Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page

NOTE! This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or any other living person besides the one who posted them. Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion Policy, but there's a bad apple in every bunch, and we have no control over bigots and other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com

The Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:

Groups call arms seizures 'arbitrary'
Submitted by: Anonymous

There are 14 comments on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments

Two national gun rights groups yesterday joined individual Louisiana gun owners in a federal lawsuit to stop authorities from confiscating firearms from private citizens in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, seeking a temporary restraining order to halt the seizures of guns from law-abiding citizens. They described the confiscations as "arbitrary," "without warrant or probable cause" and thus "illegal."

Comment by: nisus@mindspring.com (9/24/2005)

"...Never the types for narcissism or nuance, our Founding Fathers said, "Hey, why don't we just let people who don't break the law keep and bear arms whenever they see fit?"

Actually, they didn't qualify it to merely the law-abiding. Even criminals have the right to bear arms; of course, after they do something criminal we toss them in the pokey, but that's later.

And when they get out, having 'paid their debt to society' then they're people again and should -still- have the right to be armed.

Am I being too 'fundamentalist'?

Comment by: winchesterrepeater (9/24/2005)

"Am I being too 'fundamentalist?'"

In today's political climate, yes you probably are. An ex-felon used to be able to petition the courts for redress on this matter and have his 2A rights restored. Technically it can still happen, but in reality the BATF is the agency involved in this and they refuse to fund the dept. that handles it, so it does not in actuality stand a snowball's chance in hell of happening.
Just because a felon is released doesn't mean his rights are automatically restored. Some states won't allow them to vote, either.
If they're judgement is so poor they commit crimes, it could be argued they should neither vote or possess weapons -- they've proven themselves to be dangerous.

Comment by: wmmayhue7@yahoo.com (9/24/2005)

winchesterrepeater

If the felon had been convicted of a violent felony, such as armed robbery, forcible rape, murder, felonious assault, or some such act of aggressive violence, I whole-heartedly agree with you. If the felony did not involve violence toward a person I think he/she should automatically get their right to KABA restored upon release from prison.

Comment by: bkirk@yorkautomation.com (9/24/2005)

I'm confused by the theory behind the whole criminal justice system. I've seen two reasons given for locking up a person after they've been convicted of a crime.

1) To remove them from society to keep society safe from predators.

2) To rehabilitate them so that when released back into society they can become productive members of society.

The part that has me confused is this. For each crime their is a maximum sentance in time. The sentance is never in the form until they are no longer a danger to society. With the exception of a life sentance. But the system says that after serving their sentance they are "rehabilitated" and should function normally in society.

Comment by: bkirk@yorkautomation.com (9/24/2005)

I don't buy this. After being released we put restrictions on felons, they can't vote, they lose their KABA rights, they have to report themselves as convicted felons on job application forms. If they are sexual predators they have to register.

These sound like people that you don't want released into general society. But their they are.

The sentences should be along the lines of, when the convicted can reasonably be expected to be rehabilited and able to function as a normal member of society and then released back with no restrictions. Of course that would mean a lot of essentially life sentences for non murder convictions. Like sex abuse.

Comment by: bkirk@yorkautomation.com (9/24/2005)

What I believe is that the criminal justice system has no clue as to how to modify somebody's behavior and it has no clue as to how to predict it either.

So they just warehouse people and hope for the best and say... "see we've done something"

Comment by: dhd (9/24/2005)

Am I being too 'fundamentalist'?

No your not being to fundamentalist. This was just another way that was used to brainwash decent people into thinking it is okay to violate a persons God given rights, and therefore further trample the Constitution. The argument is that since we cant trust them to behave themselves on the streets, its okay for us to violate the Constitution by violating their rights. The reality is that this is nothing more than another excuse to trash the Constitution.

continued:

Comment by: dhd (9/24/2005)

Continued:
If a person is safe enough to be on the streets, then he is safe enough to not have his rights violated. The mentality that we can no longer trust them sounds good on the surface but, it isnt that much different (not to be mistaken with completely different) that saying that since guns are used in crimes, we shouldnt let people have them. This is essentially government failing in its duty to properly punish the guilty, then using it as an excuse to further trash the Constitution. IMHO, much of this started as a result of not properly punishing the criminals.

Comment by: Winchesterrepeater (9/24/2005)

Wmmayhue7@yahoo.com; I don't see any philosophical problem with what you say. But, you need to convince the BATFE to fund the particular branch or office that is responsible for restoring these rights.
And we all know what a charming, loving, decent group of guys the BATFE is, don't we?
Of course, the best thing would be to do away with the BATF....... yeah, and that will happen....WHEN????

Comment by: Looking Glass (9/24/2005)

Is there anyone dumb enough to believe that such a law will influence someone convicted of armed robbery or murder to refrain from carrying a gun? The sentence for breaking those laws carries a hefty penalty as compared with a felon in possession but that didn't stop them from murdering and robbing. Why should a draft dodger or pot smoker be classified the same as violent criminals?

Comment by: Deadeye (9/24/2005)

If a man is NOT dangerous, what is he good for? If he can't do what needs to be done when the time comes, then he is just someone else who needs protection! Not all felons are dangerous, and not all dangerous men are felons! The govt. hates dangerous men, because they are the only real threat to them, and their agents. Criminals hate dangerous men because they will put the hurt on them if they mess with them! If you are not dangerous, who will protect your family?

Comment by: jefferybird@msn.com (9/25/2005)

I would like to know why the BATF form requests when purchasing a firearm if you have been convicted of a crime that included a jail sentence of a year or more when you already indicated you are not a felon. Many misdemeanors carry a sentence of up to two years jail time. By the way, I have purchased two long arms in the past two years and the 'instant' background check took 48 hours in one case and almost limited out in the three day deadline.

Comment by: jefferybird@msn.com (9/25/2005)

What I meant in both cases it was not 'instant'. I had to wait two days for one purchase and three days for another.

Comment by: sglazier@comcast.net (9/26/2005)

you are not being too fundamentalist at all. Firt they got people to say yes remove the guns from all the criminals and then they expand the definition of the term criminal. you Lose your KABA rights forever if you get divorced in MA lets say. since the court issues retraining orders on both parties in most case. the judge is in essence saying you are guilty of Domestic violence with out even havingg a jury trail. That in and of itself will subert your right according to the brady act. You no longer than can ever posses or touch a firearm.