Did I read that right??? Sounds to me like the NRA "sold out" on that deal. How about they return all guns and make someone answer for why they were taken in the first place.
First, according to
this article:
1. "Police have said they only took guns that were stolen or found in abandoned homes."
This is a flat out lie, as several videotapes and owners records have clearly proven otherwise.
2. "The settlement agreement filed Tuesday in federal court calls for the National Rifle Association and Second Amendment Foundation to drop their case if the city follows a plan for returning guns to owners who had them seized by police after the Aug. 29, 2005, hurricane."
They want their guns back. Reasonable.
3. "Both sides also are asking U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier to sign off on the pact and issue a permanent injunction barring the city from seizing lawfully possessed firearms. Barbier didn't immediately rule on the agreement, which doesn't involve a monetary award."
They also want assurances preventing this Constitutional atrocity from occurring again.
4 "Gun owners must sign an affidavit claiming ownership of a gun but don't need to present written proof, such as a sales receipt or serial number. A background check also is required to certify that someone claiming a gun can legally possess a firearm."
Looks like gun registration to me.
5. "The city won't be liable if a dispute arises over the ownership of a returned gun. Authorities can dispose of any guns that go unclaimed after two years."
Always a back door for the bad guys...
6. "This is all we've wanted all along: a practical return program," said NRA lawyer Stephen Halbrook, who estimated that the department should have 1,200 guns available for owners to claim."
And yet police report 552. Wow, what tight evidence lockers you have, NOPD....
7. "Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent Warren Riley were defendants in the case, which was scheduled to be tried next month."
Sued. Don't know what the outcome was. If someone does, please chime in.
8. "In response, the city argued that federal law doesn't apply to the plaintiffs' claims against city officials "because the right to keep and bear arms has never been recognized as a fundamental individual right."
SCOTUS upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms in federal enclaves in District of Columbia v. Heller. Later, in McDonald v. Chicago, they extended the individual RKBA to the states.
Thus, this argument is now defunct.
Just imagine if a Mayor and Police Chief can make such an illegal and unconstitutional act happen what the Federal gov't could do.......SCARY....
Both Heller and McDonald apply to the Fed, as well.