Gunowners had their firearms confiscated by police and National Guard soldiers following Hurricane Katrina without a warrant or probable cause, the paper reported.
The NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation filed the lawsuit Sept. 22, 2005 after citizens believed their rights had been violated. The advocacy groups argued that the law-abiding cititzens were “left to fend for themselves after Katrina ‘at the mercy of roving gangs, home invaders, and other criminals.’” They also contended that even a disaster “doesn’t allow police to seize leagally-owned firearms.”
(They could have also argued Fourth Amendment violations.)
Here comes the funny part: City attorneys countered the claims saying that federal law doesn’t apply “because the right to keep and bear arms has never been recognized as an individual right.”
Excuse me? What country are these attorneys in?
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller:
“The Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
Most anti-gun lobbyists, when faced with the Second Amendment, will almost always bring up the first part claiming the right is only for a “well-regulated militia.”
But the second half states:
“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
A common interpretation by pro-gunners, like myself and the entire family, is that the amendment was set in place for protection against the Army should the government become too powerful or should the army stage a military coup.
(Funny…those who feel that way now are labled as kooks and domestic terrorists.)
Just read what one of the founding fathers had to say about the right of the People to bear arms:
“But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence,—yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed,—what chance is there for preserving freedom?”
Of course, that’s also when the playing field was evened out. To paraphrase southern comedian, and self-descibed Libertarian, Tim Wilson from his 2001 album ”I Should Have Married My Father-in-Law”:
That’s back when we had muskets and cannons and they had muskets and cannons. Now they have Apache helicopters and nuclear weapons…and we have muskets and cannons.
However,in the majority opinion in D.C. v. Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia added a restrictive “but”:
“It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
This is apparent through the numerous bans on certain firearms, licensure and registration and permits…a restrictive policy known as “gun control.” The keyword being “control.”
There are many of us gun-totin’ Americans across this great land who fear the fate of the Second Amendment, as well as the rest of the Constitution. I stand firm by my God-given right and subscribe to the pro-gun mantra “When guns are outlawed, Only outlaws will have guns.” If we reach that point, just call me Billy, the Kid.
I think I’ll leave it there. Discuss amongst yourselves.
Powered by Facebook Comments