Carnival of Cordite #30

Time once again for the (usually) weekly Carnival of Cordite!  Let's jump right in, shall we?

*     *     *

First and foremost, we have the ongoing debacle in New Orleans:

Josh's Weblog reviews the situation for us here.  More from Instapundit.  More from TriggerFinger.  More from Thirty Second Thoughts.  More from Kit.

Michelle Malkin is worried about disarmament being applied not only to citizens, but to visiting National Guard members coming to give assistance.

So, let me get this straight... we need troops to come and establish order and safety, but they can't load their weapons?

Fortunately, at least in this instance, someone high enough up in the chain of command overrode the ridiculous orders.  I guess this is proof that if you expose a problem, you can get it fixed.  Now we need to fully expose the rest of the problems in New Orleans...

Here is some exposure:

Geek with a .45 has links to videos of gun confiscations, including a little old lady literally dropped to the ground by jackbooted thugs on live television over her revolver.  Yes, the proper way to make sure society is safe is tackling feeble old women to take away the only means they have to protect themselves!

Here is exposure of a different sort:

New contributor Atlas Shrugs has more on this new "poster-boy for the Second Amendment."  More from Les Jones.  More from Uncle.

So we have confiscations going on (unless you are a famous Hollywood actor).  Is it legal?  Dave Kopel says NO.

It does look like (now) the confiscations may have ended.  See this from Geek with a .45 and read down to the end.

Irons in the Fire has commentary here, here, and here.

So does the Revolutionary War Veterans Association.

Countertop sees this as a domestic enemy problem.  I agree.  And he ponders what would happen if disaster struck D.C.

*     *     * 

In comes the NRA!

Here is the text of the NRA statement:

National Rifle Association leader Wayne LaPierre slammed New Orleans authorities Monday for seizing legal firearms from lawful residents.

"What we’ve seen in Louisiana - the breakdown of law and order in the aftermath of disaster - is exactly the kind of situation where the Second Amendment was intended to allow citizens to protect themselves, " LaPierre said.

"When law enforcement isn’t available, Americans turn to the one right that protects all the others - the right to keep and bear arms," LaPierre said. "This attempt to repeal the Second Amendment should be condemned."  The New York Times reported last Thursday that no civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to have guns, quoting the superintendent of police that "only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons."

A Louisiana state statute allows the chief law enforcement officer to "regulate possession" of firearms during declared emergencies. "But regulate doesn’t mean confiscate," said Chris W. Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist.

"Authorities are using that statute to do what the looters and criminals could not: disarm the law-abiding citizens of New Orleans trying to protect their homes and families," Cox said.

"The NRA will not stand idly by while guns are confiscated from law-abiding people who’re trying to defend themselves," he said.

"We’re exploring every legal option available to protect the rights of lawful people in New Orleans," Cox said, "and we’re taking steps to overturn such laws in every state where they exist."

"Local authorities in New Orleans are turning nature’s assault on human life into man’s assault on human rights," LaPierre said. "Four million NRA members intend to stop this unconstitutional power grab."

Instapundit thinks the NRA response is late.  And, thus far, it doesn't seem like a very strong response, as Josh notices.

But before anyone on our side takes this further and openly criticizes the NRA, I'd like to offer up some analysis:

The NRA is to the residents of New Orleans and their gun rights what the federal government is to disaster relief.  The NRA is not a first responder, but is a powerful force that can do great things once it gets rolling.

Who needs to react first when a local authority violates your gun rights?

First responder is YOU.  But don't respond with the gung-ho "from my cold, dead hands" bravado.  Why not?  BECAUSE IF YOU RESIST POLICE WHILE YOU ARE ARMED, THEY WILL KILL YOU.  And no matter how improper the orders from above may be, I would not for one moment hold it against a police officer if he defended himself with lethal force when an armed and potentially dangerous adversary refused to comply.  He has as much right to self-defense as anyone else.

Furthermore, respect for the rule of law means winning in a court of law, not taking the law into your own hands.  Eric discusses this here.  Be sure to read the comments!  More from TriggerFinger.

So what do you do?  You comply.  And you get the names and badge numbers of everyone involved.  You demand receipts for the property taken.  Get serial numbers written down.  Get the names of superiors who gave the orders.  Get phone numbers.  Don't do ANYTHING to provoke or harass them.  Cooperate.  Then get help.

And where do you go?  First place you go is to local help.  A faceless bureaucracy in Virginia is not going to be effective at getting you legal help fast when your rights are being violated in New Orleans.  You need to find legal representation from someone in your own jurisdiction, someone who is licensed to practice law there and who is familiar with your local civil procedure.  A local lawyer can get your case in front a judge for an injunction fast.  The NRA can't.

Who else do you turn to?

There are state and local gun advocates groups all over the nation.  Here in Oregon, we have the Oregon Gun Owners and the Oregon Firearms Federation.  Who do you have in your state?  FIND OUT!

What can these local groups do that the NRA can't?  Well for one thing, they tend to have closer contacts with local politicians.  For another, they focus on just your area, so their resources aren't spread out.  This makes them better able to respond to a local incident.

So where does the NRA come in?

Well, we are seeing it start now, but it won't end with a press release.  The NRA has tremendous resources, the types of resources necessary to take high-profile cases to the Federal Courts of Appeal and (hopefully someday) the Supreme Court of the United States.  It takes big dollars, sometimes millions of dollars, to win a precedent-setting case in the federal system.  Smaller organizations are great for helping out people with local problems, or lobbying for local pro-gun legislation.  But the big dogs are under the NRA porch.

We won't see it now; we probably won't see it in the next year; but in the future, we WILL see a massive federal lawsuit over the unconstitutional seizures in New Orleans.  The nature of the Second Amendment will be addressed in federal court and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal.  There is a very strong chance that, no matter what the 5th Circuit's decision, the case will be settled once and for all before the Supreme Court.

THIS WILL BE THE BIG ONE FOR GUN OWNERS.

We need the biggest and best on our side.  That will be the NRA.

So who do you support as your gun rights advocate?

The answer is: all of them.

Find out who your state and local gun advocate groups are.  Become a member.  Give them money.  Get on their mailing lists.  Then do the same for the NRA.  They do different things, and both need YOU.  Don't get sucked into the "NRA is too slow and doesn't care about little things" argument.  Don't get sucked into the "NRA is the biggest and best group, so giving money to any other is wasting resources" argument.  WE NEED THEM BOTH.  And they all need you.

Unfortunately, the realities of fund-raising encourage advocates for every group to "cut down" the others in order to maximize their own revenues.  We need to be on the same side, people!

And here, Instapundit gets it.  Yes, the NRA will be bringing suit.  But give them time.  This one is too important to screw up.  The NRA is going to need to bring all its resources to bear on the issue.  In the meantime, Of Arms and the Law reports that the NRA is now seeking plaintiffs.

When the case comes, the NRA will probably need help from other good organizations.  This needs to be a team effort.  So also support Gun Owners of America, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, and more.  It's not a one-dog fight.  We are all in this together!

Uncle thinks this could be the big Supreme Court case we want, but is pessimistic about the possible outcome.  What do we need to ensure the Supreme Court rules properly?

Four words: ASSOCIATE JUSTICE JOHN ASHCROFT.  That will strike fear in the hearts of liberals!

(Of course, it might also strike fear in the hearts of some libertarians, and we need their support...)

*     *     *

More follow up from last week's issue:

Because I Say So has more on guns for disaster preparedness.  This post is focused on people new to shooting.  His first piece of advice: no Swiss Army Guns!

New contributor The Second Opinion offers up some advice on affordable protective firearms.  Notice the name of the post: "homeowners insurance."  Here, I'd like to discuss the importance of insurance as part of disaster preparedness.  GET IT.  And when you are facing the possibility of evacuation, remember that most things you own are replaceable.  That's what the insurance is for.  Insurance won't bring back the dead, so don't risk your life trying to spare some possessions.  Go through your home today and identify the things, the very few things, that are truly irreplaceable: family heirlooms, photographs, etc.  Then think of ways to store them that A) protect them in case of emergency and B) make them easy to gather and transport.  You don't have a lot of room in your car.  Fill it wisely.  If it isn't going to keep you alive while waiting for the crisis to end, you don't need it.  Let insurance replace it.

Also, gather up all your important documents relating to things like your insurance policies, your bank accounts, etc.  Photocopy them.  Then put the copies into zip-type plastic kitchen bags where they will be protected against water damage, and put the copies into a small bin along with your other emergency "bug out" gear.  That way, if you are forced to evacuate and your home is flooded and destroyed, you still have all the information you need to get in touch with your insurance companies and file claims.

You should also periodically back up your hard drives onto CD/DVD storage, and put the backups in the same bin.  You'd be amazed how much information most people have on their hard drives, but nowhere else.

Speaking of insurance, read this!  It is vitally important that you know what your policy does, and doesn't cover!

Back to guns... Analog Kid is starting a new e-postal match to help prepare you for disaster.

And the time to get your disaster preparedness firearm is NOW, not when disaster strikes, and as Common Folk Using Common Sense point out, don't get it from Wal-Mart!  More from Individ.  More from Tam. 

The Civilian Gun Self Defense Blog reminds us that it's not all about New Orleans.

*     *     *

On the political front:

Baboon Pirates has some information from Smith & Wesson about its financial harm due to consumer backlash for its willingness to work with the Clinton administration, and anti-gun local governments and groups in the 1990's.

Stop the ACLU thinks the ACLU should get on board with gun rights.  Good luck.

*     *     *

And on the legal front:

Of course, the biggest legal news is the nomination of a new Chief Justice.  Of Arms and the Law has a lot about this.  Just start at the top and work your way down.

TriggerFinger has the latest installment in the ongoing discussion of the Beretta case.  More here.

New contributor Grits for Breakfast is here to talk about the new Texas "carry in the car" law.

Michigan might be getting a little more self-defense-friendly, with reinforcement of the "castle doctrine."  The Great Lakes Shooting Sports Association has the news and follow up.  And Posse Incitatus has analysis.

*     *     *

Time for some gratuitous gun pics and stuff:

Michelle Malkin had this up on September 11:

Michelle, you are off to a great start, but we need to work a little on your grouping. For hands on personal lessons, please contact Gullyborg...

Or talk to mASS BACKWARDS, who has a similar range report of his own...

... and featuring his new .45:

Notice how he cleverly plugs his friend's blog?  I applaud the efficiency!

And how did Coyote Killer spend September 11?

I'm observing the anniversary by giving shooting lessons to a Marine (my secretary, who says that the Corps trained him admirably as a rifleman, but not so well with a handgun, which turns out to matter for a combat engineer defusing IEDs and the like, he found). That seems like a good way for me.

Can't think of a better way myself.

Results from the previous e-postal match!  And Analog Kid had one great weekend!

Speaking of weekends, October 29-30 is the Nation of Rifleman Weekend in Texas.  Plan your trip today!

More e-postal news from Mr. Completely.  Mr. Completely also enters the Twilight Zone.  And he drops the bomb with a caption contest:

OK, I'll bite: "I'm anxious to test out my new 26,000 BMG Wildcat, but I'm having a problem working up the load..."

In a post sure to start a flame way, Uncle picks the AR over the AK.

Countertop was pleased to find a cool gun listed as the Wikipedia entry of the day!

Shakey Pete is up and around after his trip to the hospital.  But his doctor wants him to rest up a few more days before he goes shooting.  How to spend the time?  Hand-loading!

*     *     *

Finally, we normally end with a blog of the week.  But this time, instead of that, I want to recognize an honor of a different sort bestowed upon one of our favorites.  Regular readers are used to seeing the many outstanding photographs of Kit.  Well, one of them (one featured in her first contribution to the Carnival of Cordite, no less), has been chosen for the cover of a new book on handguns!

Purchasing details aren't available yet.  I'll be sure to post them as soon as they come.  I'm looking forward to buying my own copy.  Congratulations to Kit (and her darling John!) on this little bit of immortality.

*     *     *

That wraps up this fine edition of the Carnival of Cordite!

Want to enter?  Mail the link to your post to:

c a r n i v a l o f c o r d i t e A T h o t m a i l D O T c o m

Or, use the Carnival Submit Form, courtesy of Conservative Cat.

For archives and other useful information, please see the main Carnival of Cordite page.

Keep 'em coming, and keep your powder dry!

Comments

[Rivrdog]

#1:

Please put up something as an update on Kim DuToit's situation. either I or AnarchAngel has it covered on our blogs.

2#:

Hate to tell you, but the gathering of the information at the scene of a confiscation as you suggest would be considered gross insubordination by the officers involved, as they will likely be the type that is paid very little, works for a corrupt department and doesn't give a fig for the Consstitution. Gross insubordination will be punishable at the time by a severe thrashing, or worse.

How do you tell which are the "good" officers and which are the "bad"?

You don't. You can't tell, but here's a hint: If they come for your guns, they haven't read the Constitution, or CAN'T read the Constitution, or WON'T read the Constitution.

Use your own judgment, but in this case, you will have the elements of tactical surprise and familiar ground on your side, and if you waste those opportunities by witholding fire in your correct resistance, you have given up on the Constitution in advance, at which point you are a sheep, and deserve to be devoured by the wolves.

[Publicola]

I've heard some NRA apoligizing in my time, but damn. CNN isn't a first responder either, but it took them hours to file legal papers when they were told that reporters could not hitch a ride with the search teams. I really, really don't buy that the NRA is comparable to the feds in this situation.

The NRA just isn't the pro-gun group most folks think they are. When you view them as more of a sportsman's group then their timid & too late response isn't that surprising. If you view them as the "900 lb gorrilla of gun rights" then they have so far been ineffectual at best & possibly harmful in regards to NO.

& who wants to give odds on any NRA sponsored court case relying on procedural issues rather than a direct 2nd amendment or Right to arms question?

AJ Ashcroft? Mr. "individual right subject to 'reasonable' government restrictions"? We'd stand a better shot with AJ McCain - & I wouldn't feel warm & fuzzy about him either. Find a way to get Kozinski from the 9th circuit in the line up of possibles, then I'll be hopeful. As of now it seems like more of the same.

"And no matter how improper the orders from above may be, I would not for one moment hold it against a police officer if he defended himself with lethal force when an armed and potentially dangerous adversary refused to comply"

Would you blame a burglar if he used force to defend himself against a homeowner who was armed, dangerous & refused to comply? Does said burlglar have the right to self defense even when he is acting improperly?

"Furthermore, respect for the rule of law means winning in a court of law, not taking the law into your own hands."

The Rule of law means that the rulers follow the same law as those ruled. It is not disrespect for the rule of law to refuse to comply with an order that is beyond the power of someone to issue. & taking the law into your own hands? I assume you mean that we shouldn't vote on referendums? It is not "taking the law intoy our own hands" when you defend yourself, be it from thugs with badges or without.

& yes; resistance to cops in those circumstances will likely result in your death. But I always assume when someone is threatening me with deadly force, that they mean to make good on that threat whether I comply or not. Again, would you give the same advice if it was two or three gangbangers that busted up in your home & started ordering you around?

k, that should wrap up my disagreements with you this week. :P

[Gullyborg]

I'm sorry, but I assume that most people who are cops are honest people doing a dangerous job who have no desire to murder me. Call me naive.

Cops aren't going to beat you into submission when you peacefully hand over the gun and ask them to provide appropriate information.

It's easy to say that cops who "know the Constitution" aren't going to agree to take your guns. It's easier to say that cops have families to feed and rent to pay, and given questionable orders will decide to obey them and let the courts work it out rather than disobey and lose their jobs.

If you don't like the NRA, don't give them money. That's fine. But actively working against the NRA isn't going to win anything.

[Gullyborg]

>Again, would you give the same advice if it was two or three gangbangers that busted up in your home & started ordering you around?

Here's the difference:

Kill gangbangers, and you will get off on self-defense. The cops won't prosecute, and if they do, you'll get acquitted.

Kill cops, even if it is self-defense, and you WILL go to prison, if the SWAT team doesn't put a few dozen rounds into your skull first.

It's great to have prinicple... But... Priciple doesn't do you much good in the grave. You need to LIVE in order to have your victory in court.

[Publicola]

Well when the NRA stops actuvely working against me then I'll leave them be.

& perhaps you're right that cops won't kill you fter you've disarmed. Perhaps a burglar wouldn't either. I just prefer not to trust the benevolence of others who have rendered me defenseless.

Another assumption - that because you cmply the cops will nto present any further threat, even of a non mortal variety.

See cops are not honest people. They're not dishonest people either. They're people; some good, some bad & most somewhere in between. I see no reason to trust anyone I don't know, badge or not, with such power over me. & in the contet we're talking I find it discomforting that anyone else would trust them.

[Publicola]

& Gully, the same arguments could be made if it were two or three gangbangers (about not living through it).

As for prosecution - yes you'd run that risk if you survived. But there have been cases when cops acting unlawful were killed & the person went free. John Bad Elk v, US was I believe the SCOTUS decison that overturned a conviction in such circumstances.

But ultiamtely, death is not the most feared thing we have to face. YMMV but I'd much rather be dead or imprisoned than to be at the mercy of a thugs (or twelve) with a badge.

My main contention though was with your blind trust in the benevolence o fthe cops under such circumstances. Sure, if you wish to advise folks not to defend themselves I can see the pragmatic side (thinking you're escaping harm) but to put it in th eterms you did belittles the very real danger that anyone who disarms you poses.

[Zendo Deb]

After TEOTWAWKI every man I don't know and most I do are classified as "high-risk threat."

In NOLA we saw cops as looters and thugs (of the jack-booted variety). And enough people claimed that cameras were also confiscated that I am sure cops did things we haven't seen photos or video of.

Anyone - even wearing a uniform - who comes onto my property, into my home without a warrant from a judge is not a peace officer, but a criminal. Just because they don't view themselves as criminals doesn't mean I do.

And "from my cold dead hands" means exactly that. Anyone who doesn't believe that, should remove the graphic of the AR-15 and the keyboard from their website. As for me, give me liberty or give me death.

[Gullyborg]

> Anyone - even wearing a uniform - who comes onto my property, into my home without a warrant from a judge is not a peace officer, but a criminal. Just because they don't view themselves as criminals doesn't mean I do.

So... when they have a warrant, you surrender your guns?

I am disturbed (but not surprised) by these early comments.

New Orleans is certainly a disaster area, but it is not the entire United States. We are not talking about the complete downfall of American society where the Constitution has been burned and foreign invaders have declared martial law.

We are talking about a localized emergency, where local government has failed, and the federal government is stepping in.

If you are New Orleans and the cops take your guns and escort you to a relocation area, odds are pretty damn good that you will be able to find a lawyer and sue. And odds are good that, unless the cops can show you were in violation of gun laws (felon in possession, etc.) and they knew it at the time, you will win.

This is a big, big difference from TEOTWAWKI, were there will be no legal resource for you to follow after the violation. It's also a big difference in that, unlike the TEOTWAWKI scenario, there is the availability of safety and security after you have left the disaster area.

Yes, "from my cold dead hands" means exactly that. If you want to die, by all means, use armed resistance against a cop who thinks he is doing his job.

waiting to hear from some of my police readers now...

[GunnNutt]

Gully, great commentary! I agree w/you about the NRA. They have no troops of their own to deploy to stop the confiscations, but they will act decisively in the coming months and years to make sure that it will not happen again.

[homebru]

Comparing CNN and NRA doesn't make sense to me.

My (possibly faulty) understanding is that you have to have be personally involved in order to bring a lawsuit.

CNN was a "injured" party in the refusal of access. The NRA was not involved in the confiscations and thus had no legal leg to stand on.

[Publicola]

To bing the suit you do have to have standing. That does not mean that you cannot provide a lawyer to someone who does have standing if you lack standing yourself. & that is assuming that of the unknown number of gun owners who were disarmed none were NRA members.

After all, the NRA is seeking out folks now to file civil suits. It would not have been a stretch for them to "loan" an attorney to one of the people who were either disarmed or in danger of being disarmed in order to file a restraining order against the NOPD.

Criminal charges are anothe rmatter, as they mainly rest of whether or not a DA wants to prosecute &/or if a grand jury will indict.

But yes; you do have to have standing. No; the NRA wasn't tied up because of that as they could have offered legal assiatnce (through one of their attorneys) to anyone who did have sufficient standing.

[Robin]

that was an excellent commentary :-)

great job!

[Jay Kominek]

I'm largely in agreement with you Publicola, but it seems like it could be difficult for the NRA to get into enough contact with people in NOLA for them to 1) confirm the facts of the case (at least from the victim's viewpoint) and 2) loan the lawyer.

If it turns out that they've managed to hear from people with decent cases and they're still sitting on their ass, then I'll be very disappointed.

[Tim]

Being in a uniform does not magically keep someone from being a criminal. A police officer who violates the U.S. Constitution is a domestic enemy of the republic. Acquiescence and capitulation was not the response that led to the formation of this country.

[Gullyborg]

Remember that our founders tried to use peaceful means to address their grievances before turning to revolution.

There is NO justification for shooting at a police officer when your life is not in danger. We have courts. We have law. And as long as there are courts and lawyers ready to hear your grievances under the law, if you take that law into your own hands and promote violence against the government, then YOU are an enemy of the Constitution and our nation.

[Dave]

The private security guards who were not disarmed? This site:
http://www.alternet.org/katrina/25320/
alleges that some have been "deputized".

I find that difficult to believe, but if true makes the whole story even more interesting.

[Harold J.]

It is important for the rest of us who want to keep our rights that, if this happens in your local area, you comply and file suit instead of going "cold dead hands." Why? Because you will die, and the dead have no standing to sue.

David Koresh had his rights violated. But no one today can sue on his behalf to affirm the Second Amendment.

David Koresh also thought he could defend himself against the jack booted thugs. He was wrong.

If you think you are going to save your life by having a shoot out with the cops, you are going to die. And even if you manage to bump off a few cops and live to tell, you are not going to live long. The cops tend to dislike cop killers. It won't be long before swat teams swarm you, and they aren't going to be interested in bringing you in alive for a fair trial.

Is that your idea of "self defense"? because my idea of self defense involves actually staying alive.

And I want you to live, because I want you to sue. When you obey the law, then use the law to sue, you have the chance to put gun rights before the court. Barring a new constitutional amendment, we need the courts to finally affirm that we have an individual right to keep and bear arms for personal and civil defense.

We aren't going to get that if you get your ass shot up in defiance.

If David Koresh has allowed the ATF to come in peacefully, 83 people would be alive, and he could have gone to court. It was Texas. He would have won.

Don't be a Koresh. Save the defiance for when the courts let us down.

[Publicola]

Um Harold...Koresh offered to let the ATFU search his place numerous times. They kept declining. & by all accounts I've felt to be credible the ATFU opened up on Koresh right off the bat. In other words the ATFU started shooting first & with little to no warning. Koresh had many faults from what I've heard, but wanting to start a fight wasn't one of them. He was just trying to defend himself & his folk. So he's not the best example for the "from my cold, dead silent indignation" argument.

Also do you really think the courts will step up & be on our side? Their track record does not give me any confidence in them.

Gully,
The peaceful means the founders tried went on for a decade & a half. How long have we been seeking peaceful remedies?

& defense of property IS a justification for using forceful defense against anyone, especially when that property would render you nable to defend your life against the immediete threat.

Yes we have courts & we have laws. & in a very rare occurence those courts will protect us from those laws. Again I have little to no faith in the courts, based on what I've seen from them. The 5th circuit is inarguably the most pro-gun court we have, but even they said Dr. Emerson was justifiably prohibited from owning a firearm. Individual rights don't mean a thing when "compelling government interest" is a valid excuse for their dismissal.

& please, the "taking the law into your own hands" thing is inappropriately applied. You don't caution against that when people vote on referendums do you? I understand your point but the phrase itself always grated on me as an ackward construction considering the connotations implied.

& there is a difference between "promoting violence against the government" & protecting yourself & your property from an unjustified intruder. You make a distinction because some intruders have badges. I do not. If the courts are the salvation you seem to think they are then they'll also aquit when you use self defense against a badged unlawful intruder. If they won't then that weakens your argument that they'll do you any good if you just "turn them all in".

No; the enemies of the constitution are the ones who ignore it for their own needs. Disagree with me if you wish, but implying that I or any others who actually think the constitution has pragmatic weight are enemies of the country is a foolish & inaccurate charge. After all, in 1775 a few folks gathered to use force to stop legal gun control implemented by their lawful government. If we who only advocate defense are enemies of the country, then what would you call those folks in Lexington & Concord so long ago?