PDA

View Full Version : Post disaster gun restrictions


FastFinger
02-08-2010, 8:44 AM
Due to sever weather in NC "authorities" imposed various restrictions, some have been lifted...

KING, N.C. -- Authorities lifted curfew and alcohol restrictions in King on Sunday, but said a state of emergency declaration remained in effect until Monday.

Authorities said the state of emergency declaration would continue until Monday 9 a.m., barring any unforeseen circumstances or severe changes.

Effective Sunday afternoon, alcohol restrictions and a curfew were lifted. All other remaining restrictions would continue until Monday, said Paula May, King police chief.

Other restrictions included a ban on the sale or purchase of any type of firearm, ammunition, explosive or any possession of such items off a person's own premises.

Also on Sunday, the emergency shelter established by the American Red Cross at West Stokes High School was closed.

"We appreciate the support and cooperation of everyone with our efforts to keep the citizens of King safe," May said.

The state of emergency was declared Friday due to severe weather.

Wasn't there a court case related to post Katrina gun limitation that outlawed such firearm restrictions after a disaster? Or was that just dealing with possession, and not sales?

Intimid8tor
02-08-2010, 8:52 AM
I b elieve in Katrina they were confiscating. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but I think this is saying, stay on your own property with your guns.

I can see the sales side of it though most criminals don't care about the law.

GrizzlyGuy
02-08-2010, 8:58 AM
We actually have a law in CA that is supposed to prevent the government from confiscating firearms in an emergency. See this post (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3453413&postcount=12) by troysland.

davescz
02-08-2010, 9:35 AM
this was a disgusting attmept to take away our rights. what on earth does a gun have to do with this disaster.

She might have as well made a statement that crime is outlawed during the duration of the disaster.

that would end crime in a heart beat.

b.faust
02-08-2010, 9:42 AM
So in the event of some unforeseen EXTRA misfortune during a disaster combined with restriction, such as your house catching on fire/flooding/meteor strike, you're supposed to just let your legally purchased possessions be destroyed and hope insurance covers it?

All "arming yourself" aside, I've got quite an investment going, and while I may not be able to save everything, there are a couple that I wouldn't want to go up in smoke/deluge/beginning of bad B movie....

I imagine it's a "let the courts sort it out", but still...


B.

gvbsat
02-08-2010, 10:00 AM
Interesting. So, When Martial Law is declared and you are a holder of a CCW, is that permit suspended for that duration of time? and no I have not even looked up the info yet. I am time sensitive today.

command_liner
02-08-2010, 10:15 AM
This action has gotten plenty of attention on other forums.

The question becomes one of limits. The police chief claims the
authority to suspend the US Constitution, or at least parts of it.

So, where does that end? Can the police chief declare a state of
emergency on a whim, and suspend the 13th amendment in addition
to the 2nd?

nick
02-08-2010, 10:17 AM
http://volokh.com/posts/1159809369.shtml

No officer or employee of the United States (including any member of the uniformed services), or person operating pursuant to or under color of Federal law, or receiving Federal funds, or under control of any Federal official, or providing services to such an officer, employee, or other person, while acting in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency, may—

and restrictions on where a firearm may be possessed

This just shows what I've been saying all along when this federal and CA laws were passed - you can't trust the government not to violate the laws in such situations.

I somehow think the county in question will get away with it, too.

The law also has plenty of holes in it. For example, does the county have the ban on possession of firearms outside of one's residence in the state of emergency already on the books? If so, it's good to go to.

Californio
02-08-2010, 10:59 AM
In a modern disaster expect the Government to act in its best interest and ignore the laws on the books, one reason to prepare, stay home and off the streets.

CCWFacts
02-08-2010, 11:06 AM
This has come up before. My advice:


If they are going to confiscate guns, have some old Mauser that they can take away. "Please don't take it, it's my only gun!"
Have a video camera in your disaster preparedness kit. If there's going to be a confiscation, get it on video tape! Then have the police dept (or whoever did the illegal confiscation) buy you a new house later!

CSACANNONEER
02-08-2010, 11:06 AM
At least they are not restricting possession of anything while on one's own property.

CSACANNONEER
02-08-2010, 11:09 AM
This has come up before. My advice:


If they are going to confiscate guns, have some old Mauser that they can take away. "Please don't take it, it's my only gun!"
Have a video camera in your disaster preparedness kit. If there's going to be a confiscation, get it on video tape! Then have the police dept (or whoever did the illegal confiscation) buy you a new house later!


I'd never give up a Mauser. I keep a couple of NIB RG .22lr revolvers for that. Yep, one is NIB with the $19.95 price tag still on it.

vantec08
02-08-2010, 11:48 AM
yes, gvbsat. Martial Law means ALL bets are off.

darkshier
02-08-2010, 12:21 PM
Under what authority does the local government have to suspend private sales of anything, let alone alcohol, ammo and firearms?

vantec08
02-08-2010, 12:25 PM
Under the authority of the gun - - - which is WHY they want registration, to preceed CONFISCATION.

BobB35
02-08-2010, 1:45 PM
Come on? What is everyone worried about? I have it on the best authority by the LEO and military people that post here that if push comes to shove they will all individually stand up for the 2nd amendment and nothing will happen. :rolleyes: Glad they all feel this way but they are outnumbered about 10 to one by the people who will follow orders.

This is exactly how this will play out: There will be some type of emergency and the LEO/Military will come for the firearms...you won't get a choice. Welcome to the new country.

bondmid003
02-08-2010, 2:07 PM
Come on? What is everyone worried about? I have it on the best authority by the LEO and military people that post here that if push comes to shove they will all individually stand up for the 2nd amendment and nothing will happen. :rolleyes: Glad they all feel this way but they are outnumbered about 10 to one by the people who will follow orders.

This is exactly how this will play out: There will be some type of emergency and the LEO/Military will come for the firearms...you won't get a choice. Welcome to the new country.

Well we are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, and I have yet to see an instance when I've been ordered to do otherwise

odysseus
02-08-2010, 2:18 PM
A side conversation about this is for some of the disaster\shtf threads, that running around in tactical gear with a rifle slung (or "tactical gun case") around your shoulder is going to make you a fat target during these pseudo martial lock downs during "natural emergencies".

So the bottom line is that in this state of government reaction, you need to portray yourself even more so as non threatening to LE (especially national guard types) or you will put yourself right in their target to examine, detain, and seize. It is crap, but I wouldn't gamble necessarily with the good graces of my local officer crew, since outside enforcement will be in supply in droves. They really don't care for your own ability to protect, don't care to hear that you are a lawful citizen protecting and not a potential criminal looter, and will tell you they are following orders; they can let your protest wait for some later time in court while they leave you down and bare.

Gryff
02-08-2010, 2:34 PM
I wonder if the guns-at-home-only issue was a local restriction, or issued by the state? I doubt a city could revoke the right of a state-issued CCW holder to carry outside the home.

vantec08
02-08-2010, 3:36 PM
What I'm concerned about, Bob, is that history does not favor us. Just check on the origins of most (if not all) failed societies. In the Grand Scheme of things over millenia, what the hell makes us so special insofar as surviving for thousands of years as a society? The decay has not only started, it is worsening year by year and now we have an Organizer-in-Chief who stands to make TWO SCOTUS appointments and a whole slew of appellate appointments. As long as the Constitution and Bill of Rights will be subject to political whim and fancy, it can only get worse. Its the nature of the animal called "government." Not pessimistic, just realistic.

BobB35
02-08-2010, 4:47 PM
Well we are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, and I have yet to see an instance when I've been ordered to do otherwise

In CA janitors in the local library are required to take a loyalty oath that says they will uphold the constitution and I am sure they are as adamant about it as any LEO or miltary person. My time in the military (USMC) taught me one thing, people follow orders. Your average grunt has NO idea what is constitutional or not. If his LT says, there's an emergency the president has ordered us to go kick in the doors and seize the guns, I doubt there will be a lot of discussion.

I have gone round and round on this with the LEOs and Miltary people on this site. They say it won't happen, I say it will. History supports me, wishful thinking supports them. Both sides now shred the constitution on a daily basis, so I thinking it will not be very long before this whole concept gets tested for real. It will be a very interesting decade.

vantec08
02-08-2010, 4:56 PM
Indeed Bob - - - my point exactly. Keep yer powder dry.

aermotor
02-08-2010, 5:13 PM
No offense but all that said was No Sales... didn't say anything about confiscating existing weapons... OBVIOUSLY that's not good, but at least they didn't try and pull some Katrina ish on them. As someone else said, STAY ON YOUR PROPERTY. Just cause SHTF doesn't give anyone the right to storm the streets with firearms.

Remain unassuming at all times.

vantec08
02-08-2010, 5:47 PM
Yea sure. . . .and next year or two will bring more incrementalism.

nick
02-08-2010, 6:03 PM
No offense but all that said was No Sales... didn't say anything about confiscating existing weapons... OBVIOUSLY that's not good, but at least they didn't try and pull some Katrina ish on them. As someone else said, STAY ON YOUR PROPERTY. Just cause SHTF doesn't give anyone the right to storm the streets with firearms.

Remain unassuming at all times.

No sales and no possession outside of one's property.

NFA started small, too. And this isn't even small.

b.faust
02-08-2010, 6:20 PM
A side conversation about this is for some of the disaster\shtf threads, that running around in tactical gear with a rifle slung (or "tactical gun case") around your shoulder is going to make you a fat target during these pseudo martial lock downs during "natural emergencies".

So the bottom line is that in this state of government reaction, you need to portray yourself even more so as non threatening to LE (especially national guard types) or you will put yourself right in their target to examine, detain, and seize.

No problem, I've got my "Urban Camo" all sorted out for the big one.

http://www.clicket.com/images_med/15697.jpg

:D

Joking aside, as I asked earlier, what if you HAVE to leave your property. i.e. it's on fire. Are you supposed to just let your firearms burn?
Just a hypothetical question here.

B.

Fate
02-08-2010, 6:35 PM
STAY ON YOUR PROPERTY. Just cause SHTF doesn't give anyone the right to storm the streets with firearms.

When the hills and city is on fire (you saw the one we had last year), staying put will be hard to do. You cannot survive a real firestorm pushing thru your location. You have to move.

Dirty bomb at LAX or Long Beach or downtown LA. You gonna stay put and embrace the glowing cloud?

Some SHTF is worse than others.

bigstick61
02-08-2010, 9:00 PM
What about if you have to get supplies or there is some other situation that makes leaving your property a necessity (or what if your home is destroyed)? If it is very dangerous, it would be most unwise to go unarmed. This sort of edict is absolutely ridiculous.

AJAX22
02-08-2010, 9:07 PM
In CA janitors in the local library are required to take a loyalty oath that says they will uphold the constitution and I am sure they are as adamant about it as any LEO or miltary person. My time in the military (USMC) taught me one thing, people follow orders. Your average grunt has NO idea what is constitutional or not. If his LT says, there's an emergency the president has ordered us to go kick in the doors and seize the guns, I doubt there will be a lot of discussion.

I have gone round and round on this with the LEOs and Miltary people on this site. They say it won't happen, I say it will. History supports me, wishful thinking supports them. Both sides now shred the constitution on a daily basis, so I thinking it will not be very long before this whole concept gets tested for real. It will be a very interesting decade.


As a 16 year old highschool student who worked for the state 1/2 hour per day (at lunch) I had to swear the same loyalty oath that the LEO/military/police had to swear....

I guarantee a 16 year old register jocky doesn't take that oath seriously.

Same goes for most people who have to swear as a condition of employment... when it comes down to paycheck vs. upholding the constitution, the number of people who opt for the paycheck is disproportionally large.

not a disparaging remark, just the way it is.

People have obligations, families who depend on them for income.... and most people can't afford to quit a job (which effectively eliminates that career path) on principle.

bondmid003
02-08-2010, 10:33 PM
In CA janitors in the local library are required to take a loyalty oath that says they will uphold the constitution and I am sure they are as adamant about it as any LEO or miltary person. My time in the military (USMC) taught me one thing, people follow orders. Your average grunt has NO idea what is constitutional or not. If his LT says, there's an emergency the president has ordered us to go kick in the doors and seize the guns, I doubt there will be a lot of discussion.

I have gone round and round on this with the LEOs and Miltary people on this site. They say it won't happen, I say it will. History supports me, wishful thinking supports them. Both sides now shred the constitution on a daily basis, so I thinking it will not be very long before this whole concept gets tested for real. It will be a very interesting decade.

Bob, don't compare the oath you and I took to that of a janitor. You and I both know the oath we took as Marines means far more to us than the 16 year old "register jockey". An oath is just words on a piece of paper, its the application of said oath that makes it special. I believe our history has proven we have upheld that oath to its fullest since 11/10/1775. You may not be active anymore, but you're still a Marine Bob.

aermotor
02-09-2010, 1:13 AM
When the hills and city is on fire (you saw the one we had last year), staying put will be hard to do. You cannot survive a real firestorm pushing thru your location. You have to move.

Dirty bomb at LAX or Long Beach or downtown LA. You gonna stay put and embrace the glowing cloud?

Some SHTF is worse than others.

True... location is everything. Thankfully I'm not in the line of anything, but I hear you. My point was, if you're going off your property, don't be a mall ninja and entice the LEOs.

Springfield45
02-09-2010, 12:04 PM
To those that don't believe the military will not follow orders. Remember the "Bonus Army". Good read that pitted MaCarthur, Eisenhower and Patton (before WWII) following orders against American citizens.

The bonus army
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/snprelief4.htm

M1A Rifleman
02-09-2010, 12:11 PM
We actually have a law in CA that is supposed to prevent the government from confiscating firearms in an emergency. See this post (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3453413&postcount=12) by troysland.

Yea, there is a law, but they will do what they want until challenged by court later.