PDA

View Full Version : Bill regarding Seizure of Guns during Diasters


neomedic
11-30-2007, 10:24 PM
I read awhile back about a law being explored to take away guns from law abiding citizens during diaster events (such as they did in Katrina). What ever happen to that??? Hope it was killed.

I havn't been following this and just tought of it. Thanks.

Gator Monroe
11-30-2007, 10:29 PM
The bill brought by State Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa R Richvale WAS SIGHNED BY Gov Ahhnold and it has Teeth (We won on that one but it was offset by the Microstamping bill)

FortCourageArmory
12-01-2007, 8:50 AM
I read awhile back about a law being explored to take away guns from law abiding citizens during diaster events (such as they did in Katrina). What ever happen to that??? Hope it was killed.

I havn't been following this and just tought of it. Thanks.

Just to clarify, the bill signed by the Governor makes it illegal for government entities to confiscated legally-owned guns from citizens during an emergency. So, this should prevent Katrina-like instances in the event of a disaster.

RAD-CDPII
12-01-2007, 8:52 AM
I read awhile back about a law being explored to take away guns from law abiding citizens during diaster events (such as they did in Katrina). What ever happen to that??? Hope it was killed.

I havn't been following this and just tought of it. Thanks.

I believe that you have it backwards, the bill was to "NOT" allow the take away of gunsa during such time.

bulgron
12-01-2007, 9:39 AM
The federal government passed a Katrina bill to prevent federal law personnel from confiscating firearms during a natural disaster. Both of our senators were among the tiny handful that voted against it.

Subsequently, many states, including CA, passed a similar law so as to restrict state and local authorities from confiscating guns during a natural disaster.

However, here in CA, I remain skeptical about these bills. Our bill contains the keyword "legally owned" firearms (as does the federal law, if memory serves). So, for example, if there's a natural disaster and you decide to carry a shotgun while getting water from the relief station, you'll be in violation of various open carry laws and your firearm can be confiscation. Ditto with a concealed handgun if you aren't one of the privileged few in this state to have a CCW.

Also, I'm unaware of any provision in these laws that prevents the state governor from declaring martial law, and so declaring all firearms illegal due to a state of emergency. Granted, the 2A should act as a barrier to that kind of thing, but we're a long way from the day when the courts will allow the 2A to be used to protect citizen's arms.

In the end, if LEO wants your guns, LEO will take your guns. If you don't resist, you'll get to live to fight another day. If you actually live through the emergency, you can then sue LEO black and blue. My personal belief is that the only way to stop state and federal authorities from taking arms away during natural disaster is to personally sue into bankruptcy those people who stood in your home and took away your guns. Once LEO understands the long-term ramifications of that kind of behavior, they'll be a lot less willing to follow the orders to do it.

Gator Monroe
12-01-2007, 9:45 AM
Credit where credit due = Ca. State Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa R Richvale (Owner of a Russian SKS and many other Guns)

hoffmang
12-01-2007, 9:51 AM
Bulgron,

Would you prefer we not have the Federal and State law?

I think making it clear that the government would have to break the law to require firearms confiscation has a lot more impact than you think it does. It's much easier for the rank and file to ignore an obviously illegal order.

-Gene

bulgron
12-01-2007, 10:05 AM
Bulgron,

Would you prefer we not have the Federal and State law?


Of course not.

What I'm really trying to say is that until we have shall-issue firearm carry laws (or better), the Katrina bill is easily side-stepped in this state. The Katrina bill is obviously a great first step, but it's meaningless without real firearm law reforms here in CA.

If Heller goes well, we can begin moving in the right direction. Let's just hope that the next big earthquake holds off until things in this state can be vastly improved.

BTW, I'm acutely aware that what I'm saying really only affects the 70% or so of CA's population that lives in counties where concealed and open carry is denied to normal people. But then, I think the people who live in the rural counties don't actually live in the same state as I do. I'd like to go live in that California someday.

Gator Monroe
12-01-2007, 10:09 AM
Of course not.

What I'm really trying to say is that until we have shall-issue firearm carry laws (or better), the Katrina bill is easily side-stepped in this state. The Katrina bill is obviously a great first step, but it's meaningless without real firearm law reforms here in CA.

If Heller goes well, we can begin moving in the right direction. Let's just hope that the next big earthquake holds off until things in this state can be vastly improved.

BTW, I'm acutely aware that what I'm saying really only affects the 70% or so of CA's population that lives in counties where concealed and open carry is denied to normal people. But then, I think the people who live in the rural counties don't actually live in the same state as I do. I'd like to go live in that California someday.
Look at Shasta County (Google) It's like another state and come up for a look (89% White 72% Republican ,no Gangs,No Grafitti ... Doug LaMalfa is our State Assemblyman !

bulgron
12-01-2007, 10:45 AM
Look at Shasta County (Google) It's like another state and come up for a look (89% White 72% Republican ,no Gangs,No Grafitti ... Doug LaMalfa is our State Assemblyman !

:)

Thanks, I'll do that.

FortCourageArmory
12-01-2007, 2:25 PM
Look at Shasta County (Google) It's like another state and come up for a look (89% White 72% Republican ,no Gangs,No Grafitti ... Doug LaMalfa is our State Assemblyman !

And huge populations of Bigfoots!!! :p:D

mikehaas
12-02-2007, 8:54 AM
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2007&summary=ab1645

Mike

bwiese
12-02-2007, 9:06 AM
Look at Shasta County (Google) It's like another state and come up for a look (89% White 72% Republican ,no Gangs,No Grafitti ... Doug LaMalfa is our State Assemblyman !

Gator,

Doug LaMalfa is good, but Shasta & Norcal areas have their own problems.

Employment is limited and, and area is full of methheads. When I drive thru, I can play "spot the methhead" at many diners/restaurants - customers and wait staff.

fairfaxjim
12-02-2007, 9:12 AM
Bulgron,

Would you prefer we not have the Federal and State law?

I think making it clear that the government would have to break the law to require firearms confiscation has a lot more impact than you think it does. It's much easier for the rank and file to ignore an obviously illegal order.

-Gene

While I agree that these laws will most likely prevent some illegal confiscations, I also think that our government in general is incapable of "doing the right thing" on a consistent basis. Between having it populated by politically correct thinking (not acting), feel gooders, fearing for their jobs, Feinstein and Boxer loving tools, and the "heat of the moment fear" of anyone having a "gun", the people we will encounter in an emergency situation will still think they "are" the law at that point.

We see that "we are the law" attitude at the DOJ, the very nexus of "official" thought concerning guns, on an almost daily basis. To think that a new found respect for our 2A rights will materialize out of chaos is more than my imagination can conjure up. Not to mention that LE, particularly urban LE, works in an environment where gun on street = bad guy. I doubt they have the capacity to change that thinking the moment S**T comes raining down upon them.

If, and when, a catastrophic emergency happens, and in the aftermath there are some major penalties for confiscating lawful weapons, then MAYBE in the next one we will see some 2A respect. I have become very jaded, and believe that the majority of our lawmakers and enforcers are just that, not law abiders.

MudCamper
12-02-2007, 9:30 AM
However, here in CA, I remain skeptical about these bills. Our bill contains the keyword "legally owned" firearms (as does the federal law, if memory serves). So, for example, if there's a natural disaster and you decide to carry a shotgun while getting water from the relief station, you'll be in violation of various open carry laws and your firearm can be confiscation. Ditto with a concealed handgun if you aren't one of the privileged few in this state to have a CCW.

12031 has a provision that helps here:

(j) (1) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the carrying of any loaded firearm, under circumstances where it would otherwise be lawful, by a person who reasonably believes that the person or property of himself or herself or of another is in immediate, grave danger and that the carrying of the weapon is necessary for the preservation of that person or property. As used in this subdivision, "immediate" means the brief interval before and after the local law enforcement agency, when reasonably possible, has been notified of the danger and before the arrival of its assistance.

So in a disaster, when you don't even have any phone service or any reasonable expectation that any LEO will help you, you can carry loaded. As for your handgun, carry it openly in a holster and then you are not violating 12025 either.

And carry this: http://www.paul.net/guns/CaliforniaOpenCarry.pdf and a printout of the Katrina law.

hoffmang
12-02-2007, 9:40 AM
I do understand the skepticism, but there is an important issue of practical effect here. Not all LEO's are unaware of the law or are anti-gun. By giving those guys this tool in the law, they have a very strong argument amongst their own LEA that a confiscation order is invalid per the Code. That leaves them able to refuse and explain to others why they too should refuse.

Absent the law, they'd have to appeal to some generic respect for the people. I know which tool I want them to have.

-Gene

fairfaxjim
12-02-2007, 9:44 AM
12031 has a provision that helps here:

Quote:
(j) (1) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the carrying of any loaded firearm, under circumstances where it would otherwise be lawful, by a person who reasonably believes that the person or property of himself or herself or of another is in immediate, grave danger and that the carrying of the weapon is necessary for the preservation of that person or property. As used in this subdivision, "immediate" means the brief interval before and after the local law enforcement agency, when reasonably possible, has been notified of the danger and before the arrival of its assistance.

So in a disaster, when you don't even have any phone service or any reasonable expectation that any LEO will help you, you can carry loaded. As for your handgun, carry it openly in a holster and then you are not violating 12025 either.

And carry this: http://www.paul.net/guns/CaliforniaOpenCarry.pdf and a printout of the Katrina law.

If there were any assurance that these laws, and others for that matter, were going to be followed in an emergency, we would't need the "Katrina" laws since we're already covered.

I still think all the laws for gov't and LE pretty much go out the window when the stuff hits the fan, and the only pushback after the fact from the government will again be "we would love to give you your guns back, but we didn't have time to catalog everything we took. IF you can prove we have it, and can prove you own it, we'll look into it." And another round of passing feel good laws that will "prevent this from ever happening again" that will also be ignored in the heat of the next crisis. This mental attitude that "since the laws we used for many years are now being ignored, let's put some more poorly thought out laws in place to fix it" will change anything has got to do an about face. We are so lawed up, nobody can even figure out what is what.

MudCamper
12-02-2007, 9:58 AM
... We are so lawed up, nobody can even figure out what is what.

That is why I always carry copies of the laws with me. Yeah, it's no guarantee, but it might help.

What else can you do? Carry a digital recorder maybe, so you have some record of any LEO encounters. And make sure you have more guns hidden away to go get when the ones in your hand are confiscated.

bulgron
12-02-2007, 11:58 AM
(j) (1) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the carrying of any loaded firearm, under circumstances where it would otherwise be lawful, by a person who reasonably believes that the person or property of himself or herself or of another is in immediate, grave danger and that the carrying of the weapon is necessary for the preservation of that person or property. As used in this subdivision, "immediate" means the brief interval before and after the local law enforcement agency, when reasonably possible, has been notified of the danger and before the arrival of its assistance.


So in a disaster, when you don't even have any phone service or any reasonable expectation that any LEO will help you, you can carry loaded. As for your handgun, carry it openly in a holster and then you are not violating 12025 either.

Well, the section of the code you reference says "where it would otherwise be lawful" and as far as I know it's illegal to openly carry a loaded firearm in incorporated areas in this state, which is why I think the Katrina bill does very little to help over 70% of this state's population which, after all, lives in large urban areas. Of course, it prevents LEO from walking into your grandmother's home, slamming her up against the wall, and taking away her little .38. But that's sort of does nothing for you if the authorities order you to evacuate your home.

But even if I'm missing some nuance of the law here, it's still sort of a self-proving recipe for confiscation, isn't it? Let's say you were caught up in the midst of a Katrina-scale disaster and you were just trying to get you and your family out of the area to a place of safety. So you, rationally, think, "Hmmm.... Lot of lawlessness out there. LEO is nowhere to be seen. I guess I'd better arm myself for this hike out of the disaster zone." And you think you can do this because, clearly, LEO is no where to be seen and so you have no reasonable expectation of being helped by him.

So off you go, trudging through the flood waters.

Then you come around a corner and, oh look! There's LEO at a check point.

Who proceeds to tell you, "Well, we're here and so are you, so obviously at this exact moment your expectation that we can't help you is flawed, ergo that firearm you're carrying openly is illegal and so we're confiscating it, plus throwing you in the pokey on arms charges."

Sounds like fun, doesn't it?

What we should do is push for an incremental change to the Katrina bill that says all laws against open carry of firearms are suspended if and when the Governor or President declares yours to be a disaster area. It's actually a nice, sneaky way to chip away at the idiot open carry laws that we have in this state.

M. Sage
12-02-2007, 1:00 PM
Well, the section of the code you reference says "where it would otherwise be lawful" and as far as I know it's illegal to openly carry a loaded firearm in incorporated areas in this state, which is why I think the Katrina bill does very little to help over 70% of this state's population which, after all, lives in large urban areas.

You need to look at the word right before the one you started your quote with: "circumstances." I'm guessing that's a felon in possession or restricted person reference?

hoffmang
12-02-2007, 2:12 PM
12031 (j) (1) is a circumstances exception for the otherwise law abiding to carry to protect themselves or property when they would otherwise not be lawful. Otherwise it's surplussage and a standard cannon of construction is that legislatures don't pass moot laws.

-Gene

chris
12-02-2007, 2:23 PM
too bad this state will more than likely forget that this law exists at all. i have no trust in this states' willingness to abide by this law. there can and always will be personell willing to break such law in the event of a natural disaster.

NOTE: i'm not bashing all LEO since there are those who would not break this law but there are always the small minority who abuse the public trust as was seen in New Orleans.

MudCamper
12-02-2007, 3:01 PM
The section that I quoted is a subsection of 12031 that exempts you from 12031. The otherwise prohibited wording is just that, other restrictions, of which there aren't many that would apply, unless you were near a school or inside a post office or some such nonsense.

As for encountering a LEO, you would not be breaking the law, as you were still following the exemption. Now he might be able to order you to unload it at that point, but then, is he going to escort you on the rest of your journey? If not, reload.

KDOFisch
12-02-2007, 5:09 PM
So this is interesting, because I actually have thought of this a lot, being that I live in the middle of LA and well, the ground kinda shakes here a bit.

Getting out of here alive in the event of a huge earthquake has always been a concern of mine, though everyone else i know chuckles. I do think about what would happen, in light of this bill, if I had to sling a loaded 870 on my back while hiking Laurel Canyon out, or open carry an XD on my hip. With this law, if it seemed like the natives were restless, I wouldn't think twice about carrying.

It's the first thing that went through my mind while watching Katrina footage years ago. If there's a law to 'protect' me now, I would exercise my right to.