Gun seized after Katrina? NRA wants you, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 14 times
Topic started on 27-2-2008 @ 11:09 PM by TrueAmerican

Gun seized after Katrina? NRA wants you


aftermathnews.wordpress.com
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.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.foxnews.com
www.officer.com
video.aol.com


reply posted on 27-2-2008 @ 11:09 PM by TrueAmerican
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.


Not only was it wrong for them to take the guns, exposing residents with no police protection to groups of armed thugs, robbers and criminals....But now we have one of the most notorious organizations that has implemented and lobbied for more gun control legislation than any other entity trying to save face by filing this lawsuit. A double edged sword here, for sure.

I would have much rather seen other TRUE gun ownership rights advocates file this suit. Hehe, like the people in Montana (you know the secession case, over the gun ban in DC?), if that rings any bells...

Even so, I hope they sue the royal you know what out of Nagin and Riley.

Does anyone here know of a death or injury case in Katrina that resulted because of the police/Guard seizing their weapon, and them not being able to protect themselves? I know there's gotta be at least one somewhere. I seem to remember that some people were robbed whose guns were taken by police/Guard.

Wouldn't it be great if there is an ATSer here who knowing this will now come forward and tell us their story. And better yet, call the NRA and get on board the lawsuit. We can never let this happen again.

What really pisses me off is that the police are now expecting those gun owners to show receipts for their guns in order to get them back. God, that makes me mad. Like someone is supposed to remember a gun receipt in the middle of trying to save their family's life? Grrrrrrrrrr. Why isn't just arbitrary proof of residence enough?

Other videos I have seen show cases where the owner asked for a receipt, agreeing to give up their firearm at gunpoint, only to be told to get a lawyer if they wanted their gun back, and "we'd be out here all day if we had to provide receipts."

Here's a video about it, showing several cases.



aftermathnews.wordpress.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 27-2-2008 by TrueAmerican]


reply posted on 28-2-2008 @ 12:42 AM by TrueAmerican
reply to post by GradyPhilpott



Interesting. She ever get it back? (forgive the one-liner please)


reply posted on 28-2-2008 @ 12:57 AM by TrueAmerican
reply to post by GradyPhilpott



Well, what's more important...A brief lump in the throat or suing the bejesus out of these two to help make sure this is never done again...?

Never know, that could be your town that gets hit next time.

[edit on 28-2-2008 by TrueAmerican]


reply posted on 28-2-2008 @ 01:28 AM by TrueAmerican
reply to post by FRIGHTENER





I won't ask if you'd rather not tell. But it's nice to know a few are aware of what is going on. It IS disturbing. That's why I think Grady ought to really think about calling his ex and letting her know about the suit, even if she did get the weapon back.

Interesting that over 1,000 weapons were seized, and yet only 700 were offered back to the public. Waterlogged or not, all of them need to be returned.

And what about them running criminal background checks on those seeking to retain their weapons? I mean come on. They didn't ask for the storm. Return the damn guns upon arbitrary proof of residence. I say arbitrary because there will probably be several cases that because people lost everything, that will be difficult in their case to prove.

They should just not let anyone see them up front and specify which weapon very descriptively. If the resident cannot conclusively show ownership, then put those to the back of the pack with an additional delay, and set a time limit, like a year or so. No one else claims it, it's theirs.


reply posted on 28-2-2008 @ 03:17 PM by TrueAmerican
reply to post by BlueRaja



I never thought we'd agree on anything BR, but welcome to the hopeful. But before I jump on your train, what positive results are you talking about?



reply posted on 28-2-2008 @ 03:30 PM by TrueAmerican
reply to post by BlueRaja



Yes. Many armed homeowners were spared, when they clearly let robbers know that it might cost them their lives over a ransacking. I could agree to the seizing of abandoned weapons in evacuated houses. Makes sense not to let the thieves get them, causing further armed looting or shootouts. But there is no reason to disarm a homeowner wanting to stay and protect their property. That one video of them attacking the poor little old lady was just over the top. Talk about infuriating!


reply posted on 28-2-2008 @ 03:50 PM by BlueRaja
Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to
post by BlueRaja



Yes. Many armed homeowners were spared, when they clearly let robbers know that it might cost them their lives over a ransacking. I could agree to the seizing of abandoned weapons in evacuated houses. Makes sense not to let the thieves get them, causing further armed looting or shootouts. But there is no reason to disarm a homeowner wanting to stay and protect their property. That one video of them attacking the poor little old lady was just over the top. Talk about infuriating!


Taking weapons from folks who have to/choose to stay is ridiculous. I could see if a home were abandoned, that you wouldn't want to leave weapons behind, but taking away the only defense someone has is asinine at best.


reply posted on 28-2-2008 @ 04:24 PM by TrueAmerican
reply to post by xpert11



Well, that video is just one, and it is included in the video posted in the OP. It is worth watching, for sure.

If you read the post above by FRIGHTENER, you might better understand what you could potentially be up against. Opening fire on the police or Guard is not too smart. You will die.

A better option is for the police and Guard to start taking some initiative to understand illegal orders, and make an effort to resist them. Even geniuses have trouble sometimes with common sense.


reply posted on 28-2-2008 @ 04:52 PM by TrueAmerican
reply to post by xpert11



There were reports of groups of residents that banded together with arms and patrolled their own neighborhood. Interestingly, they didn't seem to have too much trouble with being disarmed. It seems the police and Guard prefer scenarios where there is minimal risk and overwhelming odds in tactics, weapons and personnel. 15 or 20 guards against 40 civilians armed with high powered rifles and scopes could potentially suffer some losses, and may choose to back off instead.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^