Breaking News
The United States District Court for the Eastern District in Louisiana today sided with the National Rifle Association (NRA) and issued a restraining order to bar further gun confiscations from peaceable and law-abiding victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.
September 23rd, 2005 at 3:49 pm
Excellent!
September 23rd, 2005 at 4:24 pm
We need to come up with some kind of award for Nagin, Compass, and Riley. They’ve done more damage to the victim disarmament movement in the last two weeks than all the rest of us have in the last two years. Gawd bless ’em. 😉
September 23rd, 2005 at 4:34 pm
I’m commenting here, but have a question for Glenn Reynolds, staunch defender of the civil liberty activities of the ACLU, but comment-refuser.
I noticed that the ACLU didn’t file this lawsuit, and did not file an amicus brief.
Wonder why?
September 23rd, 2005 at 4:38 pm
I think the ACLU answers that question on its own:
In other words, they’re full of crap on the issue. Gun Owners of America also did not file a lawsuit. Nor did the Citizens Committee for the Right To Keep and Bear Arms. Neither did you, I would guess.
September 23rd, 2005 at 4:53 pm
I apologize for piling on, but if you wanna talk to Glenn, I suggest e-mail. He responds to mine and many friends, co-workers, and co-bloggers who have written to him. He also links to blogs, so writing a post and sending an e-mail link gets your opinion read as well.
Your snarky comment here really decreases it’s power.
September 23rd, 2005 at 5:08 pm
Those sorry SOBs in New Orleans should get down on their knees and thank their lucky stars that there are courts and an NRA. The last dumb bastards that tried this were shot for their efforts by pissed off colonials.
Better a lawsuit than a bullet.
I demand the resignations of all involved.
September 23rd, 2005 at 5:09 pm
“I noticed that the ACLU didn’t file this lawsuit, and did not file an amicus brief.”
That’s okay. The NRA & GOA are pretty soft on my non-boomstick rights. Call it a wash.
September 23rd, 2005 at 6:02 pm
Actually Tam, in the lawsuit to overturn the campaign finance law, the NRA was the lead plaintiff. They have also taken an aggresive stand on search and seizure and due process issues in the past.
I’d counter that they are at the forefront of protecting your non boomstick rights as well.
As for the GOA – they are just out to smear the good reputation of the NRA and try to peel some dollars out of suckers who think their agenda has a snowballs chance in hell. Sorry, but I just call it as I see it. They are nothing but pilers on and while no one in DC pays them 5 seconds of attention – when they do pay attention those 5 seconds the end result is usually your rights being further eroded as they are easily marginalized.
Ya gotta place nice to win.
As for the complaints that CNN filed suit immediately and the NRA didn’t – it comes down to a simple issue of standing. CNN is its own entity and was being denied their right. They can sue on their behalf.
No one took a gun from the NRA, so the NRA was not harmed. Once they found a member who did have their rights infringed (hence the call for information) they had standing to sue and were able to march down to the courthouse and file the suit.
September 23rd, 2005 at 6:30 pm
Why should I send Glenn email. He doesn’t respond to people who disagree with his positions. He just ignores them.
That’s why he turns comments off. He couldn’t be bothered.
September 23rd, 2005 at 11:29 pm
Uh, Glen and I have had a number of email exchanges were we disagree on something.
Most times, he has far too much email to respond to everyone, but if he knows you and reads your email, he will usually respond. I suspect its the lunatic, crazy ranting moonbats he doesn’t respond to. And the reason he turned off comments isn’t because people disagree with him (heck, every week he seems to have a post linking to a Andrew Sullivan piece he disagrees with) but rather the trolls and spammers made moderation too difficult.
September 24th, 2005 at 1:05 am
>>Most times, he has far too much email to respond to everyone, but if he knows you and reads your email, he will usually respond.
Readers here seem pretty defensive on Glenn’s part. Have you read his terms of service? Typical laywer crap if you ask me (paraphrased): “If you quote me, you have to give me credit…but you can’t hold me responsible if I’m wrong”.
Lawyers have a gift for making mediocre insight seem unduly wise.
“Without education, we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously.”
–Gilbert Keith Chesterton
September 24th, 2005 at 1:21 am
>>Most times, he has far too much email to respond to everyone, but if he knows you and reads your email, he will usually respond.
September 24th, 2005 at 1:54 am
I think his tongue was firmly planted in cheek with those terms of service. He actually made some joke about them when they went up.
September 24th, 2005 at 8:53 am
Chalk one up for the NRA and the District Court Judge.
I would be interested in learning the judge’s name and who appointed him or her.
As for the ACLU, it seeks to protect selected liberties, not all of the enumerated ones.
However, the ACLU advances considerably more liberties than the ABA champions. Its pathetic position statements look like a distillation of positions of PFAW or MoveOn.
September 24th, 2005 at 10:19 am
[…] Second, the Eastern District of New Orleans has ordered that gun confiscations in New Orleans cease. […]
September 24th, 2005 at 6:17 pm
A Civil Rights Victory
Say Uncle blog reports this good news:
The United States District Court for the Eastern District in Louisiana today sided with the National Rifle Association (NRA) and issued a restraining order to bar further gun confiscations from peaceable …
September 24th, 2005 at 11:26 pm
IDPA today, several people were saying that the NRA was an also-ran to the court case, and it was GOA who filed the lawsuit.
Now, that runs counter to what I’d heard (so I mentioned that), and I don’t see anything to the contrary – but so far, I don’t see the .PDF from the court to see who the plantiffs are.
But I thought it was interesting that in a bunch of action shooters – it doesn’t take much to distrust the NRA, start/continue NRA-bashing gossip.
September 25th, 2005 at 10:32 am
As Countertop has already pointed out, it was the NRA, not the so-called ACLU, that was the lead plaintiff on the most important First Amendment issue in decades. More importantly, the NRA, while focusing its efforts primarily on one part of the Bill of Rights, does not campaign against any of them. It also wasn’t founded by Marxists, doesn’t sue to prevent states from holding elections likely to hurt Democrats, and doesn’t work tirelessly to ensure that the very people you need a gun to defend yourself against remain free on the streets. I think the only reason anyone other than far-leftists respect the ACLU is because it is called the ACLU. Opposing any organization with a name like that is like opposing Mom and apple pie.
September 25th, 2005 at 10:35 am
Yup. It never ceases to amaze me how over the top an obvious joke can be, and someone will still fall into the great sarchasm. I’ve even gotten serious responses to this.
September 26th, 2005 at 8:41 am
[…] The NRA was successful in its bid to get the NO authorities to stop confiscating firearms. Now, it’s getting a bit more interesting. […]