KATRINA: Were gun rights infringed upon?

[RedGlitter]

NRA Lawsuit: New Orleans Gun Owners' Rights Violated During Katrina Firearm Seizures

Wednesday, December 26, 2007





NEW ORLEANS —

The National Rifle Association has hired private investigators to find hundreds of people whose firearms were seized by city police in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, according to court papers filed this week. The NRA is trying to locate gun owners for a federal lawsuit that the lobbying group filed against Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent Warren Riley over the city's seizure of firearms after the Aug. 29, 2005, hurricane.

In the lawsuit, the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation claim the city violated gun owners' constitutional right to bear arms and left them "at the mercy of roving gangs, home invaders, and other criminals" after Katrina.

The NRA says the city seized more than 1,000 guns that weren't part of any criminal investigation after the hurricane. Police have said they took only guns that had been stolen or found in abandoned homes.

NRA lawyer Daniel Holliday said investigators have identified about 300 of the gun owners and located about 75 of them. Some of them could be called to testify during a trial, he added.

"Finding these folks has been a nightmare," Holliday said. "That is really the guts of our case — to establish that there was indeed a pattern of the police going out and taking people's guns without any legal reason to do so."

In April 2006, police made about 700 firearms available for owners to claim if they could present a bill of sale or an affidavit with the weapon's serial number.

An attorney for the city and a police department spokesman didn't return a reporter's telephone calls Wednesday.

Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Bellevue, Wash.-based Second Amendment Foundation, said the police department has returned only about 100 of the 1,000 seized guns.

"Obviously, we don't expect the city to find everybody. We only wanted to see a good-faith effort, and that's what the city didn't do," Gottlieb added. "It's a bad example to let them get away with it."

In court papers filed Monday, NRA attorneys say finding the gun owners has been difficult because the storm has scattered so many residents.

New Orleans had an estimated 455,000 residents before Katrina, but less than two-thirds of that number live there now.

The NRA is asking for a delay in the trial, set to begin Feb. 19, saying they need more time to find gun owners. U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier had not yet ruled on the request Wednesday.

[Accountable]

The police were caught flat-footed and clueless as to how to handle such an incomprehensible situation. Being people of action, they saw something they could do and did it: they confiscated weapons. Unfortunately it was one thing they could not legally do.



The police put good people at risk of harm because they left the citizens defenseless and undefended.

[suzycreamcheese]

surely the people of New Orleans would have had more pressing issues to deal with than the fact they didnt have anything to shoot anyone else with.

I just dont "get" gun rights or why anyone should have a gun anyway except maybe police and the army

[Accountable]

suzycreamcheese;748547 wrote: surely the people of New Orleans would have had more pressing issues to deal with than the fact they didnt have anything to shoot anyone else with.



I just dont "get" gun rights or why anyone should have a gun anyway except maybe police and the army
Arnold, I miss you!!!





People needed to protect their property against looters. During the disaster, the army weren't in town and most of the police had fled. As for the rest, chalk it up to cultural differences. :yh_flag

[suzycreamcheese]

arnold????

well yeah im sure it is cultural, but i dont think its a good thing to add shootings to lootings

[Accountable]

suzycreamcheese;748589 wrote: arnold????



well yeah im sure it is cultural, but i dont think its a good thing to add shootings to lootings
Arnold Layne (I think I spelled it right) is an old friend who deleted his account. He may be here under another name. Anyway, we went round and round about why the UK doesn't allow gun ownership. You brought back fond memories is all. :-6

[suzycreamcheese]

oh i see.

I hope you dont think thats me!

Its not a subject I feel particularly militant about. i just am glad the UK has strict gun laws.

Makes for less people getting shot, thats for sure

[Accountable]

suzycreamcheese;748603 wrote: oh i see.

I hope you dont think thats me!



Its not a subject I feel particularly militant about. i just am glad the UK has strict gun laws.

Makes for less people getting shot, thats for sure
Oh Arnold was hardly militant, but he was passionate and I sorely miss him.

ArnoldLayne;171674 wrote: gmc highlights very well the differences in our cultures . Sorry America but you are gonna have to deal with the lack of gun culture here and accept the differences. We will, after having subjected ourselves to a few more changes in government, work it out, by persuing a different way of dealing with our problems, other than pretending the American way is the right way.



I dont know how many times I have said this but I'll say it again. You keep your guns if you wish and respect our wish not to go down that road. Your system works for you , ours works for us
Sorry for my self-indulgence. We now return to our scheduled subject.

[suzycreamcheese]

well i kind of agree with him, although I cant say that I feel that the UK is being pressured to have more relaxed gun laws. The gun thing is something I find quite scary about America in general, but there doesnt seem to be any move in the UK towards that, so its all good

[Galbally]

Its my experience that these debates between Brits and Americans about gun laws are pointless, as in America gun ownership is an extremely ideological thing, and I don't see that changing any day soon, so I will leave that one alone. As for the question, I have no idea and I don't really care, though it would seem a secondary issue compared to the extreme stupidity of leaving the infrastructure of New Orleans so vunerable to a catagory 5 hurricane, particularly when the structural engineers in charge of the levee system had been warning that exactly this type of event was going to happen if they were not upgraded, then of course the badly organized response was the next issue, but hopefully a lot of lessons will have been learned in the US and elsewhere where major cities are potentially vunerable to such catastrophic natural disasters.

[Accountable]

Galbally;748619 wrote: Its my experience that these debates between Brits and Americans about gun laws are pointless, as in America gun ownership is an extremely ideological thing, and I don't see that changing any day soon, so I will leave that one alone. As for the question, I have no idea and I don't really care, though it would seem a secondary issue compared to the extreme stupidity of leaving the infrastructure of New Orleans so vunerable to a catagory 5 hurricane, particularly when the structural engineers in charge of the levee system had been warning that exactly this type of event was going to happen if they were not upgraded, then of course the badly organized response was the next issue, but hopefully a lot of lessons will have been learned in the US and elsewhere where major cities are potentially vunerable to such catastrophic natural disasters.
Too bad the lesson had to be learned at the expense of such an important part of our culture. Make no mistake, New Orleans is gone forever. The corpse will be replaced, but only with a themepark imitation of the original.

[Galbally]

Accountable;748623 wrote: Too bad the lesson had to be learned at the expense of such an important part of our culture. Make no mistake, New Orleans is gone forever. The corpse will be replaced, but only with a themepark imitation of the original.


Unfortunatly, I think you are probably right. :-1