New Orleans Gun grabbing again & ACLU files suit in support of gun rights

[techres]

New Orleans is trying to keep guns from arrests without having to take anyone to trial (i.e. gun grab). The ACLU is suing on behalf of one gun owner:

ACLU files suit over gun rights

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.

Once again I say, make alliances where you can and fight the good fight. This is at least the second time the ACLU at a state level has filed suit in support of gun rights. I hope they continue the trend.

 

[Dryden]

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


I am speechless. Am I in some sort of parallel universe?

 

[Bill of Rights]

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


I am speechless. Am I in some sort of parallel universe?

God, I hope so!

Techres, is there any way we can rep the ACLU?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Cwood]

It must be some rogue element of the ACLU to be doing this.

 

[techres]

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


I am speechless. Am I in some sort of parallel universe?

What's funny is that the Libertarian gun owners are not in the least bit surprised, but the Social Conservatives will be speechless.

And that split is a problem I hope the gun community can heal in order to make good use of a powerful ally in the days ahead.

 

[Boilers]

The ACLU could do themselves a big favor and start to prop up the 2A.
I agree with some core principals they have, but not with many of their fringe liberal attacks they have taken. If they were to put an all-out effort in support of 2A, I'd be torn with them as a group. I'd likely have to support them if they were vigilant and successful in their lawsuits for 2A rights.

 

[spartan933]

That's the ACLU guys. They represent anyone who's constitutional rights are violated. Their name is synonomous with liberalism and anti-guns, etc. But, they are their to protect the constitution.

 

[Bill of Rights]

That's the ACLU guys. They represent anyone who's constitutional rights are violated. Their name is synonomous with liberalism and anti-guns, etc. But, they are their to protect the constitution.

In theory, yes, that's why they're there. It sounds great to say that, unfortunately, they've many times ignored or refused to get involved when it's a 2A case, though they're quick to jump in favor of more Leftist causes. If the ACLU at the national level (and more of the ACLUs at the state level) would favor pro 2A causes as NV and LA have now done, which is to say if they really did support the WHOLE Constitution, it would be a very good thing.

ETA: From their website just now:
What is the ACLU's position on the Second Amendment?
The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For more information, please read our statement on the Second Amendment.

I guess the Heller decision, in which the 2A was affirmed as protecting an individual right, doesn't matter to them.

ETETA:
Their statement:
The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.
The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.
The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.
ANALYSIS
Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties.
Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made.
Those questions will, presumably, be answered over time.

End statement. (Emphasis mine)

OK, so they disagree with SCOTUS, they think that gun possession and regulation do not raise civil liberties issues, and they refuse to accept that the 2A does not permit federal or state regulation of firearms. Rather, they seem to think that even if the ATF or the entire US gov't acts unConstitutionally in this regard, that's OK.

But they stood in court and defended NAMBLA.

The ACLU at the national level is not our friend at all, in any way.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Vigilant]

I really don't think this has as much to do with the ACLU supporting the 2nd as it does with supporting the 4th(search and seizure without due process) amendment. I'll take a wait and see.