home

New Orleans Gun Confiscation: Illegal and Foolish

By Jeralyn, Section Huricanes Katrina and Rita
Posted on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 11:12:04 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Dave Koppel, Second Amendment expert, explains why the confiscation of firearms in New Orleans is both illegal and foolish.

The power of "regulating and controlling" is not the same as the power of "prohibiting and controlling." The emergency statute actually draws this distinction in its language, which refers to "prohibiting" price-gouging, sale of alcohol, and curfew violations, but only to "regulating and controlling" firearms. Accordingly, the police superintendent's order "prohibiting" firearms possession is beyond his lawful authority. It is an illegal order.

Last week, we saw an awful truth in New Orleans: A disaster can bring out predators ready to loot, rampage, and pillage the moment that they have the opportunity. Now we are seeing another awful truth: There is no shortage of police officers and National Guardsmen who will obey illegal orders to threaten peaceful citizens at gunpoint and confiscate their firearms.

[Via Instapundit]. However, I take issue with Instapundit's tongue-in-cheek comment that he would support the disarming of Sean Penn. I suspect Glenn means he'd like to see Sean Penn zipped (as in silenced, not killed.)

I completely support Sean Penn in his travels both to international hotbeds like Iran and disaster sites to bring us his view and experiences. He does so on his own dime, when he could stay home and read scripts. Why should his voice carry any less weight than anyone else's? I applaud Penn for his commitment and for making use of his celebrity to get behind the enemy lines of this Administration.

< Katrina: What Went Wrong | An Exceptional Katrina - New Orleans Photolog >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    New Orleans Gun Confiscation: Illegal and Foolish | 11 comments (11 topical)
    Re: New Orleans Gun Confiscation: Illegal and Fool (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:39 PM EST
    one could also make the argument, with just as much legal basis, that prohibiting something is a form of regulating. a quick example: the federal government regulates drugs in this country. part of that regulating involves allowing the use and manufacture of some drugs, and prohibiting the use and manufacture of others. good luck, i think you have a loser, if that's the best argument you can make.

    Re: New Orleans Gun Confiscation: Illegal and Fool (none / 0) (#2)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:39 PM EST
    Koppel's definition of "regulate" doesn't persuade me, but I thought there was a trump card in the Louisiana Constitution: Article 1, Section 1:
    ...The rights enumerated in this Article are inalienable by the state and shall be preserved inviolate by the state.
    Section 11:
    The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.
    So it seems to me that if the power to "regulate" does include the power to prohibit, or even the power to abridge (quote a broad term), then the law granting that power is unconstitutional. The legislature was mistaken in thinking it had the authority to pass the law. But then, "shall not be" has never been as strong in the law as it is in plain language.

    Re: New Orleans Gun Confiscation: Illegal and Fool (none / 0) (#3)
    by The Heretik on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:39 PM EST
    I will leave discussion of the second ammendment as it applies here to more learned minds. However, one thing most disquieting these days is the extent to which agents of law enforcement act against the spirit of law with callous disregard now, with the knowledge that later overturning of their actions have little impact on them. If taking the guns now is illegal and is ruled so later, the goal dubious or not is still achieved. In New York, mass, indiscriminate arrests of protesters at the Republican Convention were the order of the day. Most charges have been dismissed. Who was served by that? Police powers are great and often abused. Who are we to turn to when later sanctions have no teeth?

    Re: New Orleans Gun Confiscation: Illegal and Fool (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:40 PM EST
    Here we go! --- Bush has let loose his brown shirts: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091005A.shtml This is only a part of his confiscation of guns and freedom. These nice guys are in Iraq too. check it out.

    Re: New Orleans Gun Confiscation: Illegal and Fool (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:41 PM EST
    Knowing the city fairly well I'd say that the police will be out-gunned and probably out-manned. And it certainly brings up some constitutional questions. I couldn't imagine not having a firearm as a means of defense against the inevitable nuts that are going to be lurking about after a disaster. If anything this has proven that allowing responsible people to own firearms is an advantage not a disadvantage when things get tough. You want to decrease gun related crime? Just allow everyone who is properly trained to carry unconcealed weapons if they choose.

    Re: New Orleans Gun Confiscation: Illegal and Fool (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:41 PM EST
    jimcee: "You want to decrease gun related crime? Just allow everyone who is properly trained to carry unconcealed weapons if they choose." You already have that right, at least in liberal California, but the police also have the right to stop you, and maybe shoot you, if they feel you are a threat -- a foregone conclusion if you have a holstered sidearm or a rifle. I myself have been tackled for carrying a perfectly legal six inch Buckknife (on my way to the mountains) -- good luck with a gun. And carrying guns doesn't make people safer. Having a gun is related to USING a gun, and escalation of violent encounters is nearly guaranteed when one or both are armed. Gun control is not the same as gun prohibition. I favor gun control, but I recognize that an SUV driven by some idiot on their cellphone is as lethal as a gun. The NRA shows it's true colors when they ignore the disarming of lawful civilians, and when they fail to protest the advertizing of .50 cal sniper rifles as suitable for shooting down airliners. The NRA is a LIE. They don't really support safety -- they are far more of a closet racist organization supporting a rightwing perspective on class (and elite race) rights. Where in the Constitution of Louisiana or the US does it state that the government can deploy MERCENARIES on our streets? Another impeachable crime for the list.

    Re: New Orleans Gun Confiscation: Illegal and Fool (none / 0) (#7)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:41 PM EST
    PiL,
    The NRA shows it's true colors when they ignore the disarming of lawful civilians, and when they fail to protest the advertizing of .50 cal sniper rifles as suitable for shooting down airliners.
    What advertisement do you mean? There was a stink a while back about a Barrett ad, but it was a brochure for the military. That said, I've been wracking my brain trying to think of a single non-white member, official, or supporter of the NRA, and I just can't remember even hearing of one.

    Re: New Orleans Gun Confiscation: Illegal and Fool (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:43 PM EST
    The Barrett ad was NOT a brochure for the military -- it is on their website, and people VERY MUCH LIKE YOU were on TL months ago, defending the ad and the company as perfectly fine for public consumption. After all, one noted, you can shoot down an airliner with any decent-sized rifle. As we all GAWKED at yet another example of what is seriously wrong with the Bushlicker Klan.

    Re: New Orleans Gun Confiscation: Illegal and Fool (none / 0) (#9)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:44 PM EST
    PiL,
    The Barrett ad was NOT a brochure for the military -- it is on their website, and people VERY MUCH LIKE YOU were on TL months ago...
    Got links? The only such discussion I can find on TL are here and here, in which you are discussing this quote from many news and opinion pieces:
    In a brochure advertising its Model 82A1 .50-Caliber sniper rifle, Tennessee-based Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Inc. states, "The cost-effectiveness of the Model 82A1 cannot be overemphasized when a round of ammunition purchased for less than 10 USD [U.S. dollars] can be used to destroy or disable a modern jet aircraft.
    So either you thought it was a brochure, or your sources did. If you have some different ad in mind, let me know, and skip the rest of this: I can't find much objective info about the brochure, but Ronnie Barrett contacted a blogger about this issue. I don't know if he's talking about the same brochure, but it's about the same gun:
    Those are all VPC mis-quotes, Barrett had a Military brochure about 18 years ago...
    And the only mention of airplanes or airliners I can find on Barrett's site is here. It is not an ad, it is a rebuttal to California's gun control and some percieved media trickery.

    Re: New Orleans Gun Confiscation: Illegal and Fool (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:44 PM EST
    Posted by roy: "So either you thought it was a brochure, or your sources did. " Wow, welcome to the modern world, Roy. It's apparently BOTH a brochure AND a webpage. "No one ever thought that a brochure could be a webpage too." -- Roy Bush The quoted Barrett ad is from the gun control group I linked to in that posting; I saw the same material and statements ON THEIR WEBSITE. Ronnie Barrett is lying through his teeth. And that is moot to the fact that the NRA neither complained about this sort of advertizing, NOR are complaining about the disarming of Louisianans, NOR do they have any program to encourage their members not to engage in jingoistic, anti-immigrant, shoot-first talk -- the contrary. Given the 60 White-supremacist Terrorist Plots stopped in the United States in the last ten years, it is of concern when the NRA, which supported Ashcroft in his order NOT to release the 9i1 terrorist's gun licences, acts like it too is floating face down, when it comes to the 2nd Amendment rights of BLACKS.

    Re: New Orleans Gun Confiscation: Illegal and Fool (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    Re Sean Penn, sure... he has the right to speak his mind, and the fact that he's a celebrity shouldn't mean his opinion is worth less than anyone else's. Nor should it mean his opinion is worth more than any else's. Quite frankly, Penn is an embarrassment. His publicity stunt in New Orleans was typical: he spent lots of money that could very well have helped a lot of people if it had been donated, say, to the Red Cross or the Salvation Army... or at least he could have bought a couple pallets of bottled water and food and brought them to the Superdome and REALLY relieved some suffering on a massive scale. But that wouldn't have gotten him his 15 seconds of fame. Hint to Sean: it's NOT all about you. Re the drug argument (prohibiting is a form of regulating), I don't recall an amendment in either the federal or LA constitution that GUARANTEES (not grants) the right to possess and carry drugs. Re the NRA being a racist organization, how can anyone say this with a straight face? Roy Innis, the head of CORE (Congress on Racial Equality), a conservative Black civil rights organization, has been an NRA Director (on the board) for many years. The NRA doesn't give a fig about your skin color as long as you support the right to keep and bear arms. Remember that, a few years ago when city and federal agencies tried to confiscate guns owned by ANYONE living in public housing, the NRA went to court for these folks (who WEREN'T NRA members and who were mostly black) and won. If ANYONE is racist, it is the Mayor of New Orleans who ASSUMES that ordinary citizens of the city (mostly black, by the way) cannot be trusted with firearms during a period of civil unrest... yet the wealthy with their guards CAN be. Here's a novel idea: how 'bout leaving people who justifiably want to be able to defend themselves against thugs and who aren't threatening other people alone and shooting the thugs? The problem with most 'liberals' like Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco is, they lack the moral courage to judge people as individuals and so condemn everyone as untrustworthy of gun ownership. That's why, instead of cracking down on violent criminals and leaving the decent people (of whatever race) alone, they pass laws that treat EVERYONE like criminals. Re the Barrett M82A1, how many of the previous commenters have ever seen one in person, much less shot one, or owned one (I have). These rifles AREN'T made for shooting down airplanes... they're too unwieldy and quite frankly can't be swung fast enough to hit an airline roaring close overhead. Instead, they are used by the military to destroy STATIONARY assets. For example, an SF sniper team with a Barrett may parachute into enemy territory, sneak to within a mile or so of an enemy airstrip, and disable every single fighter plane parked on the tarmac with a couple of hits through the engines (they'll take out the radar-controlled anti-air guns, too, armored personnel carriers, trucks, the tower, etc., anything that is stationary and relatively thinly armored)... shortly before the C-130s come in to drop a company of Rangers. So, the NRA can defend the sale of these rifles to civilians because there is absolutely nothing that can be done under 1,000 yards with a Barrett that couldn't be done with a decent hunting rifle (and most people, given a Barrett or a trusty lever-action .30-30, can't hit the side of a barn past a couple hundred yards anyway). People who buy the Barrett at $7k a pop do so because they want a HUGE rifle that costs a couple of dollars a shot, has considerable recoil, and is pretty much totally useless for most civilian applications (the exception being long-range target shooting)... but it sure is fun! And to say that Ronnie Barrett is "lying through his teeth" is either a display of INCREDIBLE and OUTSTANDING ignorance, or of mendacity.

    New Orleans Gun Confiscation: Illegal and Foolish | 11 comments (11 topical)