Second Amendment Foundation and NRA Win Battle of New Orleans

|

Guns seized illegally by police in New Orleans in the Katrina aftermath can be reclaimed now–the Second Amendment Foundation claims credit. According to its press release, citizens whose guns were stolen need only show up at the Police Property and Evidence Facility, at 400 North Jefferson Davis Parkway, show some proof a gun they own is there, and, of course, go through a police background check. SAF founder Alan Gottleib claims:

"The city had been denying for more than five months that these guns were in possession. Only when SAF and the NRA filed a motion to have Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent Warren Riley held in contempt of court did city officials miraculously discover that more than a thousand seized firearms were being stored."

An account of the city's earlier denials of the illegal gun seizures and the legal actions from SAF and NRA that ensued here. And Dave Kopel wrote about the confiscations–and why they were a bad idea–right here at Reason as they were happening, with a vivid account of a city devolving into "an anarcho-tyranny that refuses to protect the public from criminals while preventing people from protecting themselves," including cops breaking into homes at gunpoint to take citizens' guns.

NEXT: Attn, DC Reasonoids: Happy Hour, Wed. April 19, 6:30PM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What constitues “some proof a gun they own is there?” Did everyone fill-out forms in n-tuplicate with details linking them to the weapon?

    Nagin and Riley should still be held in contempt and worse since their actions were still criminal…malum in se.

    Another situaion: Oh no ociffer, don’t bother to arrest me. I’ll just flush my stash down the toilet and it’ll be just a good. I promise I won’t do it again.

    Think he’ll go for it?

  2. M’Tuklavier: From the SAF press release linked to in the post: “Gun owners will have to provide proof of ownership, which could include a bill of sale, a description of the firearm including brand and model and the serial number or a notarized affidavit that describes the firearm. Citizens claiming their firearms will need proper identification, such as a driver’s license”

  3. I’m opposed to a gun registry, but every gun owner should have a list of his guns and their serial numbers, along with photos of the same, stored in a secure location. Not so much for situations like these, but for when your house burns down or gets burglarized.

    I consider mine to be more confidential than my SSN.

  4. Anybody want to bet that there will be some really expensive antique gun for which the cops are unable to verify ownership, so it gets auctioned off (with the proceeds going to the cops)?

  5. Well, at least the violence in NO turned out to be much less than expected. And at least now people can get their guns back. Certainly, if people were leaving guns behind in a disaster area, the state has the right to scoop them up to keep them out of the hands of looters.

    JMJ

  6. I can’t wait until Lil’ Wayne’s crew all show up in line, clicking away on 2-way pagers, carping, ‘yo, hustle that ass and get me my Tek 9, bitch!’

  7. the state has the right to scoop them up to keep them out of the hands of looters

    The Objectivists will have a field day with this one….

  8. So how many people whose houses washed away have the purchase receipts for their firearms? Seems to me like the onus should be on the cops (who presumably would have had to fill out a police report when confiscating property).

  9. Is Objectivism popular again these days, Thoreau?

    JMJ

  10. Certainly, if people were leaving guns behind in a disaster area, the state has the right to scoop them up to keep them out of the hands of looters.

    Actually, the issue was that people who were themselves left behind in a disaster area were having their guns taken away so they couldn’t protect themselves from criminals. And since phone lines were down, the standard gun-control argument of “Call 911 if you’re in danger and let the cops take care of you when and if they feel like showing up” is even less applicable than it usually is.

  11. Objectivism certainly has its fans on this forum, JMJ.

  12. Jennifer, in a state of martial law, no one gets to keep their guns. It’s smart. The violence was minimal ad so one vcould say the effort was at least benign.

    Thoreau, oh yeah. I figured they were aroun here. Objectism was always popular with the very young Liber set.

    JMJ

  13. Jennifer, in a state of martial law, no one gets to keep their guns. It’s smart. The violence was minimal ad so one vcould say the effort was at least benign.

    The problem with your childlike fantasy of Big Brother Making Sure Everyone Plays Nice is that most criminals don’t play nice. In fact, if they know no one else is armed, that makes it easier for them to take whatever they want whenever they want, just by brandishing a knife or stick or a board with nails in it.

    Criminals are rational persons, Jersey. You make it difficult or even deadly for them to ply their trade and they’ll stop doing it. Make it easier, and they’ll do it more.

  14. I stopped bollowing Objectivism when I realized that absolutism and reality don’t mix. Other than that it is a decent and internally consistent philosophy…if overly wordy.

    At this point I would like for there to be a new constitutional ammendment which clearly spells out the rights of Persons, not just The People?, to appropriately keep, bear, and (when appropriate) brandish weapons of any sort.

  15. Captain Holly, there is no substantial evidence that universal armament deters crime.

    JMJ

  16. “Captain Holly, there is no substantial evidence that universal armament deters crime.”

    So, if you were in New Orleans shortly after Katrina, unable to escape, and someone offered you a firearm to defend yourself with, you’d turn it down?

    And even if you would, what gives you, or any other self-styled authority the right to disarm law-abiding citizens who may very well need a means of defense?

  17. there is no substantial evidence that universal armament deters crime.

    Except for all those studies showing crime rates going down after concealed-carry laws were passed; apparently criminals think twice when they know there’s a chance their victim has a gun.

    If the cops were taking guns away from criminals I wouldn’t mind; instead, they were taking guns away from little old ladies who lived alone and were more likely to become victims.

  18. mediageek – Of course JMJ wouldn’t take the gun and would gladly submit to being assaulted, raped, robbed and murdered. Hey, that’s a game JMJ’s whole family will love!

    But at least JMJ would have the moral high ground, since burial in N.O. is usually above-ground. The smug, self-satisfied grin of superiority that people who want to take guns from everyone – ESPECIALLY during a situation that requires martial law – is usually indistinguishable from the rictus of death.

  19. Captain Holly, there is no substantial evidence that universal armament deters crime.

    And there’s even less evidence that universal disarmament deters crime…

  20. Captain Holly, there is no substantial evidence that universal armament deters crime.

    And there’s even less evidence that universal disarmament deters crime…

  21. Mediageek,

    “So, if you were in New Orleans shortly after Katrina, unable to escape, and someone offered you a firearm to defend yourself with, you’d turn it down?

    And even if you would, what gives you, or any other self-styled authority the right to disarm law-abiding citizens who may very well need a means of defense?”

    It’s standard martial law. When you have a disaster, you disarm the people – all the people, without regard for who legally owns what. It’s a level playing field.

    Jennifer,

    …there is no substantial evidence that universal armament deters crime.

    “Except for all those studies showing crime rates going down after concealed-carry laws were passed; apparently criminals think twice when they know there’s a chance their victim has a gun.”

    That’s a lie. Thos studies have not been substantiated or repeated and come from conflicted sources. Only a blind zealot would believe such tripe. Besides, crime rates went down much farther during those same periods in heavily controlled areas.

    Holly,

    “And there’s even less evidence that universal disarmament deters crime…”

    Disarmed populations throughout the world ALL have lower crime rates than the US. I’m not condoning disarmament – just saying…

    JMJ

  22. Captain Holly, there is no substantial evidence that universal armament deters crime.

    Perhaps. Perhaps not. But there is evidence that universal disarmament leads to an increase in crime.

    http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=8073

  23. Thos studies have not been substantiated or repeated and come from conflicted sources

    Source, please?

    Besides, crime rates went down much farther during those same periods in heavily controlled areas.

    Which is why little old ladies walk the streets of Washington, DC with impunity, right? I’m being sarcastic, of course–somehow, strong gun-control laws haven’t prevented DC from having the highest per-capita murder rate in the nation.

  24. Disarmed populations throughout the world ALL have lower crime rates than the US. I’m not condoning disarmament – just saying…

    In Soviet Russia, they mug you after you go to police station.

  25. Disarmed populations throughout the world ALL have lower crime rates than the US. I’m not condoning disarmament – just saying…

    All those populations had low crime rates to begin with.

    Every jurisdiction that enacted new firearm restrictions has experienced an increase in crime after doing so.

    Now, I wouldn’t use such anecdotal evidence alone to prove anything about gun ownership, but it sure invalidates anything your side has to say.

    And while we’re at it, how do you explain Switzerland?

  26. Can we all please stop responding to the child? He’s not here for discourse.

  27. TPG has a point.

    Jersey is just spouting off for his own amusement.

    No one would earnestly post things so easily disproved by a Google search unless he were truly a halfwit.

  28. TPG has a point.

    Jersey is just spouting off for his own amusement.

    No one would earnestly post things so easily disproved by a Google search unless he were truly a halfwit.

  29. Why is it that whenever you hear about a mass shooting, it always seems to take place in a gun-free zone like a school or a post office? Why aren’t there mass shootings at firing ranges, gun shows or NRA meetings?

    With all those guns floating around, you’d think mass shootings would happen all the damned time. . . unless maybe the type of guy who’d perpetrate a mass shooting is also the type who prefers intended victims whom he knows won’t be able to shoot back.

  30. Jennifer,

    Don’t muddy the issue with logic. LOL

  31. You guys look plain stupid here. MAinstream studies ALL dispute your gun-nut numbers.

    JMJ

  32. You guys look plain stupid here. MAinstream studies ALL dispute your gun-nut numbers.

    So show us these studies. Do they also explain why mass shootings happen in gun-free zones rather than places where lots of folks are armed?

  33. You guys look plain stupid here.

    Yeah, sure we do.

    I note that you have not disputed the increase in crime rates in Australia after their gun ban.

  34. JMJ, read above I don’t own a gun, I can’t be a gun nut. But I too would like to see these studies you speak of. BTW, articles from The Nation will not be taken any more seriously than ones from National Review so choose your sources wisely otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

  35. On a previous thread on this topic, Jersey claimed that women like me were in more danger of suffering horrible things if we dared carry guns to defend ourselves. Stevo Darkly posted some relevant statistics, which I’m going to cut and paste here:

    The lovely Second Amendment Sisters were nice enough to post these statistics from a study by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck. Dr. Kleck is a recipient of the prestigious of the Michael J. Hindelang Award of the American Society of Criminology.

    Kleck’s findings from 1979-1985 national data:

    Percentage of robbery/assault victims suffering an injury:

    – When resisting with a gun: 12.1% to 17.4%

    – When not resisting at all and totally submissive: 24.7% ro 27.3%

    – When “resisting” by screaming: 40.1% to 48.9%

    – When trying to reason with or verbally threaten the attacker: 24.7% to 30.7%

    – When “resisting passively or trying to evade”: 25.5% to 34.9%

    – When resisting with a knife: 29.5% to 40.3%

    – When resisting with some other kind of weapon: 22% to 25.1%

    – When resisting bare-handed: 50.8% to 52.1%

    Another interesting statistic: “97% of the women who resist a rapist with a firearm do so successfully, meaning that they are not raped and are not otherwise injured.”

    Linky-poo:

    http://www.2asisters.net/tx/resources_references.htm

  36. Jennifer, in a state of martial law, no one gets to keep their guns.

    See, I could have sworn the cops and the criminals kept theirs. Learn something new every day.

    The violence was minimal ad so one vcould say the effort was at least benign.

    Count on Jersey to characterize the forcible seizure of private property and depriving citizens of the means of self-defense as “benign.”

  37. “97% of the women who resist a rapist with a firearm do so successfully, meaning that they are not raped and are not otherwise injured.”

    If these women didn’t have guns they’d have been raped, and possibly beaten or killed in the bargain, but that’s a fair trade-off if it makes Jersey “I love and respect all women” McJones feel safer, no?

  38. JMJ: Disarmed populations throughout the world ALL have lower crime rates than the US.

    Sorry. I live way too close to Mexico. The only way to take that statement seriously is to say that government sponsored/condoned violence isn’t “crime.”

    Or you can look at Britain. Their disarmament efforts have “succeeded” to the point that they are considering banning possession of pointy kitchen knives. And they have become progressively more violent as they completed each phase.

    Finally, (pun intended) since the military adoption of the repeating firearm (c1900) disarmed populations also have a 100% lock on being victims of genocide.

  39. just by brandishing a …board with nails in it.

    Run, Kodos, run!

  40. I wonder if JMJ will comment furthur now that facts have been posted in this thread?

  41. Would it be a violation of the Godwin code to point out that the Nazis instituted a strict gun-control program shortly after taking power? I’ll point out, of course, that their motivation for disarming the people of Germany was to protect them.

    Man, think of the carnage if Anne Frank’s dad and friends had had guns!

  42. IIRC, Godwins law is invoked if you call someone a Nazi or compare them to the Nazis.

    You are merely stating a fact about the Nazis. They disarmed the populace in order to secure their hold on power.

  43. I know JMJ is a troll, but even so he needs to realize when he contradicts himself.

    He says the violence was minimal, and then claims the declaration of martial law was justification for taking the guns away.

    But wasn’t martial law declared based on the exaggeration of the violence which he now claims to be minimal? I suppose in some Homer Simpson-esque logic one could say the declaration of martial law kept the violence to a minimum, but certainly the looting was not a reason for the declaration as most of the looted items were left behind to be an expected insurance loss (not to mention the report of police doing some of their own looting – including the confiscation of guns.) If the violence was minimal, then there was no good reason to declare martial law throughout the city.

    It will be interesting to see how many people make claims on their confiscated guns that the police won’t fulfill, I’d seriously doubt all the confiscated guns were locked up for safe keeping to be returned at a later date.

  44. OK. You guys are right. I’m sorry it took this long to admit that I’m wrong. I guess I just wanted the attention.

    I think I know what my problem is. My dad only said “I love you” once…and he was making fun of the way I said it to HIM.

    JMJ

  45. Well, now that JMJ’s bared his heart to us all, I think it only fair that we rip it out with a knife and burn it in offering to the Reason gods just like the Aztecs used to do…

    Or buy him a beer.

    Either plan works for me.

    “Cake or death?!?”

  46. Well, now that JMJ’s bared his heart to us all, I think it only fair that we rip out with a knife and feed it to the Reason gods just like the Aztecs…

    Or buy him a beer. Either one.

  47. Well, now that JMJ’s bared his heart to us all, I think it only fair that we rip it out with a knife and burn it in offering to the Reason gods just like the Aztecs used to do…

    Or buy him a beer.

    Either plan works for me.

    “Cake or death?!?”

  48. It should be obvious that the right to bear arms does not apply when one actually needs it.

    Duh.

  49. Last November, I attended a four day defensive handgun training class at Frontsight, Nevada. There were about three hundred students in attendance, all armed with a loaded handgun. It was great fun and very educational as well. The only time I felt safer was when I was in the army in the company of 150 guys carrying machine guns.

    One student shot himself in the leg and was flown by helicopter to the trauma center in Las Vegas. He was treated and released, with two neat holes in his right thigh (entry and exit), and a bruised ego. If only Ray Nagin and JMJ had been there to disarm us, I am sure this guy would not have been shot.


  50. Jennifer, in a state of martial law, no one gets to keep their guns.

    JMJ – That may be true, but unfortunately for you, it has nothing to do with the situation in New Orleans, because Louisiana doesn’t have the concept of martial law in its legal code. OOOOOOPS! Is that what they call “hoist by your own petard”, JMJ?

  51. Martial law was never declared in Louisiana, only a state of emergency. In any case, the declaring of martial law still doesn’t give the police the power to disregard the 2nd Ammendment.

  52. Heh.

    Pwned.

  53. It’s gotta hurt to be JMJ. Imagine the headaches caused by all that painful cognitive dissonance!

  54. Jersey McJones

    Would you go to the library and find some reading material that doesn’t have a liberal bias?
    I confess-I was once a liberal.
    You’ve been lied to.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.