New Orleans Admits to They [still] have Seized Guns

Paladin · Post by **Paladin** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:33 am

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=62434

"New Orleans Admits to SAF Attorneys They Have Seized Guns

3/15/2006 6:23:00 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National and State Desks

Contact: Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation, 425-454-7012, Web: http://www.saf.org

BELLEVUE, Wash., March 15 /U.S. Newswire/ -- In a stunning reversal, the City of New Orleans revealed today to attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association that they do have a stockpile of firearms seized from private citizens in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

The disclosure came as attorneys for both sides were preparing for a hearing in federal court on a motion filed earlier by SAF and NRA to hold the city in contempt. Plaintiffs' attorneys traveled to a location within the New Orleans city limits where they viewed more than 1,000 firearms that were being stored.

"This is a very significant event," said attorney Dan Holliday, who represents NRA and SAF in an on-going lawsuit seeking to enjoin the city from seizing privately-owned firearms.

"We're almost in disbelief," admitted SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb. "For months, the city has maintained it did not have any guns in its possession that had been taken from people following the hurricane. Now our attorneys have seen the proof that New Orleans was less than honest with the court."

Under an agreement with the court, the hearing on the contempt motion has been continued for two weeks, the attorneys said. During that time, according to Holliday and fellow attorney Stephen Halbrook, the city will establish a process by which the lawful owners of those firearms can recover their guns.

"While we are stunned at this complete reversal on the city's part," Gottlieb said, "the important immediate issue is making sure gun owners get their property back. We're glad that the city is going to move swiftly to make that possible, and naturally we will do whatever is necessary to make this happen.

"What happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina was an outrage," Gottlieb observed. "Equally disturbing is the fact that it apparently took a motion for contempt to force the city to admit what it had been denying for the past five months.

-----

The Second Amendment Foundation (http://www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. "

jimlongley · Post by **jimlongley** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:45 am

At New Orleans airport, during the "sleep in" (a TSA nickname which is ironic due to the LACK of sleep) and evacuation, many, many guns were "voluntarily surrendered" at the airport, presumeably to TSA and the Federal Gov't. I wonder what their fate is.

According to the people that I used to work with, and who were there, the passengers were not even given the option of placing their firearms in checked bags, and I understand that some were removed too.

I know that at least one screener that I used to work with has a picturee of one of the barrels that firearms were just unceremoniously dumped into - I'll have to see if I can get a copy.

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:35 am

Why hold the city in contempt???

Why not call it and charge it like it is...Theft...

And in some cases: Aggrivated Theft...

That would increase the pucker factor quite a bit...

Who's got Alan's number???

KinnyLee · Post by **KinnyLee** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:49 am

stevie_d_64 wrote:Why hold the city in contempt???

Why not call it and charge it like it is...Theft...

And in some cases: Aggrivated Theft...

That would increase the pucker factor quite a bit...

Who's got Alan's number???

Theft is more like a criminal offense. Wouldn't it be better if you pursue this in a civil matter? Might as well get some money out of the city. It's not like they're broke enough as is. lol. A sting in their pocket book will probably make them think twice before they confiscate firearms from law abiding citizens again.

Kalrog · Post by **Kalrog** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 12:05 pm

Both?

Post by **Charles L. Cotton** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 12:13 pm

Contempt in this setting is quasi-criminal. The judge has the power to issue monetary sanctions and to put people in jail. With a governmental entity, it's harder to put someone in jail because it's harder to make a judicial determination of the individual responsible for disobeying a court order. It's much easier, however, for the judge to look someone in the eye and remind them they lied to him about not having any guns! This could work out very well for the cause.

BTW, this is NRA's suit with NRA's attorneys - SAF is a second-named Plaintiff. I'm not condemning the SAF by any means, but Iâ€™d appreciate a little more clarity from them as to who's carrying the financial burden of the suit and who's doing the work.

Chas.

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 12:15 pm

Yeah, but N.O. is broke as a joke...Can't squeeze blood from a turnip...And I sure don't want property in the area...

All kidding aside, This issue, and the situation with the guy who was charged and jailed incorrectly up in New Jersey (see thread from yesterday)...A real penalty needs to be assessed upon these officials that sends a real tangible message to others harboring the same ideas...

jbirds1210 · Post by **jbirds1210** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:10 pm

This might go without saying for most of us....but I will never spend another dime in New Orleans. This is a city that I used to love and spend time at on at least six serparate times during each year! There is no way I would return and pay taxes in a restaurant or hotel to support the government that will not trust in me my constitutional rights

I hope that another American city can someday capture the Europen "feeling" that New Orleans once had....perhaps it is part of our culture that has been lost. I have a feeling that the city of New Orleans is going to get exaclty what they asked for, and I am a firm believer in awarding people that! I truely believe that this incident is amongst many of the urgent reasons to support the National Rifle Association! If something like that were to happen here we would need some really "heavy hitting" constitutional lawyers here on the ground PDQ! Please forgive my rant, but if this stuff does not get under your skin.....think about it for a little while!
Jason

longtooth · Post by **longtooth** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:28 pm

All truth & no rant jbird. Stevie. I guess I missed the thread yesterday on the guy in New Jersey. Tell me the title & I wll go back to it. Thanks.

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:28 pm

Here you go "LT"...

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... php?t=1842

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:33 pm

Charles...

Not knowing all the particulars of the suit, is SAF's participation a burden, or an asset???

Are they acting on behalf (or to assist) of the NRA and this person, or are they riding coat-tails???

I would hope they are assisting, which I think they are...

I'm not being critical...I want to be clear in my own mind that we're not creating alphabet soup with all the acronymic participants and the focus being on the players and not get anywhere with the lawsuit...

I think this is one of those cases where we really need to make an impact...

Post by **Charles L. Cotton** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:08 pm

Steve:
SAF is not a burden at all. Like the NRA, they want to participate to help their members and gun owners in general, that's why they were added as an additional named plaintiff.

Chas.

KBCraig · Post by **KBCraig** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:13 am

stevie_d_64 wrote:Charles...

Not knowing all the particulars of the suit, is SAF's participation a burden, or an asset???

Are they acting on behalf (or to assist) of the NRA and this person, or are they riding coat-tails???

I think SAF claims that NRA are the ones riding coat-tails.

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:13 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Steve:
SAF is not a burden at all. Like the NRA, they want to participate to help their members and gun owners in general, that's why they were added as an additional named plaintiff.

Chas.

Good...All I was doing was playing to what I thought some detractors might say if they see all the tag teaming of people piling onto this deal...

I totally am for pulling all the stops out on this one, and this being such an abhorant abuse of power...

I think it deserves both barrels...Pardon the pun...