ACLU Files Suit Over Gun Rights - NOLA

[kingcuke]

Why isn't there more publicity about this?

http://www.wwl.com/ACLU-files-suit-o...rights/4728222


Posted: Thursday, 02 July 2009 9:50PM

ACLU files suit over gun rights

Jay Vise Reporting
A New Orleans man is suing the city and its district attorney for refusing to give back a gun that police seized when he was arrested on drug and firearms charges.

The American Civil Liberties Union on Thursday filed the federal suit on behalf of Errol Houston Jr., who was arrested last year following a traffic stop.

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

Houston claims Orleans Parish District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro has instituted a policy that firearms seized during arrests will not be returned to their owners.

The ACLU says that policy violates Houston's constitutional rights.

Cannizzaro says his office decides on a "case by case basis'' whether to return confiscated guns.

[jim summers]

When you snooze, you lose. why should he be allowed to get his weapon back just to use it to commit more crimes.

[Bobitis]

I'd like to see the charges.
I've never known the ACLU as gun rights advocates.

[armedandsafe]

Of what crime was he convicted? Has he a past conviction of felony or domestic violence? Is he barred from firearm possession? Does the NOLA police have title to that gun?

Sounds to me as if there is a theft involved here. Has anybody ever heard the term "due process?"

Pops

[45nut]

Has he been convicted of a crime here? If not, Houston does not have the right to keep his gun. Unless They RICCO'd him.

[Suwannee Tim]

This is nothing. Ten years ago a Georgia farmer, an elderly black gentleman was traveling to Polk County Florida to purchase his yearly supply of fertilizer. He had $40K in cash to pay, something he had done every year for decades with the same company. He was stopped by a Florida trooper who asked him if he had any large sums of cash. He admitted that he did and the trooper seized it. Despite the fact that he could prove that it was his money and that he had an appointment to buy fertilizer the State would not return his money. His only alternative was an expensive lawsuit go get his money back. This is called "civil forfeiture" and it is done every day. The law presumes that the government is correct in the seizure.

In Alabama a few years ago Walmart decided they wanted to build a store in a particular area. They employ developers to do this. The developer selected a site, only problem was that the site was already occupied by 10 families who had lived there for generations. They did not want to sell. The developer went to the County Commission and told them that if they could not get that land they would build the Walmart in the next county. The county used eminent domain to take the land for a fraction of what it was worth and the sold it to the developer, splitting the profit. Eminent domain abuse goes on every week except maybe for Christmas week.

[glocknut]

Originally Posted by Suwannee Tim

This is nothing. Ten years ago a Georgia farmer, an elderly black gentleman was traveling to Polk County Florida to purchase his yearly supply of fertilizer. He had $40K in cash to pay, something he had done every year for decades with the same company. He was stopped by a Florida trooper who asked him if he had any large sums of cash. He admitted that he did and the trooper seized it. Despite the fact that he could prove that it was his money and that he had an appointment to buy fertilizer the State would not return his money. His only alternative was an expensive lawsuit go get his money back. This is called "civil forfeiture" and it is done every day. The law presumes that the government is correct in the seizure.

In Alabama a few years ago Walmart decided they wanted to build a store in a particular area. They employ developers to do this. The developer selected a site, only problem was that the site was already occupied by 10 families who had lived there for generations. They did not want to sell. The developer went to the County Commission and told them that if they could not get that land they would build the Walmart in the next county. The county used eminent domain to take the land for a fraction of what it was worth and the sold it to the developer, splitting the profit. Eminent domain abuse goes on every week except maybe for Christmas week.

Happens alot and yet none of the people on the county commission, the developer or anyone at walmart have ever seen any ill effects of their thievery? Nobody is willing these days to do anything that will take them away from their cozy recliner chairs or big tv screens... and the crooked people of this world know it.

I forget the exact wording as well as who actually said this but basicly one of the founding forefathers asked this question: Is Life so precious that we would rather live on our knees than to die on our feet?

I suppose most would think "HECK YES...now that there are Lazy Boy recliners, High Definition Bigscreen Plasma TVs and Kentucky Fried Chicken AND PIZZA....

mike
gn

[Suwannee Tim]

Originally Posted by glocknut

Lazy Boy recliners, High Definition Bigscreen Plasma TVs and Kentucky Fried Chicken AND PIZZA....

The Roman Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis called it "panis et circenses", bread and circuses.

[artabr]

The guy in the story was originally arrested on drug & weapons charges. If they didn't prosecute he should have gotten the gun back.
I'd be willing to bet that this happens a lot, but the owners would rather not raise a stink.



Art

[bcj1755]

Did the guy have a record BEFORE they took his gun? And even though he was arrested on firearms and drug charges, the DA dismissed the case. As long as he wasn't a convicted felon beforehand, and the gun was actually his, they should have given it back.

Now, I'm really suprised the aCLU would even take on a case like this. They have a history of being anti-gun. They seem to believe in all our civil rights EXCEPT the 2nd amendment.

[artabr]

[QUOTE=Suwannee Tim;469813]This is nothing. Ten years ago a Georgia farmer, an elderly black gentleman was traveling to Polk County Florida to purchase his yearly supply of fertilizer. He had $40K in cash to pay, something he had done every year for decades with the same company. He was stopped by a Florida trooper who asked him if he had any large sums of cash. He admitted that he did and the trooper seized it. Despite the fact that he could prove that it was his money and that he had an appointment to buy fertilizer the State would not return his money. His only alternative was an expensive lawsuit go get his money back. This is called "civil forfeiture" and it is done every day. The law presumes that the government is correct in the seizure. [QUOTE]



A few years back a couple of Vietnamese fishermen were traveling down I-10 in La. They were pulled over just west of Lafeyette. They had $50,000 or more (I forget how much, but it was a considerable amount) in cash on them.
They were headed to Texas to purchase a LARGE shrimp boat. The Parish (county) LEO's confiscated the money.
20/20 or 60 Minutes did a show on it focussing on the forfeiture laws and the abuse of the law in some instances.



Art

[obxned]

Either charge and convict, or return his property. Anything else is absolutely unconstitutional!

[Big ugly]

Originally Posted by obxned

Either charge and convict, or return his property. Anything else is absolutely unconstitutional!

I agree. I hope the ACLU stick the shaft six feet in a breaks it off.

[GMFWoodchuck]

Originally Posted by obxned

Either charge and convict, or return his property. Anything else is absolutely unconstitutional!

Plus 1

[Trouble 45-70]

First time I can remember chearing for ACLU. No conviction, return property. Cash theivery used to be called highway robery. Now our government does it. Robber Barons. Anyone who gets pulled over on the way to go grocery shopping is going to be subject to seizure of cash when $200 worth of groceries will cost $1000 now that the Congress and the Fed are printing money that wont be earned in my lifetime.

[alhefner]

Originally Posted by jim summers

When you snooze, you lose. why should he be allowed to get his weapon back just to use it to commit more crimes.

Perhaps you mis-understood the post. Apparently, he was never tried or convicted of a crime and that means he has every right to possess firearms and should get those firearms back.

If you did not mis-understand the post, then you are apparently of the mind that any arrest automatically means you are a criminal? Since when is this supposed to be the norm in the United States?

[dbrodin]

[QUOTE=artabr;470063][QUOTE=Suwannee Tim;469813]This is nothing. Ten years ago a Georgia farmer, an elderly black gentleman was traveling to Polk County Florida to purchase his yearly supply of fertilizer. He had $40K in cash to pay, something he had done every year for decades with the same company. He was stopped by a Florida trooper who asked him if he had any large sums of cash. He admitted that he did and the trooper seized it. Despite the fact that he could prove that it was his money and that he had an appointment to buy fertilizer the State would not return his money. His only alternative was an expensive lawsuit go get his money back. This is called "civil forfeiture" and it is done every day. The law presumes that the government is correct in the seizure.

A few years back a couple of Vietnamese fishermen were traveling down I-10 in La. They were pulled over just west of Lafeyette. They had $50,000 or more (I forget how much, but it was a considerable amount) in cash on them.
They were headed to Texas to purchase a LARGE shrimp boat. The Parish (county) LEO's confiscated the money.
20/20 or 60 Minutes did a show on it focussing on the forfeiture laws and the abuse of the law in some instances.



Art

I may be wrong on this, but the way I remember this working is that if a LEO grabs cash based on a Fed statute, most of the money goes to the LEO's agency budget, not to the Feds or the State. Lots of incentive to go fishing for cash. Makes me wonder how many LEOs actually ask about cash, and if it is more prevalent to ask in certain areas/towns. I've never been asked myself. Anyone been asked?

[PharmrJohn]

Originally Posted by obxned

Either charge and convict, or return his property. Anything else is absolutely unconstitutional!

+2

[Southern Boy]

Wrong focus guy's, if the guy had drugs, and, the story said had a gun under the floorboard of his car, why did they not convict him of a crime? Thugs are getting off way too easy. Wish I had more info on this story. ie. what kind of drugs ect. .If his crime wasnt worth the effort why was he arrested?

[alhefner]

Originally Posted by Southern Boy

Wrong focus guy's, if the guy had drugs, and, the story said had a gun under the floorboard of his car, why did they not convict him of a crime? Thugs are getting off way too easy. Wish I had more info on this story. ie. what kind of drugs ect. .If his crime wasnt worth the effort why was he arrested?

Police officers are often confused about just what does or does not constitute a crime and they often make an arrest "just in case". Police officers are not required to actually know the laws they are enforcing. It is up to the DA to actually determine if a crime has been committed and if there is enough evidence to convince a jury of a person's guilt.

In the end, it must boil down to either a conviction or return the guy's property...period. Anything less stringent than that leads to "suspicions" being used as justification to take just about ANYTHING.

[bcj1755]

Originally Posted by alhefner

In the end, it must boil down to either a conviction or return the guy's property...period. Anything less stringent than that leads to "suspicions" being used as justification to take just about ANYTHING.

That's comming very soon. DHS is already releasing reports that places suspicions of being "right-wing extremeists" on most of us here. You know if they can they'll use that as justification to confiscate firearms

[45nut]

double post

[45nut]

Originally Posted by artabr

I may be wrong on this, but the way I remember this working is that if a LEO grabs cash based on a Fed statute, most of the money goes to the LEO's agency budget, not to the Feds or the State. Lots of incentive to go fishing for cash. Makes me wonder how many LEOs actually ask about cash, and if it is more prevalent to ask in certain areas/towns. I've never been asked myself. Anyone been asked?

Who do these goose stepping morons think they are?

[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.

[mrkirker]

Good points SaddleSarge!
Surely, we who are always throwing stones at the media for their unsubstantiated, incorrect comments, have learned NOT to trust any story offered from a media source without corroboration/substantiation from other un-linked sources!