Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
New Orleans Shuffle re. Confiscation Now Under Way (LINK TO TRO ADDED)
Some interesting developments are under way in New Orleans in regards to legal actions undertaken to stop confiscations of legally owned firearms from residents of New Orleans and surrounding areas. The TRO (temporary restraining order) seems to have had much the same effect as turning on the light in a roach- infested kitchen- the vermin have started scuttling for cover.
I would very much like to see the full text of the TRO, if anyone has the document please post it here. I have had no success in locating it, but it is apparently available from some source or other.
The 'weasel words' in the responses from the officials in NO to the TRO so far seem to be "lawfully possessed firearm." No doubt that is the loophole they will try to widen enough to wriggle through- that no "lawfully possessed firearms" were seized.
I am finding little to nothing about this situation anywhere in 'usual sources' and what little I am seeing is coming from bloggers. Here are a couple of entries that might prove to be interesting to anyone watching this situation develop.
lpl/nc
========================
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2005_09_18_archive.html#112750612015447953
NRA Wins Restraining Order Against Gun Confiscations
According to this NRA press release:
(Fairfax, VA) -- The United States District Court for the Eastern District in Louisiana today sided with the National Rifle Association (NRA) and issued a restraining order to bar further gun confiscations from peaceable and law-abiding victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.
There's nothing identifying on what basis this order was issued, and I can't find the order on the Eastern District of Louisiana website (they are having some problems at the moment). It is nice to win, but it would even be nicer if we won based on the Second Amendment, or at least on the Louisiana Constitution's right to keep and bear arms provision:
The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.
UPDATE: I've received a copy of the restraining order--it doesn't say anything about why it was issued, except that the Mayor of New Orleans, the Police Chief, and the Sheriff's Department all acknowledge that they have no authority to seize lawfully possessed firearms:
Defendants, C. Ray Nagin, Mayor of New Orleans and P. Edwin Compass, III, Superintendent of Police for the City of New Orleans, deny the allegations in the Complaint For Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief and specifically deny that it was or is the policy of the City of New Orleans nor the New Orleans Police Department to illegally seize lawfully possessed firearms from citizens;
Defendants C. Ray Nagin, Mayor of the City of New Orleans, and P. Edwin Compass, III, Superintendent of the Department of Police for the City of New Orleans, specifically deny each and every allegation in the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief and specifically reserving all rights herein and waiving none, assert the following:
1. C. Ray Nagin has not issued, nor has he any intention of issuing, any order, declaration, promulgation, and/or directive pursuant to the authority granted unto him by LSA-R.S. 29:721, et seq., ordering the seizure of any lawfully-possessed firearm from law abiding citizens, nor has C. Ray Nagin delegated any authority granted unto him pursuant to LSA-RS 29:721, et seq. to any other city official, department head, officer, employee, and/or agent of the City of New Orleans including, but not limited to, P. Edwin Compass, III, Superintendent of the Department of Police for the City of New Orleans and/or Warren Riley, Deputy Superintendent of the Department of Police of the City of New Orleans;
2. P. Edwin Compass, III acknowledges that no authority has been delegated to him by C. Ray Nagin, Mayor of the City of New Orleans, pursuant to the powers granted unto the said Mayor by the provisions of LSA-RS 29:721, et seq. to order the seizure of lawfully-possessed firearms from law abiding citizens and that any and all statements which are allegedly attributed to him in such regard do not represent any policy, statement, ordinance, regulation, decision, custom or practice of either C. Ray Nagin or the City of New Orleans, its agencies and/or departments;
3. C. Ray Nagin and P. Edwin Compass, III affirmatively deny that seizures of lawfully possessed firearms from law abiding citizens has occurred as a result of the actions of officers, city officials, employees and/or agents of the City of New Orleans or any of its departments and further affirmatively deny that any such weapons are presently in the possession of the City of New Orleans, its agents and/or departments;
4. C. Ray Nagin and P. Edwin Compass, III further affirmatively deny that it is the custom, practice and/or policy of the City of New Orleans, either officially or unofficially, to seize and/or confiscate lawfully-possessed firearms from law abiding citizens.
Okay, I'm confused. News coverage said that the police were seizing all firearms. Now the appropriate officials deny that they will do it, can do it, or did do it.
posted by Clayton at 2:05 PM
=================================
http://triggerfinger.org/weblog/index.jsp
Cramer has a copy of the NO injunction...
... and it doesn't quite add up. As far as I can tell, it amounts to a claim that the confiscation never happened and was not official policy. They are on videotape about this ("Only the police can have guns"). We have at least one report (via the Geek with a .45, only 2 degrees from the eyewitness) of National Guard units confiscating firearms. We have a video of what are, apparantly, California Highway Patrol officers tackling an old woman to take her revolver, and leaving gun owners in handcuffs while their weapons were confiscated ("They were jealous because ours were bigger than theirs.").
I expect that the city will now engage in a massive coverup, and simultaneously try to argue that they only confiscated guns from people who were somehow not law-abiding; they'll probably claim any confiscations were from people who threatened the police. Remember that this is all after-the-fact whitewashing. We have them on tape.
UPDATE: We still don't know exactly what happened in that New Orleans courtroom. But thanks to this interview ( http://triggerfinger.org/archive/neworleans/alan-alex.mp3 ) with Alan Gottlieb of the 2nd Amendment Foundation, recorded just before the injunction was issued, we can start to guess. In it, Alan says that the judge is waiting for one thing: he wanted to see the video clip himself. So we can presume that the judge saw the denials from the Nagin and Compass and wanted to see evidence that they were lying to him. Reasonable, and since he later issued the injunction, it appears he was satisfied.
In order to figure out what's going on, it's useful to summarize and paraphrase the confusing statements in the injunction:
Nagin states he has neither ordered the seizure of lawfully-possessed firearms from law-abiding citizens, nor delegated the authority to do so.
Compass acknowledges that he was not delegated the authority to do so from Nagin, and any alleged statements from him to that effect do not represent the policy of Nagin personally or the City of New Orleans.
Nagin and Compass deny that any seizures occurred.
Nagin and Compass deny that it is the policy or practice to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens, either officially or unofficially.
So, can we figure out what is going on by finding a version of events that is consistent with this statement and with the news reports we have seen?
I will start by taking a moment to point out that the ABC news video does NOT name the police officer making the statement. It has been attributed to Compass in print but not in the video itself. Similarly, it's risky to take the claims of Nagin and Compass in court at face value; their lawyers may well want to concede nothing at all at this early stage, especially if they don't see any way to defend their actions legally. So with that in mind, here's what I deduce from the injunction:
First, Nagin is hanging Compass out to dry. Nagin claims he did not delegate any authority and Compass affirms that. Nagin will blame his underlings, deny having anything to do with it, and get away with it unless there's something written down or on tape with his name attached.
Second, Compass acknowledges that he was not delegated any authority to order confiscations from the Mayor, and that any statements attributed to him to that effect do not represent the policy of Nagin or the City of New Orleans.
Third, Nagin and Compass deny that any seizures took place. This should probably be read to mean that they do not admit to knowing any seizures took place. If they can't sustain that denial they can claim that they thought their seizures were lawful and still be within the bounds of this statement. If they can't sustain that they may be able to claim that out-of-state officers and National Guard troops conducted the seizures without orders. They may be preparing to claim that people disobeying mandatory evacuation orders are not law-abiding citizens. They may also be preparing to pass the buck downwards.
Fourth, Nagin and Compass deny that seizing firearms from law-abiding citizens is the policy of the City of New Orleans. The only way this makes any sense at all when combined with the video we have is if the video is not Compass talking, or if the context of the video has a lot more information than we're seeing. I can't rule out either possibility, although the man in the video does look like Compass (compare with other images of Compass).
Overall, though, it's clear that Nagin doesn't want to defend the confiscations and is hanging his subordinate out to dry (whether deserved or not). Compass may be sincerely denying any knowledge, or more likely, his lawyers are conceding nothing as part of their defense strategy. Either way, he's not saying that no seizures took place; he's saying that no illegal seizures took place.
This is not a real denial that confiscations took place; it's a**-covering.
UPDATE: I was able to obtain the full court order from Clayton Cramer. There are two interesting points from the material he did not quote. First, there is a simple declaration that the injunction does not contravene any presently-declared state of emergency within the state. This might have the effect of rendering it powerless, if there is in fact a (purportedly) legal power to confiscate firearms during a state of emergency. Second, and potentially much more serious, the order requires the defendents to return confiscated firearms upon the presentation of identification and a receipt.
Although the situation is obviously still very chaotic, in all the reports I have read or seen, only one mentioned receipts. That report indicated that receipts were not being given.
I can't imagine that the NRA/SAF lawyers would have overlooked that. Either their plaintiff has a receipt, or the judge wasn't listening to the part about not giving out receipts.
Following this one is going to be interesting.
=================
edited to fix an oops
-and modify title
Some interesting developments are under way in New Orleans in regards to legal actions undertaken to stop confiscations of legally owned firearms from residents of New Orleans and surrounding areas. The TRO (temporary restraining order) seems to have had much the same effect as turning on the light in a roach- infested kitchen- the vermin have started scuttling for cover.
I would very much like to see the full text of the TRO, if anyone has the document please post it here. I have had no success in locating it, but it is apparently available from some source or other.
The 'weasel words' in the responses from the officials in NO to the TRO so far seem to be "lawfully possessed firearm." No doubt that is the loophole they will try to widen enough to wriggle through- that no "lawfully possessed firearms" were seized.
I am finding little to nothing about this situation anywhere in 'usual sources' and what little I am seeing is coming from bloggers. Here are a couple of entries that might prove to be interesting to anyone watching this situation develop.
lpl/nc
========================
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2005_09_18_archive.html#112750612015447953
NRA Wins Restraining Order Against Gun Confiscations
According to this NRA press release:
(Fairfax, VA) -- The United States District Court for the Eastern District in Louisiana today sided with the National Rifle Association (NRA) and issued a restraining order to bar further gun confiscations from peaceable and law-abiding victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.
There's nothing identifying on what basis this order was issued, and I can't find the order on the Eastern District of Louisiana website (they are having some problems at the moment). It is nice to win, but it would even be nicer if we won based on the Second Amendment, or at least on the Louisiana Constitution's right to keep and bear arms provision:
The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.
UPDATE: I've received a copy of the restraining order--it doesn't say anything about why it was issued, except that the Mayor of New Orleans, the Police Chief, and the Sheriff's Department all acknowledge that they have no authority to seize lawfully possessed firearms:
Defendants, C. Ray Nagin, Mayor of New Orleans and P. Edwin Compass, III, Superintendent of Police for the City of New Orleans, deny the allegations in the Complaint For Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief and specifically deny that it was or is the policy of the City of New Orleans nor the New Orleans Police Department to illegally seize lawfully possessed firearms from citizens;
Defendants C. Ray Nagin, Mayor of the City of New Orleans, and P. Edwin Compass, III, Superintendent of the Department of Police for the City of New Orleans, specifically deny each and every allegation in the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief and specifically reserving all rights herein and waiving none, assert the following:
1. C. Ray Nagin has not issued, nor has he any intention of issuing, any order, declaration, promulgation, and/or directive pursuant to the authority granted unto him by LSA-R.S. 29:721, et seq., ordering the seizure of any lawfully-possessed firearm from law abiding citizens, nor has C. Ray Nagin delegated any authority granted unto him pursuant to LSA-RS 29:721, et seq. to any other city official, department head, officer, employee, and/or agent of the City of New Orleans including, but not limited to, P. Edwin Compass, III, Superintendent of the Department of Police for the City of New Orleans and/or Warren Riley, Deputy Superintendent of the Department of Police of the City of New Orleans;
2. P. Edwin Compass, III acknowledges that no authority has been delegated to him by C. Ray Nagin, Mayor of the City of New Orleans, pursuant to the powers granted unto the said Mayor by the provisions of LSA-RS 29:721, et seq. to order the seizure of lawfully-possessed firearms from law abiding citizens and that any and all statements which are allegedly attributed to him in such regard do not represent any policy, statement, ordinance, regulation, decision, custom or practice of either C. Ray Nagin or the City of New Orleans, its agencies and/or departments;
3. C. Ray Nagin and P. Edwin Compass, III affirmatively deny that seizures of lawfully possessed firearms from law abiding citizens has occurred as a result of the actions of officers, city officials, employees and/or agents of the City of New Orleans or any of its departments and further affirmatively deny that any such weapons are presently in the possession of the City of New Orleans, its agents and/or departments;
4. C. Ray Nagin and P. Edwin Compass, III further affirmatively deny that it is the custom, practice and/or policy of the City of New Orleans, either officially or unofficially, to seize and/or confiscate lawfully-possessed firearms from law abiding citizens.
Okay, I'm confused. News coverage said that the police were seizing all firearms. Now the appropriate officials deny that they will do it, can do it, or did do it.
posted by Clayton at 2:05 PM
=================================
http://triggerfinger.org/weblog/index.jsp
Cramer has a copy of the NO injunction...
... and it doesn't quite add up. As far as I can tell, it amounts to a claim that the confiscation never happened and was not official policy. They are on videotape about this ("Only the police can have guns"). We have at least one report (via the Geek with a .45, only 2 degrees from the eyewitness) of National Guard units confiscating firearms. We have a video of what are, apparantly, California Highway Patrol officers tackling an old woman to take her revolver, and leaving gun owners in handcuffs while their weapons were confiscated ("They were jealous because ours were bigger than theirs.").
I expect that the city will now engage in a massive coverup, and simultaneously try to argue that they only confiscated guns from people who were somehow not law-abiding; they'll probably claim any confiscations were from people who threatened the police. Remember that this is all after-the-fact whitewashing. We have them on tape.
UPDATE: We still don't know exactly what happened in that New Orleans courtroom. But thanks to this interview ( http://triggerfinger.org/archive/neworleans/alan-alex.mp3 ) with Alan Gottlieb of the 2nd Amendment Foundation, recorded just before the injunction was issued, we can start to guess. In it, Alan says that the judge is waiting for one thing: he wanted to see the video clip himself. So we can presume that the judge saw the denials from the Nagin and Compass and wanted to see evidence that they were lying to him. Reasonable, and since he later issued the injunction, it appears he was satisfied.
In order to figure out what's going on, it's useful to summarize and paraphrase the confusing statements in the injunction:
Nagin states he has neither ordered the seizure of lawfully-possessed firearms from law-abiding citizens, nor delegated the authority to do so.
Compass acknowledges that he was not delegated the authority to do so from Nagin, and any alleged statements from him to that effect do not represent the policy of Nagin personally or the City of New Orleans.
Nagin and Compass deny that any seizures occurred.
Nagin and Compass deny that it is the policy or practice to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens, either officially or unofficially.
So, can we figure out what is going on by finding a version of events that is consistent with this statement and with the news reports we have seen?
I will start by taking a moment to point out that the ABC news video does NOT name the police officer making the statement. It has been attributed to Compass in print but not in the video itself. Similarly, it's risky to take the claims of Nagin and Compass in court at face value; their lawyers may well want to concede nothing at all at this early stage, especially if they don't see any way to defend their actions legally. So with that in mind, here's what I deduce from the injunction:
First, Nagin is hanging Compass out to dry. Nagin claims he did not delegate any authority and Compass affirms that. Nagin will blame his underlings, deny having anything to do with it, and get away with it unless there's something written down or on tape with his name attached.
Second, Compass acknowledges that he was not delegated any authority to order confiscations from the Mayor, and that any statements attributed to him to that effect do not represent the policy of Nagin or the City of New Orleans.
Third, Nagin and Compass deny that any seizures took place. This should probably be read to mean that they do not admit to knowing any seizures took place. If they can't sustain that denial they can claim that they thought their seizures were lawful and still be within the bounds of this statement. If they can't sustain that they may be able to claim that out-of-state officers and National Guard troops conducted the seizures without orders. They may be preparing to claim that people disobeying mandatory evacuation orders are not law-abiding citizens. They may also be preparing to pass the buck downwards.
Fourth, Nagin and Compass deny that seizing firearms from law-abiding citizens is the policy of the City of New Orleans. The only way this makes any sense at all when combined with the video we have is if the video is not Compass talking, or if the context of the video has a lot more information than we're seeing. I can't rule out either possibility, although the man in the video does look like Compass (compare with other images of Compass).
Overall, though, it's clear that Nagin doesn't want to defend the confiscations and is hanging his subordinate out to dry (whether deserved or not). Compass may be sincerely denying any knowledge, or more likely, his lawyers are conceding nothing as part of their defense strategy. Either way, he's not saying that no seizures took place; he's saying that no illegal seizures took place.
This is not a real denial that confiscations took place; it's a**-covering.
UPDATE: I was able to obtain the full court order from Clayton Cramer. There are two interesting points from the material he did not quote. First, there is a simple declaration that the injunction does not contravene any presently-declared state of emergency within the state. This might have the effect of rendering it powerless, if there is in fact a (purportedly) legal power to confiscate firearms during a state of emergency. Second, and potentially much more serious, the order requires the defendents to return confiscated firearms upon the presentation of identification and a receipt.
Although the situation is obviously still very chaotic, in all the reports I have read or seen, only one mentioned receipts. That report indicated that receipts were not being given.
I can't imagine that the NRA/SAF lawyers would have overlooked that. Either their plaintiff has a receipt, or the judge wasn't listening to the part about not giving out receipts.
Following this one is going to be interesting.
=================
edited to fix an oops
-and modify title
Last edited: