NRA Wins Restraining Order Against Confiscations

Its good news, but I want to know why this is not a major news story on all networks. That bothers me. Not many people know, and that means it might not grow major legs.
 
Wildcard, one of the ways you can get this into your local news is to wrtie the story and submit it yourself. Enough local stories and the major news sources will notice and pick it up.

Here's what happens: A few stories have made it out and every story is put out also on the AP and/or UPI wire. When more stories get wrote for the local dailies, that means more get put out on the wire. The more the MSM sees this stuff on the wire, the better its chances are of being picked up. The key here is to inundate all of our local papers and TV stations ASAP. If it just trickles in, then it's just not that newsworthy.

Particularly now, with all the attention being focused on RITA.
 
Thanks

Good news and keep up the good reporting and information.

Well informed people will make good decisions as a general rule.

I think "The Swiss" have the right Idea.

Harley
 
Pleasant news to be sure, but I'm surprised a federal judge issued the order. I'm just so used to seeing them rubber-stamp govt actions that I have to be skeptical and wonder what made this case so different.
 
Funny,

According to some of what I've read here in the past, I thought NRA was a static, old-line organization that had lost its purpose and was actually moving us closer to a society without firearms and which, at the drop of the had, abandons citizens in the states to sit it its beautiful ivory tower in DC.

At least that's the jist of what I've read here...
 
So, Irwin, I am assuming that just because the NRA is gotten slightly better recently with that TRO an other stuff they did, we should just let go and stop critcizing them?

Personally, the NRA is a mainstream organisation.

It has the extremist to criticize it and pull it to one side, if only to balance off all the fowl-shooting "what do you need this kinda gun for, anyway?" guys.
 
Good job, NRA ... and that means all of its members. Your (and my!) contributions are taking the fight to the enemy.

For those not contributing, well ... I guess this is an exciting time for you, watching the rest of us kick butt. Hope you're taking notes so that if you're not going to be a part of history, you can at least help record history.
 
I'd much prefer the LA or US AG bring them up on charges ranging from Malfeasance in Office to Criminal Theft to Civil Rights Violations.
Click to expand...

I think we could get Obstruction of Justice out of this too.
 
"stop critcizing them?"

Positive suggestions are always useful and have a higher probability of being listened to. It's the uninformed whining and sheer hatefulness that's grown old.

John
 
I don't know, Micro, you tell me.

I can probably did up several dozen messages from the last few months that tells us how worthless NRA is, and how complicit they are in helping strip us of our guns, how they've abandoned this place and that place, how they sit in their multi-trillion (always seems to get more expensive) dollar headquarters doing nothing but raking in membership dues that they pay to worthless employees in the form of staggeringly high salaries...

Just food for thought.

On-point criticism is one thing.

Feral, foaming-at-the-mouth ranting is another entirely.

Can you guess which one I'm talking about?
 
Mainstream is not necessarily a good thing. Who was it that said "Great men don't move to the center, great men move the center"?

And Mike: I would argue that, as with many extremists, the inane ranting exists to a degree because there's a real problem.

There are real problems with the NRA.

They have in the past compromised on things which they shouldn't have compromised on.

They do receive substantial cash flows and their managers are well-paid.

The NRA headquarters is rather expensive.

As per the validity of the ranting itself, well, I don't think that's debateable.
 
Good job SAF, and NRA. So much for "the NRA never does anything" folks. Of course it won't change one NRA haters mind. They know better. Added: And it really is to much of an inconvience to throw away a fund raising letter for some folks, or say no, and hang up a phone. I wonder what the Founding Fathers would think of the NRA hater's constant whining about THAT!! By the way, I receive WAY more mailings from SAF than any other single org.. Sometimes I donate, sometimes I say no. Really isn't that damn tough, is it???? :) Oh wait a minute, it does seem it is a MAJOR sacrifice for some! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
Micro-
I think Mike's point is that you have to give credit when credit is due...not, "Well it's about time" credit. An honest attaboy is sometimes in order.

If we're determined to be philosophical purists to our own individual philosophies, we'll find we have zero allies on any given problem. Overlooking past or minor differences with potential allies is a valuable tactic the Gun Grabbers learned a long time ago. It can be a pretty powerful bond to get others to throw their shoulder to a common wheel.....and it's worked pretty well for them. we tend to be individualists, but we really need to learn that lesson.

NRA and SAF Done Good....it's as simple as that.
Rich
 
WooHoo

Great news :D My wife and I just had our first baby 1 month ago--looks like its time to sign him up for a lifetime membership so he can be just like his daddy :) I hope the NRA continues to push forward--this is a victory, but we need many more.
 
Blues Man, that is why it is important to be a member of both the NRA and the SAF. Both do what they can in their own way.

Micro, it takes a lot of centrists to support one or two great men. Somebody has to open the curtain and man the lights so the fat lady can sing.
 
THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS: New Orleans update

THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
New Orleans police can't disarm evacuees
Return weapons to law-abiders, judge demands
By BILL WALSH
Newhouse News Service


NEW ORLEANS - Gun rights groups won a temporary restraining order Friday preventing police in New Orleans and a nearby parish from confiscating people's firearms when seeking to evacuate residents.

U.S. District Court Judge Jay Zainey ordered the New Orleans Police and St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office to stop taking weapons from law-abiding people and return any they already took in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

In documents filed in federal court in Baton Rouge, La., New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, Police Chief Eddie Compass and St. Tammany Sheriff Jack Strain deny ordering the confiscation of firearms.

But news reports quoted Compass as saying that only law enforcement officials would be allowed to have firearms and Deputy Chief Warren Riley as saying, "We are going to take all the weapons."

Wayne LaPierre, president of the National Rifle Association, said his group documented 30 to 40 cases of people having their weapons taken away after Katrina hit Aug. 29.

"In many cases, it was from their homes at gunpoint. There were no receipts given or anything else at a time when there was no 911 response, and these citizens were out there on their own protecting their families," LaPierre said."The worst thing about it is that it was at a time of complete collapse of the government's ability to protect people."

In the immediate aftermath of Katrina, there were widespread reports of looting throughout New Orleans. At the outset, the city ordered the police to ignore looters and focus instead on search and rescue. But within days, crime spiraled out of control and police were directed to restore order.

To gain control of the situation, Gov. Kathleen Blanco issued emergency power orders, which allow the authorities to regulate firearms. But the suit alleged that law enforcement officials overstepped the bounds by taking guns away in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3367515


Interesting blog, with (not confirmed) copy of the restraining order:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2005_09_18_archive.html#112750612015447953

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.
 
Looks like the cockroaches are beginning to scatter.

"We just gave the unlawful order. We didn't expect anyone would follow it, and if they did, they were probably working for the State or Feds. Go chase them." :rolleyes:

Certainly looks like Compass is in for a rough ride. He admits he did it; admits he had no authority to do it. His only excuse, "It wasn't MY guys who violated those citizens' rights." To the extent they throw this back on out of State LEO's, acting under temporary badges from the State of Louisiana, Compass (already thrown to the dogs by Nagin) gets pitted directly against the Governor....and the LA Attorney General. Hope they read his explanation.
Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top