Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« We're in the best of hands... | Main | Ohioans for Concealed Carry tags Cleveland Heights for fees »

5th Circuit: seizure of firearm not a 2A violation

Posted by David Hardy · 15 March 2012 09:28 AM

Houston v. New Orleans, filed yesterday. Plaintiff was arrested on unspecified charges, and his Glock was seized and kept after the charges were dismissed. (He was re-arrested, with charges again dropped, after he filed this suit).

The 5th Circuit holds that there is no due process problem, since Louisiana law has a procedure for seeking return of seized property, and no right to arms problem, since the right to arms covers arms in general and not this one specific firearm.

Hat tip to reader Charles Oldfield...

· State legislation

3 Comments | Leave a comment

Ken M | March 15, 2012 11:46 AM | Reply

"... [T]he right to arms covers arms in general and not this one specific firearm."

Bloody Marvelous! So one is guaranteed the right to possess arms in general, just not any particular arms he or she might actually possess.

Matthew Carberry | March 15, 2012 4:32 PM | Reply

I suppose the "right to arms in general" refers to his theoretical ability to acquire another firearm while going through the due process to have his seized "specific arm" returned?

It seems like there must be a potential "disproportionate impact" issue in there somewhere, at least on the portion of the costs due to government licensing /regulation.

If charges were dropped (wrongful arrest?), forcing you to, in essence, permanently expend money to temporarily replace your firearm, when renting one is not an option due to the law, it seems like that ruling would adversely penalize the poor (disproportionately minorities?) who are almost certainly more subject to arbitrary arrest, less likely to own multiple firearms, and less able to justify expending scarce money to buy another firearm to maintain the legitimate exercise of their fundamental rights than are the wealthy.

RS | March 15, 2012 11:59 PM | Reply

The logic here is impeccable.

You have the right to free speech, just not "those words".
You have the right to free practice of religion, except the one which the state disapproves.
You have the right to freedom of association... with the "right" people.
The list is endless, as is the power of the state.

This is the statist manifesto!

Leave a comment