NRA vs Gun-Grabbing Democrats

[NewXD40fun]

UPDATE ON NRA'S LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS

This week, in a landmark victory for NRA and law-abiding gun owners, Judge Carl J. Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied the City of New Orleans' motion to dismiss NRA's lawsuit against the city. Further, Judge Barbier held that the Second Amendment does apply to law-abiding residents in the State of Louisiana and the City of New Orleans. Incredibly, the City of New Orleans persisted in desperately clinging to its anti-gun agenda by contemptuously arguing just the opposite--that the Second Amendment does not apply to residents in the State of Louisiana and the City of New Orleans.

NRA first filed suit after Hurricane Katrina, when firearms were confiscated from law-abiding New Orleans residents. Former New Orleans Police Chief Eddie Compass issued orders to confiscate firearms from all citizens. With that one order, the means of self-protection that innocent victims had during a time of widespread civil disorder was stripped away.

NRA filed suit in federal court and won a preliminary injunction ending these illegal gun confiscations. After the City of New Orleans failed to comply with the court's ruling and falsely claimed that the gun confiscations never occurred, NRA filed a motion for contempt that included an order directing all seized firearms be returned to their rightful owners.

After strenuously denying the illegal confiscations for months, on March 15, 2006, Mayor Nagin and the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) finally conceded in federal court that the seized firearms were stored in two trailers. The city then agreed in court to a process by which law-abiding citizens would be able to file a claim to receive their confiscated firearms. However, few firearms were returned because the NOPD never notified gun owners how to claim their guns, and turned many away citing impossible standards for proof of ownership.

Today's ruling sets the stage for a continued legal fight in which NRA will be forced to expend additional resources to fight back the anti-gunner's blatant and shameful attempts to ignore the Second Amendment. The case will now move to discovery and pre-trial preparation.

Rest assured, we will keep you informed of future developments regarding this case.



What would we do without the NRA to fight these bastards?


Tom

[einheit 13]

Originally Posted by NewXD40fun

What would we do without the NRA to fight these bastards?

Use GOA....at least with them I don't have to compromise with thier politics so much. Or you do what any self respecting freedom loving red blooded TRUE American would do....Rebell

[PackerfanXD]

Originally Posted by NewXD40fun

[size="5"]What would we do without the NRA to fight these bastards?

Ask the ACLU for help?

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by einheit 13

Use GOA....at least with them I don't have to compromise with thier politics so much. Or you do what any self respecting freedom loving red blooded TRUE American would do....Rebell

The GOA is no doubt a no-nonsense organization, but it doesn't have near the clout as a lobby in Washington.

[zulu45]

Now I'm not the biggest fan of the NRA. I think that their extreme thirst to get any gun and every gun legal is a bit over the top, their political support is based solely on the 2nd Amendment, and I constantly have to block their junk mail. It seems they're becoming more of "for the politicians" and less "for the people" every day. But I can't help but to want to join up after their handling of this injustice. Just not looking to give money to an organization that blindly follows one party affiliation. But that's just my two cents... That being said, AWESOME JOB, NRA! I may just have to join up after this...

[einheit 13]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

The GOA is no doubt a no-nonsense organization, but it doesn't have near the clout as a lobby in Washington.

They are growing, thats why I am a member and so should every gun owner that wants a true no excuses voice in DC.

[NewXD40fun]

Who spearheaded the drive to defeat the San Francisco handgun confiscation and ban?

The NRA. Check out the last paragraph of this article.

San Francisco Superior Court Rejects Gun Ban -- Second Amendment Upheld!


Friday, June 16, 2006

This week, San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren struck down the San Francisco handgun ban, asserting that under California law, local officials do not have the authority to ban firearms from law-abiding citizens. NRA-ILA opposed the ban from its inception, both at the ballot box and in court.

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre stated, "This ruling is a major victory for freedom and for the National Rifle Association. Proposition H was an ill-conceived gun ban scheme that would have violated the rights of only the law-abiding in San Francisco. We fought this outrageous attack on the constitutional rights of the good guys and we prevailed. We are determined not to see this gross injustice happen again and will fight any effort by politicians to resurrect this faulty proposal."

The San Francisco gun ban would have prohibited law-abiding city residents from purchasing firearms - rifles, shotguns and handguns - for any lawful reason, whether for self-defense, hunting or recreational shooting. In addition, current law-abiding gun owners would have to surrender their registered handguns to the police.

NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox stated, "We are pleased with the decision of Judge James Warren of the California Superior Court. In today’s ruling, Judge Warren ruled California law prohibits a city or county from banning handgun possession by law-abiding adults. This ruling supports the premise of NRA’s argument. The NRA filed it’s lawsuit soon after Proposition H passed arguing that the proposition was in violation of California preemption laws that say firearm laws are regulated by the state."

The San Francisco Police Officers Association also opposed the ban, stating that the new law nullified "the personal choice of city residents to lawfully possess a handgun for self-defense purposes."

Cox continued, "It seems evident that the authors of this measure either intentionally misled voters during the election or authored this proposed measure with gross disregard of California law. Regrettably, the biggest losers were the voters in this municipality who had to bear the considerable financial burden to satisfy the careless political whim of their elected officials."

NRA and its Civil Rights Defense Fund presently support more than 60 cases involving the constitutional rights of gun owners. NRA has recently filed lawsuits challenging gun confiscations in the wake of Katrina (NRA v. New Orleans) and to clarify California’s so-called "assault weapon" law (Hunt v. Lockyer). It has now successfully challenged the San Francisco gun ban (NRA v. San Francisco), and is challenging seizures of firearms at New York and New Jersey airports contrary to federal safe passage law (John Torraco and William Winstanley in New York and Gregg Revell in New Jersey). Successes include striking down unconstitutional laws in Wisconsin (State v. Hamdan), New Mexico (Baca v. New Mexico Department of Public Safety), Oregon (State v. Dalgado), and West Virginia (State ex rel. City of Princeton v. Buckner). NRA also supported cases involving successful self-defense, for example, Jeffrey Kinder, Sr., and Jeffrey Kinder III (Arizona) and Tracey Roberts (Iowa).

--------------------------------------------------------------
And, yes, I have to say it again; the NRA is our best defense against the gun-grabbing Democrats. The NRA supports all politicians who support our rights.



Tom

[einheit 13]

I still like the GOA better. Never been a member of the NRA and never will...."when they outlaw my guns, I become an outlaw."