PDA

View Full Version : Martial Law and Los Angeles


misterjake
08-02-2010, 4:05 PM
If Martial Law is declared in say Los Angeles do state laws still apply or does it change to federal laws?

I mean if martial law was declared in LA, could you configure your AR without the BB and put in high cap mag as it's military law instead of state law?

I could be waaaay off base here, but I'm curious.

daerror12
08-02-2010, 4:12 PM
This should anser your question. copied from wikipedia

Martial law is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis—usually only temporary—when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, and provide essential services), when there are extensive riots and protests, or when the disobedience of the law becomes widespread. In most cases, military forces are deployed to quiet the crowds, to secure government buildings and key or sensitive locations, and to maintain order. Generally, military personnel replace civil authorities and perform some or all of their functions. The constitution could be suspended, and in full-scale martial law, the highest ranking military General would take over, or be installed, as the military governor or as head of the government, thus removing all power from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government.

Crom
08-02-2010, 4:14 PM
The way I understand it is that there are various levels of Martial law. At the extreme end, the U.S. Constitution could be suspended, therefore your civil rights would disappear.

But in reality If Martial Law is declared in Los Angeles, at that time, nobody is going to care how your AR is configured.

Doheny
08-02-2010, 4:18 PM
Actually, you may be thinking the opposite of what will happen. If martial law were declared and you found with a gun, it would likely be taken from you.

misterjake
08-02-2010, 4:21 PM
Actually, you may be thinking the opposite of what will happen. If martial law were declared and you found with a gun, it would likely be taken from you.

If I leave my bunker...er house. :)

stitchnicklas
08-02-2010, 4:24 PM
from my dead cold hand........

Josey Wales
08-02-2010, 4:36 PM
Think the Rodey King era. Rules went out the window. Remember the shopkeepers with AK's and AR's on the rooftops protecting their businesses? I'd be packing heavy.

stix213
08-02-2010, 4:50 PM
Looking to martial law to restore our freedoms is pretty sad :(

misterjake
08-02-2010, 4:51 PM
Looking to martial law to restore our freedoms is pretty sad :(

Not if we can convince everybody and those who take from us are now on the receiving end.

BigDogatPlay
08-02-2010, 6:08 PM
Think the Rodey King era. Rules went out the window. Remember the shopkeepers with AK's and AR's on the rooftops protecting their businesses? I'd be packing heavy.

And in the King riots martial law was never declared. Only a local state of emergency.

If you are protecting your home or place of business in that type of situation, then load up and be ready. I wouldn't, on the other hand, be out wandering around the streets with my AR slung and a sidearm strapped.

Wicked Pete
08-02-2010, 6:11 PM
Actually, you may be thinking the opposite of what will happen. If martial law were declared and you found with a gun, it would likely be taken from you.

I would worry about a "shoot looters" order: "Carte Blance". Hope it never happens!

Hunt
08-02-2010, 6:19 PM
I would worry about a "shoot looters" order: "Carte Blance". Hope it never happens!

didn't Louisiana Governor issue "shoot looters" orders? (Katrina)

Falstaff
08-02-2010, 6:28 PM
didn't Louisiana Governor issue "shoot looters" orders? (Katrina)

No but some of the parishes issued "shoot refugees coming over the bridge into our town"!

Wicked Pete
08-02-2010, 6:36 PM
No but some of the parishes issued "shoot refugees coming over the bridge into our town"!

Right!

kcbrown
08-02-2010, 7:16 PM
There is no provision in the Constitution for the suspension of Constitutional protections. None at all.

Any imposition of martial law that violates the provisions of the Constitution is therefore unlawful, since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Of course, he who has the guns makes the rules, so it's not like it can't happen or anything. But it would be illegal and, in fact, would be sufficient reason for a large-scale armed insurrection.

Cire 5th
08-02-2010, 8:26 PM
The way I understand it is that there are various levels of Martial law. At the extreme end, the U.S. Constitution could be suspended, therefore your civil rights would disappear.

But in reality If Martial Law is declared in Los Angeles, at that time, nobody is going to care how your AR is configured.

haha, yup, if Marial Law is declared that is when Sh*t is really hitting the fan. Bring out your high cap mags, get your bug out bag, gather your loves ones and get the f out of dodge.

From what I thought, Martial Law is declared because the Gov't cannot anymore take control over the situation. Therefore leaving the citizens on its own to use their own discretion. The law (Police and National Guard if there is even any around at the time) will have other things to worry about than you.

misterjake
08-02-2010, 9:08 PM
haha, yup, if Marial Law is declared that is when Sh*t is really hitting the fan. Bring out your high cap mags, get your bug out bag, gather your loves ones and get the f out of dodge.

From what I thought, Martial Law is declared because the Gov't cannot anymore take control over the situation. Therefore leaving the citizens on its own to use their own discretion. The law (Police and National Guard if there is even any around at the time) will have other things to worry about than you.

I'm sure Pelosi and Feinstein at this point would know what's best for us.

Kerplow
08-02-2010, 9:16 PM
Martial law is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis—usually only temporary—when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, and provide essential services), when there are extensive riots and protests, or when the disobedience of the law becomes widespread. In most cases, military forces are deployed to quiet the crowds, to secure government buildings and key or sensitive locations, and to maintain order. Generally, military personnel replace civil authorities and perform some or all of their functions. The constitution could be suspended, and in full-scale martial law, the highest ranking military General would take over, or be installed, as the military governor or as head of the government, thus removing all power from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government.

that certainly is a frightening prospect:TFH:!

thats like instant demotion to 3rd world status.

where is this provision for martial law actually written in US law? it seems hard to believe the US constitution could be suspended.

Hunt
08-02-2010, 11:16 PM
[/B]

I'm sure Pelosi and Feinstein at this point would know what's best for us.

thank gawd we have those 2 and a few other politicians to take care of us wshtf.

cmaynes
08-03-2010, 12:51 AM
There is no provision in the Constitution for the suspension of Constitutional protections. None at all.

Any imposition of martial law that violates the provisions of the Constitution is therefore unlawful, since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Of course, he who has the guns makes the rules, so it's not like it can't happen or anything. But it would be illegal and, in fact, would be sufficient reason for a large-scale armed insurrection.

wrong- and it has been invoked-

Article 1, Section 9 states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."


On September 15, 1863, Lincoln imposed Congressionally-authorized martial law. The authorizing act allowed the President to suspend habeas corpus throughout the entire United States. Lincoln imposed the suspension on "prisoners of war, spies, or aiders and abettors of the enemy," as well as on other classes of people, such as draft dodgers. The President's proclamation was challenged in ex parte Milligan (71 US 2 [1866]). The Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln's imposition of martial law (by way of suspension of habeas corpus) was unconstitutional.


Even though it was deemed unconstitutional after the fact, it still happened, and was enforced.

kcbrown
08-03-2010, 1:29 AM
wrong- and it has been invoked-

Article 1, Section 9 states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."


That is for Habeas Corpus only. It does not cover any other provision of the Constitution. And note that it specifically states that such suspension is valid only in the event of an invasion or a rebellion.

I suppose "rebellion" could be interpreted to cover quite a lot of ground, but even so, the above does not allow for suspension of anything other than Habeas Corpus. All other aspects of the Constitution remain in full force. This means the right to a trial by a jury of your peers, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to free speech, etc., all remain protected.



On September 15, 1863, Lincoln imposed Congressionally-authorized martial law. The authorizing act allowed the President to suspend habeas corpus throughout the entire United States. Lincoln imposed the suspension on "prisoners of war, spies, or aiders and abettors of the enemy," as well as on other classes of people, such as draft dodgers. The President's proclamation was challenged in ex parte Milligan (71 US 2 [1866]). The Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln's imposition of martial law (by way of suspension of habeas corpus) was unconstitutional.

Even though it was deemed unconstitutional after the fact, it still happened, and was enforced.

Of course. He who has the guns makes the rules. I'm only commenting on whether or not such martial law would, in fact, be lawful. It wouldn't be: in fact, if there's anything that would justify armed insurrection against the government, that would be it, because martial law is essentially the declaration of totalitarian power.

franklinarmory
08-03-2010, 6:25 AM
That is for Habeas Corpus only. It does not cover any other provision of the Constitution. And note that it specifically states that such suspension is valid only in the event of an invasion or a rebellion.

I suppose "rebellion" could be interpreted to cover quite a lot of ground, but even so, the above does not allow for suspension of anything other than Habeas Corpus. All other aspects of the Constitution remain in full force. This means the right to a trial by a jury of your peers, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to free speech, etc., all remain protected.




Of course. He who has the guns makes the rules. I'm only commenting on whether or not such martial law would, in fact, be lawful. It wouldn't be: in fact, if there's anything that would justify armed insurrection against the government, that would be it, because martial law is essentially the declaration of totalitarian power.

Last I checked, Suspending Habeas Corpus means that you will not get a trial, or a hearing, or anything until things get back to normal. Consequently, if you can be arrested and thrown in jail without the right to challenge the state, then many of your other rights guaranteed by the constitution will suddenly become meaningless if you have no redress.

SID45
08-03-2010, 6:42 AM
Before they declare martial law , they will try to confiscate all firearms. Just like what they did in other countries.

Bugei
08-03-2010, 9:22 AM
Actually, you may be thinking the opposite of what will happen. If martial law were declared and you found with a gun, it would likely be taken from you.

If you're lucky, they'll take it from you. At the unlucky end, you'll be shot for having it.

Bugei
08-03-2010, 9:25 AM
I suppose "rebellion" could be interpreted to cover quite a lot of ground...

I'm thinking "invasion" could also be rather broadly interpreted, in the case of our Southern border. Just sayin'.

cmaynes
08-03-2010, 10:35 AM
there will never be an "Invasion" from the south- even if the cartels roll into Calexico in BMP's- that will remain the case until all of Congress is voted out of office.

GuyW
08-03-2010, 10:39 AM
there will never admission of an "Invasion" from the south - even after the cartels start beheading Congressmen in DC.

...

creekside
08-03-2010, 11:14 AM
Put yourself in the place of a scared tac-team of soldiers or cops.

"Either I can go suppress this riot and get shot at if not overrun and beaten to death, or I can go pretend to do something by hassling some people defending their own homes and taking their guns away."

During such a state of emergency, the law abiding citizen is either protecting their home or business, or hiding in a safe place to shelter from the storm, or fleeing to a safer area, or offering their assistance to the lawful authorities. I can imagine being forced by circumstances to seek emergency medical attention or lifesaving supplies, which is a powerful argument for having some level of medical training and stocking up so you might not have to.

This doesn't leave much room for wandering the streets looking for trouble, which you will be certain to find. Only the news media has a good excuse for that :)