Bravo! I guess the Federal courts have to get it right sometimes. I'm glad this is one of those times.

Thank you, I guess it couldn't have come soon enough. FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM

A bit of good news for a change. And to supplement that good news with more good news, the "Stand Your Ground" law takes effect tomorrow in the state of Florida. Law abiding citizens can now defend themselves without having to turn tail and run first.

Wait, wait. The feds did something right?

*checks calendar*

Wow, it's not even April. Bravo indeed.

It does not take a rocket scientist or a bunch of supercilious, left-wing, Harvard law grads to figure out that "a well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Yes bravo and at the same time, the damage has been done already.

Finally! I can't believe that it took THIS LONG for the government to actually allow the 2nd Amendment to not be cracked down!!! Better late than never, but the looters have already attacked the defenseless population. :(

How can it be a victory to temporarily re-instate a constitutional right that should not have been tampered with in the first place. A victory would be headlines that read new orleans police superintendent relieved of his duties and placed under arrest for violating the citizens of new orleans 2cd amendment right to bear arms. He was also arrested and charged with conducting illegal seach and siezure practices as well as theft of private property and looting homes. That would be a victory worth celebrating.

Another mistake is the fact that new orleans citizens may not have had to protect themselves from rapists and armed gangs because it may have never happened. This article will explain why it might not have happened and who started the rumors that it had, and why they started them. Read it with an open mind then judge for yourselves.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/sep2005/lies-s30_prn.shtml

Finally our stupid and overbearing government actualy does something right and protect the american citizens civil liberties.Bet that will not happen again in another million years or until we get a libertarian candidate in office.

A good decision. If it saves just one person's life/property, it is more than worth it.

I do agree that this "superintendent" should be tossed overboard for actually trying to suspend the Bill of Rights.

This is great news. It took too long for someone to make a ruling on the matter. But I am happy with the outcome.

It must be pointed out that there is a difference between supporting the Second Amendment when opposing it would be blatantly disastros for the whole world to see, and supporting it under normal circumstances. I wouldn't call this any sort of great victory for the cause of freedom.

"A victory would be headlines that read new orleans police superintendent relieved of his duties and placed under arrest for violating the citizens of new orleans 2cd amendment right to bear arms."

Didn't the NOPD chief quit? Maybe not over the gun rights issue, but if he's gone, he's gone.

Rights violation Of course! Justifiable Maybe!
Situation - Flood isolates thousands from security and armed thugs come out for civilians to fend for themselves. In came security forces that confiscated some fire arms. Question: As Commander of the security force, would you trust the peaceful armed civilians could be identified with enough assurance to risk your men or would you prefer no one be armed except those you could identify. I hope I would order disarmament, impose peace, then return the guns, hope no one was killed or injured having done so and then accept my slapping around for temporarily violating their rights.
Conclusion - The arms confiscation while understandable was not legal. Official slapping will do as punishment followed by free drinks from the security unit for reducing their risks.

I guess there test run to see how easy it would be to disarm us in a "national emergency" worked out ok.
We shouldn't celebrate too much. This won't be the last time.

Strange days we're living in.

Is it in line with the principles of federalism, though? Or should we go to federal courts when the state level is unconstitutional?

Federalism was never intended to be the end-all. It was designed as a balancing act -- states were given the ability to prevent Federal over-reaching, but were never intended to be supreme to the central government. To wit:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land..." (Article 6)

This isn't just a 2nd Amendment issue; the gun seizures also violated the 4th and 5th Amendments.

Where was the probable cause and the warrant stating what was to be seized, as required by the 4th Amendment?

Where was the due process of law required by the 5th Amendment before citizens were deprived of their property (their guns)?

Bush Nominates Meirs, he seems to nominate all his buddies, he not working for us the people. WHAT ARE WE LIBERTARIANS GOING TO DO ABOUT IT. SIT ON OUR BUTTS?

http://drudgereport.com/flash4ds.htm

VERY GOOD ARTICLE
Bush will destroy our lives.
LIBERTARIANS PASS THIS ARTICLE TO EVERYONE.

Mark, thanks for bringing up the new Shoot First Law in my state (Florida). I can't believe this isn't getting more attention from the LP!

It's detractors are sure talking about it though (www.shootfirst.org).
Personally, I'm thrilled with the law, and hope that it is passed in other states.

The lawsuit is a good first step, but where are the criminal charges?

Under US Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 13, Sections 241 and 242, it is a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison to deprive anyone of the rights, privileges, and immunities protected by the Constitution.

Somehow, I think that violations of the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments would qualify.

Will the law be enforced? Will any of the victims step forward to press charges?

http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title18/parti_chapter13_.html

Uh...read your Constitution before you quote it. The right to keep and bear arms simply means the federal government can't deny you that right. It has nothing to do with what the state government has a right to do. The Anti-Federalists established the Bill of Rights to take back powers that the Constitution originally entitled individuals because they feared that individuals would appeal directly to the federal government when they felt their rights were violated. Their greatest fear was that the federal government would override state laws, thus creating a strong federal (read:central) government. Every time you quote the Fifth Amendment as a right of every individual, you are justifying a policy of greater federal government intervention. Any state has a right to enforce gun control laws. If you do not agree with this, you should work to amend the Constitution, not simply misread it.

The Bill of Rights was extended to the states by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

I am glad that this has finally been resolved properly, but I would have never given up my guns to begin with. They would get my guns... bullets first.

Keith, haaaa haaaaaa whooo whooo

Keith is absolutely right on the money. He has a right to defend his right to keep his arms from being confiscated, even it means them getting his guns bullets first. The constitution and bill of rights were created before many states even existed and they will most likely be exercized by force if nessessary by many americans who will refuse to have their guns confiscated. I don't believe this government will ever change course and stick to the limits of the constitution and bill of rights. I do believe that the people will eventually wake up and confront this out of control government head on.

You have some really cool stuff at your site. I'm sure gonna come back here. while they only recover: http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Charles_Mackay , with equanimity opinions , I want to achieve it by not dying!