Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Judge denies New Orleans motion to Dismiss

Discussion in 'Legal' started by xcheck, Aug 16, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. xcheck

    xcheck Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    Messages:
    38
    Today, in the Eastern District Court of Louisiana, Juge Carl Barbier denied New Orleans' motion to dismiss and ruled that the Plaintiffs had a valid claim. Next stop, discovery and pre-trial preparations. Good job NRA and SAF.

    Edit: The order dismissing is up on pacer
     
  2. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,717
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
  3. orangelo

    orangelo member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Texas
    Too bad nagin and his gungrabbing phantom police officers won't be doing time for deprivation of civil rights. :mad:
     
  4. xcheck

    xcheck Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    Messages:
    38
    You never know Orange, things may come out in litigation and discovery which pave the way for civil rights claims.


    On a side note, what is even more astonishing is that barbier is a Clinton Appointee.
     
  5. Nio

    Nio Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    Messages:
    221
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA
    Anybody got a link?

    I don't know what pacer is...

    Nio
     
  6. armoredman

    armoredman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    16,714
    Location:
    proud to be in AZ
    Really ugly little car...
     
  7. Dravur

    Dravur Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    2,742
    Location:
    Longmont, CO
    Hey now..

    At one time, I owned a 1976 Pacer X in white and blue. It was the coolest car ever! Ok, it was cool until the brakes fell out, but up until then, I was stylin!
     
  8. ChestyP

    ChestyP Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    312
    Location:
    Bellevue, WA
    Link

    http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=198

    If that doesn't work, go to http://www.saf.org and scroll about half way down the page to "press releases."



    JUDGE REJECTS MOTION TO DISMISS SAF LAWSUIT AGAINST NEW ORLEANS
    For Immediate Release: 8/16/2006

    BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) today won a key battle in an on-going lawsuit against the City of New Orleans, when a federal judge rejected the city’s motion to dismiss the case.

    SAF took New Orleans to court last year to stop illegal confiscation of firearms from private citizens in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Defendants in the case are the city, Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent Warren Riley. SAF was joined in the historic lawsuit by the National Rifle Association. Both organizations have members living in New Orleans.

    The ruling was issued by Judge Carl Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. He ordered the city to submit a response to the original lawsuit.

    “We’re encouraged by this latest ruling,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “For almost a year, we’ve been fighting the city’s delay tactics, which included outright lying by city officials that any firearms had been seized. Only when we threatened Mayor Nagin and Superintendent Riley with a motion for contempt did the city miraculously discover that they actually did have more than 1,000 firearms that had been taken from their owners.

    “We’re moving ahead with this lawsuit not only to protect the rights of gun owners in New Orleans,” Gottlieb continued, “but to also make sure that this serves as a warning to public officials across the country to forget about seizing firearms from their law-abiding owners in the event of a natural or man-made disaster.

    “The next step will include getting an accurate inventory of all confiscated firearms still in the city’s possession,” Gottlieb stated. “We’re not going to rest until every one of those guns is back in the hands of its rightful owner, and the city understands that it cannot defy a federal court order, state law or the Louisiana and federal constitutional provisions that guarantee the individual right to keep and bear arms.

    “We’re fighting to make sure this kind of outrage will never again happen on American soil,” he concluded.
     
  9. Brett Bellmore

    Brett Bellmore Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    979
    Location:
    Capac, Michigan
    Judge refuses New Orleans' request to dismiss NRA lawsuit

    Loved this bit:

     
  10. GoRon

    GoRon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,495
    Location:
    west burbs of Chicago
    OUTSTANDING!!

    On a side note my mom drove a Pacer for a while.

    [​IMG]
     
  11. Stryker60

    Stryker60 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2005
    Messages:
    15
  12. FTF

    FTF member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Messages:
    561
    Are these SAF folks worthy of joining up with? I'm an NRA member already. Seems like they're picking good issues but I'm wordering if they are as pantywaist as the NRA on others :confused:
     
  13. Ieyasu

    Ieyasu Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    597
    David Hardy's take (http:/www.armsandthelaw.com):
     
  14. Ieyasu

    Ieyasu Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    597
    Yep, and so is GOA(http://gunowners.org/), but keep that NRA membership!
     
  15. Brett Bellmore

    Brett Bellmore Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    979
    Location:
    Capac, Michigan
    The problem with this as a 2nd amendment test case, is that it was a case of police confiscating private property, without compensation, (Apparently even without record keeping, if we're to believe them.) and without any statutory authority. It would have been unconstitutional if they'd been confiscating Mars bars!

    So the Court could take the case, if they felt like it, and rule in our favor on the merits while completely ignoring the 2nd amendment.

    Until the Supreme court is willing to address the 2nd amendment, there simply isn't such a thing as "Supreme court material". They're capable of refusing cert to any case, no matter how good a test case it is.

    It's worth sending these cases up, every once in a while after a personel change, to see if we've got the votes to get cert. yet. But no case can compell the court to examine an issue it doesn't want to touch.
     
  16. xd9fan

    xd9fan Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,858
    Location:
    Under tyranny in Midwest
    IMHO nothing will ever really change until LEO's and politicians start going to jail for crimes like this. Otherwise its just court paperwork bravado....much ado about nothing. Rights really will never be respected by this group until they see one of their own do the "perp walk".
     
  17. BobTheTomato

    BobTheTomato Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Messages:
    612
    Location:
    Alabama
    I know they wont go to jail but it would be nice if they could be personally sued for monetary damages. That might make them think twice.
     
  18. munangokeewati

    munangokeewati Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    15
    Link?

    Could someone post a direct link to the document? I can't figure out how to get it without logging in and perhaps paying a fee.

    Thanks.
     
  19. xcheck

    xcheck Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    Messages:
    38
    I have the document and it is the header and simply says "Motion Denied"

    Transcripts might be available through the court, but certainly not for free.
     
  20. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,717
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Yes, they are. And because they fight our battles in the court and through education (rather than by lobbying our legislators), all money given to them is tax deductable :D
     
  21. hugh damright

    hugh damright Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    825
    It seems to me that the intent here is to reconstruct/incorporate the Second Amendment ... because if the intent was to win the case, then I think they would base it upon the Louisiana State Constitution declaring that "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged".
     
  22. xcheck

    xcheck Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    Messages:
    38
    That would be a very valid thought Hugh. COmbine that thought with the idea that the City was trying to use LA state of Emergency law as a defense, with the additional idea that by going after NOLA through the State Consititution would make it an issue for Louisiana courts to decide under the theory of Adequate and Independant State Grounds thereby removing it from Federal Court and you might have a winner.
     
  23. munangokeewati

    munangokeewati Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    15
    Documents found

    I finally found some of the relevant documents at http://www.saf.org. Hugh, you're right about one of the purposes being to probe 2A incorporation. This is from page 6 of the original complaint:

    -- http://www.saf.org/new.orleans.lawsuit/complaint.declaratory.injunctive.relief.pdf

    This looks like it could become a very interesting case.

    --M-K
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page