JohnC
Thanks for the kind words. We do have a great group of members who have made TexasCHLforum what it is today.
Regards,
Chas.
Search found 2 matches
Return to “New Orleans Gun Confiscation - The Real Story”
- Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:47 pm
- Forum: Other States
- Topic: New Orleans Gun Confiscation - The Real Story
- Replies: 11
- Views: 4184
- Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:48 pm
- Forum: Other States
- Topic: New Orleans Gun Confiscation - The Real Story
- Replies: 11
- Views: 4184
New Orleans Gun Confiscation - The Real Story
I was in NRA Committee meetings and the fall meeting of the NRA Board of Directors last week. As a member of the Legal Affairs Committee, I was briefed on the suit filed in federal court against certain New Orleans and Parish officials in connection with the illegal confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens. I would like to clear up what seems to be a misconception on various Internet discussion boards about the parties to this suit and who handled the legal representation.
I have seen several references to the suit being filed by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) with no reference to the NRA. The NRA was the lead plaintiff in the suit, with the SAF and others named as additional plaintiffs. NRA attorneys also did all of the work on the case, including the argument before the United States District Court. While there is no adversity between the NRA and the SAF, I wanted all NRA members to be aware that it was their organization (NRA) that did the work on this case and obtained the injunction preventing further confiscation and requiring the return of guns already taken illegally.
It is also important to understand the timing of the action. Understandably, when the news first broke about the confiscation, people were demanding immediate action, even those in NRA Headquarters. The NRA did take immediate action, although it was not visible to the public. NRA representatives went to New Orleans to identify people who were illegally disarmed, checked their backgrounds to make sure they could legally have firearms in their possession, and did other work to establish NRA's legal standing to bring the suit. (You can't file suit just because you don't like what is going on. You have to meet certain requirements to have legal standing to sue, otherwise the suit will be summarily dismissed.) As soon as all required information was obtained (under very difficult circumstances), suit was filed and the injunction was obtained. We can all be proud of the work of the NRA's investigators and legal team!
The suit is not over, but the injunction is in place to prevent a recurrence. There is every reason to believe we will continue to prevail, otherwise the Court would have denied the injunction. (One of the requirements for getting an injunction is the likelihood of prevailing at the time of trial.) In Florida, a bill has already been filed to prevent gun confiscation in times of "emergency" and the NRA's Marion Hammer is leading the charge. I suspect we will see other states follow suit, just as many are heeding the NRA's call to pass Florida-like Castle Doctrine legislation. So, when you see information leading you to believe the SAF obtained the injunction while the NRA did nothing, you’ll know better.
Regards,
Chas.
I have seen several references to the suit being filed by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) with no reference to the NRA. The NRA was the lead plaintiff in the suit, with the SAF and others named as additional plaintiffs. NRA attorneys also did all of the work on the case, including the argument before the United States District Court. While there is no adversity between the NRA and the SAF, I wanted all NRA members to be aware that it was their organization (NRA) that did the work on this case and obtained the injunction preventing further confiscation and requiring the return of guns already taken illegally.
It is also important to understand the timing of the action. Understandably, when the news first broke about the confiscation, people were demanding immediate action, even those in NRA Headquarters. The NRA did take immediate action, although it was not visible to the public. NRA representatives went to New Orleans to identify people who were illegally disarmed, checked their backgrounds to make sure they could legally have firearms in their possession, and did other work to establish NRA's legal standing to bring the suit. (You can't file suit just because you don't like what is going on. You have to meet certain requirements to have legal standing to sue, otherwise the suit will be summarily dismissed.) As soon as all required information was obtained (under very difficult circumstances), suit was filed and the injunction was obtained. We can all be proud of the work of the NRA's investigators and legal team!
The suit is not over, but the injunction is in place to prevent a recurrence. There is every reason to believe we will continue to prevail, otherwise the Court would have denied the injunction. (One of the requirements for getting an injunction is the likelihood of prevailing at the time of trial.) In Florida, a bill has already been filed to prevent gun confiscation in times of "emergency" and the NRA's Marion Hammer is leading the charge. I suspect we will see other states follow suit, just as many are heeding the NRA's call to pass Florida-like Castle Doctrine legislation. So, when you see information leading you to believe the SAF obtained the injunction while the NRA did nothing, you’ll know better.
Regards,
Chas.