ACLU Files Suit Over Gun Rights - NOLA

[bcj1755]

Originally Posted by SaddleSarge

There's more to this story than what's available to be researched, I believe. But to read some of the errant statements above, disgusts me.

The officers OBVIOUSLY must have made an arrest in this case "just because," since the ACLU is clearly going after the unconstitutional arrest and violations of the 4th amendment in this case....oh yeah, THEY'RE NOT!! So that tells me that the probable cause to search/arrest/& take this gentleman's 4th amendment rights away was flipping present.

So, with this fellow being such an upstanding member and pillar of the community and the police the opposite (once again the prevailing theme here by so many on this board without giving unknown facts their due weight prior to coming to judgement), let's continue to be completely ignorant and give him his firearm back no matter what the facts are as to the original case.

Just for giggles and stimulating the unused brain cells, maybe this guy was selling illegal narcotics to children, the gun was located in the search pursuant to arrest, he's a friend of the DA (not the stupid cops who arrest based on only a measure of confusion and not knowing), so let's not make him show proof that he owns the thing before it is given back.

I'll hold my judgement until the rest of the facts of the ACTUAL CASE are known.... but it has certainly cleared my judgement in other areas around here.

Oh, I agree that something seems to be missing from the story. Like I said, if the guy actually committed no crime and was legally able to own it, then his pistol should be returned. If the gun was illegal, then no, he should not get it back. Like mrkirker said, some of us have a hard time trusting anything from the "fair and impartial" media. It's also strange that the ACLU would take a case involving firearms. The story makes it seem like his pistol was taken because of the charges that were filed and then dropped. Of course, the NOPD doesn't really have the best track record when it comes to the 2nd amendment either.

[SaddleSarge]

Originally Posted by bcj1755

It's also strange that the ACLU would take a case involving firearms.

I don't think it's strange at all. The goal in common with many thoughts espoused here in this thread have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment at all, it is merely anti-law enforcement no matter the facts. Even though it's the D.A. and not the "police." Issues regardless of facts being known make strange bedfellows.

I agree that if the pillar community member can show/prove rightful ownership and nothing precludes him from getting it back, he should.

I will continue to watch N.O. and their law enforcement officers with a critical eye after the B.S. following Katrina with the firearms confiscation, but I will be fair in each instance so that I myself am not guilty of accusation without an informed decision..... something many here are incapable of doing. For instance: such as the police not having anything to do with the lack of return. The same person, the "D.A.," that refused to file the case is the one refusing to return the firearm. So, many need to go back and actually read with comprehension of what the facts are according to the article and not what their emotions are scapegoating.

The suit says the district attorney's office declined to prosecute Houston but has refused to return his .40 caliber firearm.

But then, I'm just, "confused."

[bcj1755]

Originally Posted by SaddleSarge

I don't think it's strange at all. The goal in common with many thoughts espoused here in this thread have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment at all, it is merely anti-law enforcement no matter the facts. Even though it's the D.A. and not the "police." Issues regardless of facts being known make strange bedfellows.

I agree that if the pillar community member can show/prove rightful ownership and nothing precludes him from getting it back, he should.

I will continue to watch N.O. and their law enforcement officers with a critical eye after the B.S. following Katrina with the firearms confiscation, but I will be fair in each instance so that I myself am not guilty of accusation without an informed decision..... something many here are incapable of doing. For instance: such as the police not having anything to do with the lack of return. The same person, the "D.A.," that refused to file the case is the one refusing to return the firearm. So, many need to go back and actually read with comprehension of what the facts are according to the article and not what their emotions are scapegoating.


But then, I'm just, "confused."

In my posts, I used the word "they," which could be taken to mean the PD, I meant "they" as in the DA's office. I appologize for not being more clear on that. I'm not "anti-law enforcement" as you say. I always try to help LEOs if I possibly can. But you do have to admit that there are some LEOs that do try to stomp on people's civil rights, though they are few and far between. Those are the ones that give all of them a bad name. Luckily in my area, the LEOs are generally respectful of peoples' rights and are good people trying to enforce the law and keep the public safe.

This is the first time I think I've really seen the ACLU touch anything involving a firearm, mostly what I've seen them do is try to stand up for "oppressed minorites" or try to get criminals off the hook because the criminal was "victimized" by the system. Part of what people have been saying in this post stems from the fact that all of us here know that gov't confiscation of firearms is coming eventually, whether on a federal level of on a local level in some areas. We all know that's coming, and I really hope and pray that the LEOs will not get involved with it, but the aftermath of Katrina shows that some LEOs will be more than happy to do so.

The story was very light on info, was the guy a convicted felon and not allowed to own the pistol? Was the pistol his? Was it stolen? If he was legal then it should have been returned. If he wasn't, then it should not be returned.

[SaddleSarge]

BCJ,

my comments were not directed at you and I apologize if they were taken as such. My comments are directed at those who espoused opinions, or would espouse such on a group as a whole that was not a point of the article posted.

The issue and position presented was solely that of the D.A., not any other entity.

Yes, unfortunately there are those officers that will make concessions to their ideals and oaths if our fears ever come to fruition, just as there are gun owners and citizens that will not stand up for their rights be it firearms or any social issue that we may face. Many will just roll over and present their vital areas.

[bcj1755]

Originally Posted by SaddleSarge

BCJ,

my comments were not directed at you and I apologize if they were taken as such. My comments are directed at those who espoused opinions, or would espouse such on a group as a whole that was not a point of the article posted.

The issue and position presented was solely that of the D.A., not any other entity.

Yes, unfortunately there are those officers that will make concessions to their ideals and oaths if our fears ever come to fruition, just as there are gun owners and citizens that will not stand up for their rights be it firearms or any social issue that we may face. Many will just roll over and present their vital areas.

I've talked to many LEOs that have expressed...displeasure...with the DA's office here for many reasons.

Sadly, you are very right about how many people will roll over and take it when the feds kick in doors to collect guns. I know that some LEOs will join Freddie the Fed in his efforts, but I know a few that I'm pretty sure would honor their oath to defend the Constitution instead of helping King-Emperor Barack I His Great Awesomeness and All-Knowing Teleprompter disarm the peasants.