Gun confiscation case dismissed
In its majority opinion, a three-judge panel from the 5th Circuit said some regulation of firearms falls outside the reach of the Second Amendment, just as obscenity and defamation aren’t protected as free speech by the First Amendment.
“The right protected by the Second Amendment is not a property-like right to a specific firearm, but rather a right to keep and bear arms for self-defense,” Judge Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale wrote.
March 16th, 2012 at 10:19 am
Getting “Page Not Found.”
March 16th, 2012 at 10:27 am
Evil evil ruling.
March 16th, 2012 at 10:38 am
Thank You. Reading Article….Hmm, I think a Road Trip to the Supreme Court is about to occur. I see a 4th Amendment case also. Nothing like claiming that the Police can steal your Property if they feel like it. The 5th Circuit forget the “Unreasonable Search and SEIZURE” part of the Constitution?
March 16th, 2012 at 11:03 am
I’m with Les, this seems as much an illegal seizure (in failing to return the gun after charges were dropped) as a 2nd amendment case.
March 16th, 2012 at 11:10 am
Fifth Amendement. “… life, liberty, or property, without Due Process of law.” The prosecutor being also the judge on whether you should have the property he seized back, is not due process.
March 16th, 2012 at 11:11 am
There is no Fourth Amendment.
March 16th, 2012 at 11:12 am
From the article:
Houston claimed Cannizzaro’s office had a policy of retaining firearms following arrests regardless of whether charges are filed. During an interview in 2009, Cannizzaro said his office decides on a “case by case basis” whether to return confiscated guns.
“There is no policy that we will not return weapons,” he said.
Sounds like “some area more equal than others”.
March 16th, 2012 at 12:31 pm
The law on this should be clear. Unless the property taken was proceeds of an illegal enterprise, the property should either be returned or the owner compensated for its market price. Over to you, Supremes.
March 16th, 2012 at 1:18 pm
The way I read this leads me to believe the Panel was simply stating that he (the plaintiff) filed on the wrong statute. It is not a second amendment case. It is a theft of property case. The cops stole his guns.
March 16th, 2012 at 1:52 pm
I think that they argued the case wrong. They should have said that this was a taking without due process and without compensation. As much as I detest the decision, the second amendment is not about a particular weapon. The guy could go get another one.
But Cannizaro, who’s a good guy by the way and someone I’ve met, took this guy’s gun and refused to return it or compensate him and without valid cause. They should have argued that Cannizaro violated the guy’s 4th and 5th amendment rights. Would love to find out the whole background of this case and why his lawyers chose this argument. Maybe he should ask his attorneys’ malpractice carrier for a new gun.
March 16th, 2012 at 2:13 pm
The defendant went after the big pinata, a civil rights violation case.
If he had simply sued for the value of the firearms stolen, plus interest, the city would have probably settled.
March 16th, 2012 at 2:39 pm
Swamp Thing,
I don’t see how you can say Cannizaro is “a good guy” — he confiscated someone’s firearm without due process.
No one who does that is a good guy, however nice he may be to have a beer with.
March 16th, 2012 at 7:52 pm
QUOTE:
Houston claimed Cannizzaro’s office had a policy of retaining firearms following arrests regardless of whether charges are filed. During an interview in 2009, Cannizzaro said his office decides on a “case by case basis” whether to return confiscated guns.
“There is no policy that we will not return weapons,” he said.
END QUOTE
CONCLUSION TO BE DRAWN: It’s okay for me (or anyone) to decide to take and keep property without recompense. As long as there’s no policy. After all, law enforcement acts under authority delagated by the members of the people, and you can’t delegate powers you don’t (also) have. Nor does delegation preclude you from retaining and exercising those powers yourself.
March 17th, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Let me see if I got this straight: we the people can own as many guns as we please. But they the state can take those guns away from us whenever they please. But we the people can then go out and buy as many more guns as we please. And they the state can then take those guns away from us whenever they please. So then we the people…my headache is coming back. I’m going to the range.
March 17th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
“The right protected by the Second Amendment is not a property-like right to a specific firearm, but rather a right to keep and bear arms for self-defense”
This is the most idiotic statement I have heard.
March 18th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Snackeater has it right. The 2A is the only right that lists a specific form of property. Therefore, property rights are inherent in it. You cannot have the right to keep and bear arms if the state can abuse property rights to take arms away. They may be different legal constucts, but they are inextricably linked.
March 19th, 2012 at 9:40 am
The prosecutor is going to be hoist on his non-policy. Because if you don’t have the authority to keep the gun, even if only via self-generated internal departmental policy, you are a thief acting on your own say-so, and nothing more.
His construction that there was no policy forbidding the return of someone else’s legally owned property isn’t even under question; there could never be such a policy with any level of public scrutiny.
March 19th, 2012 at 1:43 pm
“Shall not be infringed” is interpreted by our excessive government to mean, “shall be infringed.”