PDA

View Full Version : Declaration of Emergency/guns


Kyle1886
02-11-2010, 1:47 PM
I was on another forum and the subject of certain states/areas declaring "states of emergencies" due to weather. It appears that states view a "state of emergency" differentely in regards to weapons. During a declared "state of emergency" most do not allow the sale of alcohol, firearms, or ammo. In regards to firearms, even if a person is a permitted CCer, the firearm CANNOT leave the owners property. In essence, say like the floods in LA county, or past fires, if that area is in "a declared location", if you must evacuate, you cannot take your firearm for protection, lawfully. (Sometimes, lawful, and self-protection in emergency situations may be at odds). I tried a search here as well as Google to find the exact law(s) regarding CA. statuates on firearms and "declarations of emergencies" but found nothing specific. If someone can lead me to the correct section of the CA. gov. site I would appreciate it. Thank you.

Kyle

RandyD
02-11-2010, 2:00 PM
You may want to look at county and city ordinances.

As a side note, I do not think such a law would stand constitutional scrutiny. If the government can deny us the right to bear arms in a government declared emergency then our right to bear arms is illusory.

Kyle1886
02-11-2010, 2:14 PM
Thanks RandyD. It may be unconstitutional, BUT...

If the Govenor declares the "emergency" would not that fall under state jurisdiction, since often state agencies are involved?

Flopper
02-11-2010, 2:36 PM
Thanks RandyD. It may be unconstitutional, BUT...

If the Govenor declares the "emergency" would not that fall under state jurisdiction, since often state agencies are involved?

This is for North Carolina, not California.

Even if it were the case here. . . would you seriously not carry???

Syntax Error
02-11-2010, 2:40 PM
Didn't New Orleans attempt to confiscate firearms from law-abiding owners in the aftermath of Katrina?

Henktermaat
02-11-2010, 2:42 PM
After a similar long discussion about this (http://ingunowners.com/forums/the_2nd_amendment/74707-snow_prompts_gun_ban_in_nc_town.html), we found out we have such a law on the books in Indiana. Now we're talking about how to get rid of it (http://ingunowners.com/forums/the_2nd_amendment/74931-fixing_indiana_s_state-of-emergency_law.html)...

The time for change is before the SHTF.

Untamed1972
02-11-2010, 2:43 PM
Didn't New Orleans attempt to confiscate firearms from law-abiding owners in the aftermath of Katrina?


There was no "attempt" about it.....they DID confiscate guns fromlaw-abiding gun owners

Ron-Solo
02-11-2010, 2:45 PM
This has been bashed about in numerous other threads. Since Katrina the Federal Government enacted legislation that prohibits the confiscation of weapons in such an emergency.

Now, toting a weapon around in violation of other laws can still get you in trouble and you could lose your gun and your freedom.

Nose Nuggets
02-11-2010, 3:37 PM
Thanks RandyD. It may be unconstitutional, BUT...

If the Govenor declares the "emergency" would not that fall under state jurisdiction, since often state agencies are involved?

shouldn't make a difference, the constitution is the supreme law of the land; nothing is above it.

gtturborex
02-11-2010, 3:45 PM
shouldn't make a difference, the constitution is the supreme law of the land; nothing is above it.

Wouldnt that be nice if it were true...

Window_Seat
02-11-2010, 3:52 PM
Wouldnt that be nice if it were true...

Wouldn't it be nice if our politicians & judges would adhere to it.;)

Keeping it relevant, I am aware that in several states, it's illegal to purchase guns during states of emergency, but I've never heard of it being illegal to transport your own during states of emergency. I guess that would be another "trick" by the anti's at trampling on our 2nd.

Erik.

pitchbaby
02-11-2010, 3:52 PM
There was no "attempt" about it.....they DID confiscate guns fromlaw-abiding gun owners

Not only did they, but their "attempts" at making the guns available for claim have been a total farce! Thank God for the NRA doing what they can to tag what firearms are left and make them available for claim.

http://www.rightofanation.com/2010/01/05/nra-update-gun-confiscation-after-hurricane-katrina/

The link is to a story that I read about several months ago about a bar owner losing her guns. Believe me, there were far worse stories than this one.... such as little old ladies being tackled by LEO's because they had a gun as they were trying to evacuate their homes. The kind of stuff that makes you look at your LEO friends and wonder if they could ever fall into the trap of that kind of behavior.

bwiese
02-11-2010, 3:56 PM
Not only are there recently-passed Federal protections, but a couple of years ago NRA drove thru a "Katrina bill" in California.

dantodd
02-11-2010, 4:13 PM
Not only are there recently-passed Federal protections, but a couple of years ago NRA drove thru a "Katrina bill" in California.

You must be confused, there are no pro-2A laws in California! ;)

Grakken
02-11-2010, 4:21 PM
So for clarity, lets say a big earthquake rocks socal (or nor cal or both ), SOE is declared, What is Ca law regarding transportation and possession of firearms?

berto
02-11-2010, 4:23 PM
There are state and fed laws protecting from seizure during a disaster but those laws are only as good as the folks tasked with upholding them. reality is our options during a disaster are to obey whatever command is given by an overzealous govt/officer and win in court long after the fact or stand our ground and take whatever consequences come.

JDoe
02-11-2010, 5:15 PM
So can any .gov in California change the rules/laws regarding firearms/weapons just by declaring an emergency?

Anyone have a link?

Big Jake
02-11-2010, 5:24 PM
Didn't New Orleans attempt to confiscate firearms from law-abiding owners in the aftermath of Katrina?

They did not attempt to they actually did it! Leaving law abiding citizens at the mercy of the thugs in the streets! Scum bags:mad:

Swiss
02-11-2010, 5:34 PM
Link or name where I can read more?

Not only are there recently-passed Federal protections, but a couple of years ago NRA drove thru a "Katrina bill" in California.

Syntax Error
02-11-2010, 6:10 PM
They did not attempt to they actually did it! Leaving law abiding citizens at the mercy of the thugs in the streets! Scum bags:mad:

I suppose "cold, dead hands" applies readily here? :mad:

GuyW
02-11-2010, 8:04 PM
There was no "attempt" about it.....the California Highway Patrol DID confiscate guns from law-abiding gun owners (including little old ladies) in New Orleans...

fixed it....
.

hawk81
02-11-2010, 8:20 PM
I could car a less what the law says on this. I will not obey it.

EM2
02-11-2010, 9:20 PM
This has been bashed about in numerous other threads. Since Katrina the Federal Government enacted legislation that prohibits the confiscation of weapons in such an emergency.

Now, toting a weapon around in violation of other laws can still get you in trouble and you could lose your gun and your freedom.


Not only are there recently-passed Federal protections, but a couple of years ago NRA drove thru a "Katrina bill" in California.


There are state and fed laws protecting from seizure during a disaster but those laws are only as good as the folks tasked with upholding them. reality is our options during a disaster are to obey whatever command is given by an overzealous govt/officer and win in court long after the fact or stand our ground and take whatever consequences come.


So we are now pacified by the thinking that once again we are saved by the very same government that is trampling our rights?
Since when does the US Constitution need to be protected by a mere law and we accept it?

I believe there are many who do not really understand what it is to live in a free country that is governed by the people.

nick
02-11-2010, 10:48 PM
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=10152

However, like other laws, this only works when the government doesn't break the laws. And it breaks the law routinely.

7x57
02-11-2010, 11:02 PM
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=10152

However, like other laws, this only works when the government doesn't break the laws. And it breaks the law routinely.

Indeed. But then no law can stop a police chief who decides to act as though he were an occupying army. What the law does is permit the NRA or another friendly force to sue the livin' daylights out of him afterwards. If it doesn't deter the behavior, it still allows his head up on a pike as a warning to others.

That said, I've never read these laws so I don't actually know whether the penalties are enough to make it a real deterrence. Anyone know?

7x57

nick
02-11-2010, 11:17 PM
Indeed. But then no law can stop a police chief who decides to act as though he were an occupying army. What the law does is permit the NRA or another friendly force to sue the livin' daylights out of him afterwards. If it doesn't deter the behavior, it still allows his head up on a pike as a warning to others.

That said, I've never read these laws so I don't actually know whether the penalties are enough to make it a real deterrence. Anyone know?

7x57

Nope, no penalties, but you can sue them after the fact. That's the problem with most such bills, they don't specify the penalties. Until there're penalties to the individuals, these laws will be broken.

The fact that you can sue them later is a cold comfort when you need to protect yourself and your family right about now. Which is why abusing one's position of power MUST have real consequences. Of course, who would pass those? The people who would be punished under such laws? Rright.

POLICESTATE
02-11-2010, 11:30 PM
My suggestion to people who are concerned with this sort of SHTF scenario of S.O.E. being declared and seizure/restrictions on firearms is to plan now. What do I mean by that? Simply this: if you are concerned that on your way out of catastrophe-ville you will be stopped and your property seized then plan on some routes that would take you around potential check points. If you have a 4x4 then you have more options, but with all the different roads about the state I don't see all the roads in any given region being locked down within a few hours after a major catastrophe.

If on the other hand you are restricted from transporting certain types of property during a SOE then you better be sure and follow the law. Just because the government routinely breaks laws doesn't mean that we as citizens shouldn't set the example that they should follow. Figure it all out in court later IMO.

Para45
02-11-2010, 11:58 PM
My suggestion to people who are concerned with this sort of SHTF scenario of S.O.E. being declared and seizure/restrictions on firearms is to plan now. What do I mean by that? Simply this: if you are concerned that on your way out of catastrophe-ville you will be stopped and your property seized then plan on some routes that would take you around potential check points. If you have a 4x4 then you have more options, but with all the different roads about the state I don't see all the roads in any given region being locked down within a few hours after a major catastrophe.

If on the other hand you are restricted from transporting certain types of property during a SOE then you better be sure and follow the law. Just because the government routinely breaks laws doesn't mean that we as citizens shouldn't set the example that they should follow. Figure it all out in court later IMO.

Only problem is, you may not have that opportunity if you're defenseless and a life and death situation causes you/your family the latter. I definitely agree with the preparation part - do what you gotta do and be prepared.

Seesm
02-12-2010, 12:34 AM
From my cold dead hands is all I can say... Try to take my guns.

ponderosa
02-12-2010, 12:38 AM
From my cold dead hands is all I can say... Try to take my guns.

You know a lot of people think those that say this statement are full of it. But you know what.... I don't think so.

I will just tell "them", "NOPE, no firearms at this house, we don't believe in that, God bless the police force..." and let them go about their merry little way.

Meanwhile I'll keep the firearms at the ready...

BUT... if all else fails...F'em.

From my cold dead hands too :chris:

bigstick61
02-12-2010, 1:31 AM
That's one situation where I think it is morally justified NOT to wait for the courts. You could be dead or maimed, or your family members in the same state, before you ever see one. By trying to force you out of your home or take your means of defense or survival, a violent act is being committed against you.

rromeo
02-12-2010, 7:25 AM
If we just put "Obama" stickers on our cars, the they will think we don't have any guns.

7x57
02-12-2010, 7:26 AM
The fact that you can sue them later is a cold comfort when you need to protect yourself and your family right about now.

But in fact what law would do any different? Laws by definition are for those under the rule of law, and the hypothesis is that there is none. So the only thing any law can do is permit litigation after-the-fact when law and order are restored.

The only problem here is if the laws do not have useful penalties for violating them. Otherwise, they do what can be done.

7x57

Kyle1886
02-12-2010, 8:55 AM
I don't think that "resisting", trying to "stand your ground" or "exercise your rights" in a situation where National Guard, or other LEA's are doing door-to-door or street security, will be beneficial to your family if you are arrested, shot dead, or otherwise incapcitated. You may be legally correct, but you have no idea what orders are given to those that are in the field. (I'd hate to be shot just trying to scavange for water, medical supplies, during a lengthy situation like an earthquake).

I suspect you will be out numbered and out gunned. Just an opinion.

Kyle

Dragunov
02-12-2010, 9:32 AM
You know a lot of people think those that say this statement are full of it. But you know what.... I don't think so.

I will just tell "them", "NOPE, no firearms at this house, we don't believe in that, God bless the police force..." and let them go about their merry little way.

Meanwhile I'll keep the firearms at the ready...

BUT... if all else fails...F'em.

From my cold dead hands too :chris:

Or..
"Sorry officer, I lost all my firearms in a very tragic "boating accident" on Pyramid lake in Nevada last year".

OC4ME
02-12-2010, 10:13 AM
...who is it again that thinks that your gun(s) are not known by da man?;)

lumwilliam
02-12-2010, 10:19 AM
So during these "states of emergency", if there is a forced evacuation from your area, your guns cannot leave your house with you? You would be forced to relocate and become defenseless? And at the same time, possibly leave weaons in your home to be stolen by looters?

OC4ME
02-12-2010, 10:24 AM
So during these "states of emergency", if there is a forced evacuation from your area, your guns cannot leave your house with you? You would be forced to relocate and become defenseless? And at the same time, possibly leave weaons in your home to be stolen by looters?

...or the fuzz as throw down guns...

MudCamper
02-12-2010, 10:24 AM
Not only are there recently-passed Federal protections, but a couple of years ago NRA drove thru a "Katrina bill" in California.

Links to aforementioned bills:

Federal: http://www.paul.net/guns/s2599-fed-prohibits-firearms-confiscation.pdf
State: http://www.paul.net/guns/ab_1645-state-prohibits-firearms-confiscation.pdf

Pixs
02-12-2010, 10:45 AM
Howdy Folks,
Once again a big thank you to MudCamper for posting the actual text.
Best to all,
Pixs

nick
02-12-2010, 11:36 AM
But in fact what law would do any different? Laws by definition are for those under the rule of law, and the hypothesis is that there is none. So the only thing any law can do is permit litigation after-the-fact when law and order are restored.

The only problem here is if the laws do not have useful penalties for violating them. Otherwise, they do what can be done.

7x57

Well, the law can deal with the aftermath in a way that affects our (and other's) actions.

For example, if the law in question made it a felony to order a gun confiscation and/or additional restrictions during an emergency, with similar penalties to accessories in this crime, I daresay that the confiscations during an emergency would be very rare.

By the same token, if, similar to the castle doctrine, the law specified that it's perfectly legal to resist gun confiscations during an emergency, barring criminal or civil prosecution for such an act, it would also make such confiscations unlikely. Of course, doing something like that would require the mindset similar to that of the founders of this country, and our elected overlords are anything but.

As it stands, the law doesn't have much in the sense of teeth, which is perfectly in line with the way we pass restrictions on the government (as opposed to those on the individuals, there's no problem with dishing out penalties in those laws).

7x57
02-12-2010, 12:44 PM
Well, the law can deal with the aftermath in a way that affects our (and other's) actions.


That was my point. The law follows the crime, whether the crime be burglary or confiscation. The only issue is if the penalties are sufficient to deter the crime.

Deterrence works *better* in this situation than for burglary because the law is aimed at people with social position and something to lose, not habitual criminals who view the big house as a training academy.

After all, it was "only" deterrence that ended segregation.

7x57

Sheepdog1968
02-12-2010, 12:46 PM
Didn't New Orleans attempt to confiscate firearms from law-abiding owners in the aftermath of Katrina?

Yes. NRA sued and won. In response, a bill was passed in CA preventing this type of situation happening here. It surprised me as well.

MudCamper
02-12-2010, 1:54 PM
Well, the law can deal with the aftermath in a way that affects our (and other's) actions.

Yes, if you read the 2 bills that I posted about this above, you'll notice that the federal one even comments on taking legal action after the fact.

But the prudent thing to do is plan not only for this after the fact, but for it during the fact. Keep multiple firearms in different locations so that if forced to surrender some to illegal confiscation, do so, and then go get another gun.

Yes. NRA sued and won. In response, a bill was passed in CA preventing this type of situation happening here. It surprised me as well.

Again, I posted the links to the bills in this thread.

GaryV
02-12-2010, 4:27 PM
Surprisingly, the Cal law is better than what most states have. For example, in Florida, there was already a law that prohibited the public possession of firearms during a declared state of emergency:

870.044 Automatic emergency measures.--Whenever the public official declares that a state of emergency exists, pursuant to s. 870.043, the following acts shall be prohibited during the period of said emergency throughout the jurisdiction:

(1) The sale of, or offer to sell, with or without consideration, any ammunition or gun or other firearm of any size or description.

(2) The intentional display, after the emergency is declared, by or in any store or shop of any ammunition or gun or other firearm of any size or description.

(3) The intentional possession in a public place of a firearm by any person, except a duly authorized law enforcement official or person in military service acting in the official performance of her or his duty.

After Katrina, they added this note at the end of the law above:

Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to authorize the seizure, taking, or confiscation of firearms that are lawfully possessed, unless a person is engaged in a criminal act.

However, the law itself does make intentional public possession a criminal act (a 1st degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to 1 year in jail), so carrying, even with a FL CWL, could get you arrested and your gun seized. The extra provision only protects you on private property.

The good thing about California is that everyone knows just how bad the gun laws are, so you know just how tough you have to be when you try to get something like this changed. In states where there is a general perception of "gun friendliness" there are often little caveats to gun rights like this that get largely overlooked.

8-Ball
02-12-2010, 5:00 PM
They went into homes and disarmed law abiding citizens; essentially removing their ability to defend themselves...

Love the guy in the first video... an attorney:

"Treat me with benign neglect, get out of my neighborhood, get out of my life, get out of my fukcin' city...!"
TRduQQmCyHU

-taU9d26wT4

sm5PC7z79-8