded the elderly. Although the initial looting had resulted in a gun battle, once the patrols began, the militia never had to fire a shot.

As happened in the riots of Los Angeles, likewise in the Garden District of New Orleans, one of the city's top tourist attractions, was protected by armed residents.

The good gun-owning citizens of New Orleans and the surrounding areas ought to be thanked for helping to save some of their city after Mayor Nagin, incoherent and weeping, had fled to Baton Rouge. These same citizens are being victimized by a new round of home invasions and looting. This time by their own government, these government organized gun collection teams search houses solely for the purpose of firearms confiscation.

Thanks,

iBear
 
thanks for the info, it sure is scary!

I hate it when the law turns into the problem, as if the people don't have enough to worry about, they loose their guns, the only comfort some have left.
 
ibear said:
This time by their own government, these government organized gun collection teams search houses solely for the purpose of firearms confiscation.

Was anybody home in these houses? Or were the houses abandoned due to the storm? I tend to believe there is more to the story.
 
I have only one thing to say:
If anyone needs help figuring out who their congressmen are and how to contact them, I will find out and email you the info.
 
surely the way i read these laws, the persons confiscating the innocent citizens guns ,if from they are taking them them whilst they are in the leghal owners care. are guilty of takeing away the legal constitutional right of gun ownership insured by the constitution ???????
and would be libel to prosecution i would think ??.

and yes semper fi i to thought maybe there might be more to the situation such as .

it is a different story if the gun collection teams are only collecting up abandoned unnattended fire arms in empty houses ect ,to stop them from falling into illegal hands, ????. just my thoughts on this matter.
 
I watched video of homeowners handcuffed outside their home, while it was searched. The guy later said "the cops were jealous because our guns were bigger than theirs." He had a pretty cavalier attitude about it, he probably thinks he'll get his guns back.
 
US are slowly but apparently turning into Stalinist russia.....
Youll end without guns and without justice....

This is done in manner of cooked frog syndrome. (If you throw a frog into kettle with cold water and slowly heat, the frog will be happy even in water hot as 70C. If you throw another frog in that hot water, it dies of temperature shock. That changes nothing at the fact that in the end youll have two boiled frogs.

Important - do it slowly, just like your government with citizens

Jaroslav
 
The basic problem is people believe that the 2nd amendment guarantees them the right to bear arms. I honestly believe it was intended to protect the right of the INDIVIDUAL.

However if you look at precedents, so far as I know no court has ruled that it does this. To their credit, as much as I dislike Bush he was the first admin to send someone from the AG office to argue before the court that is WAS an individual right, but I dont' think the court agreed.

Regarding the ACLU and speech, remember that the court essentially ruled that there was not an absolute freedom of speech in the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)


"The Court noted that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain "well-defined and narrowly limited" classes of speech that can be proscribed and regulated without constitutional problem. These include the "lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting words'." The Court defined fighting words as those words that "by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace"

My point to all this being that if the ACLU thought they had a fighting chance of upholding the 2nd as an individual right they would, but just like inflammatory speech they wouldn't probably try to overturn precedent unless they found some new and compelling way they though they could. :thumbdn:
 
Ultimately, the constitution is the highest authority. The judges are not infallible, nor the final word.

If "the People" doesn't mean individuals in the 2nd amendment, we have no rights as individuals at all.

The framers properly understood that the constituion did not "grant" rights, but merely "protected" them from government infringement. If the right to keep and bear arms was not enumerated, it would still exist, because it is a fundamental human right and duty.

The constitution will mean what it says when we are willing to make it mean what it says.

Danny is right. It is once again time to contact my elected officials...

BTW, for a government to remove the means of personal self defense while accepting no responsibility for the defense of those dis armed persons, is outrageaous beyond words. IMO, those who pass un constituional laws hindering the defense of life bear some degree of responsibilty when lives are lost that might otherwise have been successfully protected.

Tom
 
Semper Fi said:
Was anybody home in these houses? Or were the houses abandoned due to the storm? I tend to believe there is more to the story.
The news reports I checked shows that they were confiscating guns from live people. It is unclear exactly how this is being done (roving teams) or how many people have been subjected to this stupidity. We will know more in a day or two. :barf:

Thanks,

iBear
 
DannyinJapan said:
I have only one thing to say:
If anyone needs help figuring out who their congressmen are and how to contact them, I will find out and email you the info.
Excellent response. Action is the key to change.

Thanks,

iBear
 
CAVE-TROLL said:
surely the way i read these laws, the persons confiscating the innocent citizens guns ,if from they are taking them them whilst they are in the leghal owners care. are guilty of takeing away the legal constitutional right of gun ownership insured by the constitution ???????
and would be libel to prosecution i would think ??.

and yes semper fi i to thought maybe there might be more to the situation such as .

it is a different story if the gun collection teams are only collecting up abandoned unnattended fire arms in empty houses ect ,to stop them from falling into illegal hands, ????. just my thoughts on this matter.
It is a fact that these guns have been confiscated from live people. City officials are arguing that taking firearms away is necessary to restore order.
Thansk,

iBear
 
Mr.BadExample said:
I watched video of homeowners handcuffed outside their home, while it was searched. The guy later said "the cops were jealous because our guns were bigger than theirs." He had a pretty cavalier attitude about it, he probably thinks he'll get his guns back.
That is news. I had not seen that news clip. I suspect they won't show that one very often.

iBear
 
hawkwind said:
US are slowly but apparently turning into Stalinist russia.....
Youll end without guns and without justice....

This is done in manner of cooked frog syndrome. (If you throw a frog into kettle with cold water and slowly heat, the frog will be happy even in water hot as 70C. If you throw another frog in that hot water, it dies of temperature shock. That changes nothing at the fact that in the end youll have two boiled frogs.

Important - do it slowly, just like your government with citizens

Jaroslav
Action now is the key to our success. I care little for boiled frogs and strongly suspect that I would appreciate gun confiscation even less than being boiled.

Thanks,

iBear
 
cliff355 said:
Without question this is the intention of some, but not necessarily all. I just got a friendly email from Wayne LaPierre about this yesterday as probably many of you did. Undoubtedly those political hacks down there acted without thinking once again and they will be paying the piper for it.

In addition, it does not appear that there was any legal standing for a government entity to order those people out of their houses, regardless of what danger they were in as long as they were not creating a hazard for someone outside of their property.

I'll bet the Trial Lawyers are all out pumping iron to get ready for the exertion of all those "billable hours" coming up.
Excellent information. I had not heard that from the NRA yet. They probably have not sent out all of the NRA email notices yet.

Thanks,

iBear
 
If the authorities can’t keep track of where they bused peoples children how are they going to keep track of where your gun went?

What courthouse are the records of the confiscations going to be kept maybe the same one with all the destroyed criminal files?
 
hollowdweller said:
The basic problem is people believe that the 2nd amendment guarantees them the right to bear arms. I honestly believe it was intended to protect the right of the INDIVIDUAL.

However if you look at precedents, so far as I know no court has ruled that it does this. To their credit, as much as I dislike Bush he was the first admin to send someone from the AG office to argue before the court that is WAS an individual right, but I dont' think the court agreed.

Regarding the ACLU and speech, remember that the court essentially ruled that there was not an absolute freedom of speech in the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)


"The Court noted that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain "well-defined and narrowly limited" classes of speech that can be proscribed and regulated without constitutional problem. These include the "lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting words'." The Court defined fighting words as those words that "by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace"

My point to all this being that if the ACLU thought they had a fighting chance of upholding the 2nd as an individual right they would, but just like inflammatory speech they wouldn't probably try to overturn precedent unless they found some new and compelling way they though they could. :thumbdn:
The scholarship on the 2nd Amendment overwhelmingly agrees that it protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and not simply the right to arm the "militia".

In 1982, the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution evaluated the historical record, and unanimously concluded that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.

On March 30, 1999, Texas Federal Judge Sam Cummings ruled that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is a protected individual right - not just a right belonging to an organized militia: "A historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right".

Cummings further noted that the Supreme Court ruled in 1990 (in U.S. vs. Verdugo-Urquidez) that the "people" protected in the Second Amendment is the same "people" protected in the Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.
******************************************
"There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state (or Federal) against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution.

The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order. -- (Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 [1982]).

When scholars, at various law schools, have reviewed the 2nd Amendment... they have overwhelmingly concluded that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right!
Second.... as any lawyer knows.... a long standing precedent of individual gun ownership, determines the present time law.

The Second Amendment is the only amendment enumerated in the Bill of Rights that contains a stated purpose, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." This is a preamble, an introduction, a preface, a whereas, and not an instruction and therefore not part of law!

"The states rights reading of the Second Amendment puts great weight on the word "militia," but this word appears only in the Amendment’s subordinate clause." Yale Law School Prof., Akil Reed Amar, Bill of Rights as a Constitution, Yale Law Journal 1131, 1166 (1991).

"What is special about the 2nd Amendment is the inclusion of an opening clause--a preamble, if you will... No other clause is a part of any other Amendment." L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law.

How does Webster’s define subordinate clause?

subordinate clause: A clause that has a subject and predicate but does not express an independent idea. A subordinate clause depends on the rest of the sentence for its meaning. It does not express a complete thought, so it does not stand alone. It must always be attached to a main clause that completes the meaning. Subordinate clauses are sometimes called dependent clauses because they "depend" on a main clause to give them meaning.

"No other amendment has its own preface." William & Mary Rev, Guns, Words, and Constitutional Interpretation.

"The amendment is unique among the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, because its purpose is clearly expressed in the text." Erwin Griswold, Phantom Second Amendment ‘Rights.’ Washington Post 11/4/94.

It should be noted that the 2nd Amendment has two parts:
(1) an observation, or perhaps a cautionary note ("A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state") and
(2) a command or legal requirement ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed").

The language of the first clause imposes no legal requirement or restriction, on the federal government. Only the second clause indicates a right that the government cannot infringe." ‘To keep and Bear Arms: The Origin of an Anglo-American Right.’ By Robert J. Cottrol, Prof. of law, Reuters School of Law. Raymond T. Diamond, Prof. of law Tulane University School of Law.

A preamble "...is properly resorted to, where doubts or ambiguities arise upon the words of the enacted part, [but] "...never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government. It can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the source of any implied power...". - Justice Joseph Story

EXAMPLE: "Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear arms" applies to the right of the state to maintain a militia, [preamble] and not to the individual’s right to bear arms, [court places the preamble above the amendment right itself] there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm." [Based on the preamble] Stevens v. United States, (U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit).

The part before the comma is not law, and I’ll prove it to you: "The sky being pink, there shall be no pissing in the street." You don’t really think that the judge or his interpretation of the law, is going to care about your impressions of the color of the sky, do you? The law obviously is: Don’t piss in the street!!! The statement prior to the comma is just a statement of fact.

What if we wrote, “a properly functioning firearm being necessary to the security of individual Americans, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Would this mean that a properly functioning firearm was the law? Certainly not! The statement prior to the comma explains the reason for the law which follows after the comma.

Our judicial system has handed down "inconsistent or contradictory results" on a regular basis concerning the Second Amendment because of their inclusion of the preamble in their decisions. Many times, allowing it to take preeminence over the right itself.

Gun grabbers totally rely on the preamble to "restrain" the Second Amendment at every turn.

Thanks,

iBear
 
IIRC, the ACLU has taken the position that there is no individual right to bear arms. That would mean that "the people" means one thing in the First Amendement and something totally different (the government) in the Second Amendment. Bizzare but consistent with the fact that the ACLU has morphed into an action arm of the main-line political left.

The most you can say about SC decisions is that they recognized that the right to bear arms, like the right to freedom of speach, is subject to limitations. So no machine guns and no yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater [when there is no fire].

In addition, many state constitutions contain provisions like that of Ohio, which says, in the same paragraph, that standing armies are a threat to liberty and the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, which sorta kills the "militia" = "the people" nonsense.

The folks who wrote Amend. 2 had just killed the government's (King's) men in piles and trusted government not at all. The knew perfectly well who "the people" were. No respectable historian argues otherwise.

Moreover, under militia laws then existing in all thirteen original states (and in Ohio and many other states to this very day), the "militia" was all able-bodies males between certain ages, such as 18 and 50. Mensa, mensa.
 
There are two competing rulings at work concerning the 2nd amendment and
the individual.

In the 9th circuit, no there is not

In the 4th circuit, yes there is (US v Emerson) was upheld and denied a SC
hearing. Ironically the 4th circuit sits in... New Orleans

And there is precedent from the early 90's that said that "the people" means
just that.
 
Back
Top