Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Nifty new law in LA! ...but will it apply?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    Ok, I found a nifty little gem of a law that recently made the books in Louisiana.

    RS 29:738. Emergency powers do not extend to confiscation or seizure of lawfully possessed or used firearms, weapons, or ammunition; exceptions
    A. Nothing in this Chapter shall authorize the seizure or confiscation of any firearm or ammunition from any individual who is lawfully carrying or possessing the firearm or ammunition except as provided in Subsection B of this Section.
    B. A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm an individual if the officer reasonably believes it is immediately necessary for the protection of the officer or another individual. The peace officer shall return the firearm to the individual before discharging that individual unless the officer arrests that individual for engaging in criminal activity, or seizes the firearm as evidence pursuant to an investigation for the commission of a crime.
    This was passed on June 8, 2006 (gee, wonder what spurred that)?

    My only question is this. This law was written specifically relating to emergency situations. I was unable to find a state law requiring the police to return possessions in a NORMAL situation.

    Most likely that would be covered under standard procedure, but I couldn't find it written anywhere.

    I spoke with someone just tonight who told me about how he was stopped for speeding, and the police took his weapon, despite his CCW. I don't mean for the duration of the stop, I mean they ran the number, and when it came back clean they just decided to keep his weapon anyway. It took his lawyer two weeks to get his weapon returned to him. Then it took his lawyer two more MONTHS to get his ammo back. (At that point it was the principle of the thing).

    This all occurred several years ago, but here's my question. Can a law that applies to a specific situation (state of Emergency) be applied to a more general situation if it is the only one remotely applicable? In other words, is this a law I should print out and keep in my wallet? It seems too good to waste on emergency situations only!

    I'm not familiar enough with law in general to know if a situation-specific law can be applied more broadly or not.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I imagine the non-emergency situation is covered under 4th Amend--secure in person, papers, effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

    In the case of the seized pistol and ammo, I suspect they decided to ignore the relevant case law and just make him go to all the trouble of getting it back on judicial channels. Just based on the facts presented.

    I'd keep a copy handy in case an emergency or natural disaster developed. You never know, maybe the cop you meet will be swayed by it.

    Of course, it will only be effective if the cops 1) know about it, and 2) decide to play along. I imagine there are some out there who will do whatever the Mayor says.

    Of course, the next blow that comes along, maybe have the mayor and chief's e-mail addresses ready to go with a reminder.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    Tazlima wrote:
    Ok, I found a nifty little gem of a law that recently made the books in Louisiana.

    RS 29:738. Emergency powers do not extend to confiscation or seizure of lawfully possessed or used firearms, weapons, or ammunition; exceptions

    IIRC, this is just a limitation on "Emergency Powers" and does not affect any other situation.
    A. Nothing in this Chapter shall authorize the seizure or confiscation of any firearm or ammunition from any individual who is lawfully carrying or possessing the firearm or ammunition except as provided in Subsection B of this Section.
    B. A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm an individual if the officer reasonably believes it is immediately necessary for the protection of the officer or another individual. The peace officer shall return the firearm to the individual before discharging that individual unless the officer arrests that individual for engaging in criminal activity, or seizes the firearm as evidence pursuant to an investigation for the commission of a crime.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    dumries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    321

    Post imported post













    S. 2599/H.R. 5013: Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006




    In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the citizens of New Orleans lost their right to defend themselves from thugs and looters when law enforcement systematically confiscated legally owed firearms from those who were trying to protect themselves, their families and their property. To ensure this never happens again, the passage of S. 2599/H.R. 5013, the “Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006,” is a top NRA-ILA legislative priority.

    On July 25, 2006, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 322 to 99 to pass H.R. 5013 (introduced by Rep. Bobby Jindal, R-LA), to guarantee that the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans will never again be violated during a time of emergency. Companion legislation, S. 2599 by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), is now under consideration in the U.S. Senate.

    S. 2599 specifically prohibits the confiscation of lawfully possessed firearms by officials during emergencies. It also forbids federal officers or employees from requiring the registration of firearms, prohibiting the lawful carrying of firearms or banning the possession of lawful firearms. These prohibitions apply to all federal officers, employees or any others who receive federal funds and specifically include the uniformed services.

    The legislation also expressly allows citizens to bring legal action--similar to a traditional civil rights suit--against any government agent or employee who violates this act. The bill also allows for suit to be brought to force the return of any illegally confiscated firearm. Finally, S.2599/H.R. 5013 provides for payment of attorney’s fees for victims who are forced to use the courts to restore their rights and property.

    The strong bipartisan vote in favor of H.R. 5013 demonstrates the broad support for this legislation. Law enforcement must never again be allowed to disarm law-abiding people during a time of emergency when they are most vulnerable to criminal attack and when authorities are least able to come to the aid of citizens.
    On July 13, 2006, 84 Senators voted in favor of an amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill (H.R. 5441) to prohibit the use of any federal funds to confiscate lawfully owned or possessed firearms. This was an important step; however, it applies the restriction only to funding for the 2007 fiscal year. Passage of S. 2599/H.R. 5013 will make the prohibition of government confiscation of firearms during times of emergencies permanent and provides badly needed remedies for victims of confiscation should it ever happen in violation of the law.



    Posted: 7/27/2006 12:00:00 AM


  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    Law enforcement who illegally seize property or persons ARE, ipso facto,thugs and looters. It's not useful to make a distinction.

    -ljp

  6. #6
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    When LEOs start taking away the ability to defend yourself from thugs like those who showed up after Katrina, the LEOs have become exactly who they were trying to stop: thugs

    Seeing the aftermath of Katrina makes me believe that the best way to survive a catastrophe is to get out as soon as possible, not go where they tell you to congregate (i.e. the Superdome), and be responsible for your own safety. If you rely on the government, they will let you down, screw you over, and give you a massive headache in the process.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •