King, NC declares state of emergency due to weather -- restricts gun rights

[orangello]

I see your point and believe i understand what you are saying. I still do not agree with your take on this issue. For one thing, i am not sure that some rights aren't absolute; IIRC the U.S. Constitution doesn't seem to me to be granting rights so much as it is recognizing rights. Amendment 2 doesn't say that citizens are granted the right to keep and bear arms; it says that this right shall not be infringed.

Some people say that a creator granted us these rights; i'm honestly not 100% sure if this is the case, but i could never say for certain that it is not the case. Or maybe it's just the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness rights that are natural rights not granted by the Constitution/State, i suppose that is subject to individual interpretation. I consider my right to self defense against physical harm or subjugation to a tyrant through the use of a firearm or whatever means are available to be a natural right, personally, granted by whom/what i'm not certain.

I don't consider a statement that affirms that a person will defend their rights with force if needed to be a threat, unless it is a threat against an aggressor trying to defeat/usurp those rights. When a soldier takes an oath to defend the U.S. and its Constitution, is that a threat?

 

[Conn. Trooper]

Second Amendment rights go away the moment one is a convicted felon, its not absolute, never has been.

 

[orangello]

Second Amendment rights go away the moment one is a convicted felon, its not absolute, never has been.

Isn't the right to "liberty" restricted for many convicted of a felony, by their incarceration? Does that change the fact that it is a natural right? I don't think so myself, but we don't have to agree on everything.

I believe the right to self defense by whatever means available to me is a natural/inalienable right not so much granted to me by the Constitution but explained by the Constitution and further defined/explained in the 2nd Amendment.

I understand that you disagree with me and hope that you will understand that i am not saying that you must change your opinion, merely that you must respect my right to my own opinion on this matter as i respect your right to your opinion, regardless of whether or not our opinions agree.

 

[TMUSCLE1]

No it doesn't!

Yes it does. If you are going to say all of that about a SOE then we need to discuss the NICS and other gun control laws that are on the books. That isn't the point of this thread though. I never said I wasn't against it...I said it makes sense why it is instituted.

By the way ma'am...you quoted one part of my post and used it for another totally different part of the subject. I never agreed with the leaving your firearms at home and I made that clear in my first post. I, nor many of us are there in NC; I don't know the whole story and was just using conjecture on to why the banning of the sale of firearms is institued. That is all I was trying to do.

 

[miboso]

Regarding Natural rights being absolute:

From Blackstone - http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_intro.asp#2

"no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture"

Basically then, once you violate natural rights (theft, murder, etc.) you lose your natural rights.

So, while they may not be "absolute", no legislature is allowed to violate them (except through the weakness of the legislature's subjects, er, I mean constituents).

 

[Conn. Trooper]

I agree, in some cases things are considered a felony that traditionally have not been. However, as things stand they are still a felony until changed. And rights can be restricted lawfully by due process ( conviction of a felony, enlisting in the military, etc.). No right is absolute, the first amendment does not let you yell fire in a theater, or threaten people, rights have always been restricted, lawfully, by due process.

 

[MTT TL]

A Tale of Two Cities, nay make that Three Cities...

LA April 1992- Police officers shown beating a drunken (and high on dope) driver are given a pass that triggers riots that the police are unable to control. Running gun battles take place in the streets of LA. Due to a waiting period for guns civilians are unable to purchase weapons to defend themselves. Mass looting and uncontrolled violence take the lives of 53 people and cause more than a billion dollars in property damage. Order is only restored after thousands of military troops are deployed in the city.

Miami (Homestead) August 1992- A class 5 Hurricane rolls over Southern Miami leveling everything in it's path. From the slums emerge gangs of looters who attempt to loot various homes and businesses. Armed shop keepers and civilians fend off various attempts to loot their businesses. At the homestead Kmart employees make use of the firearms located in the sporting goods section. Unrestricted firearm and ammo sales make for record sales in a short period of time several gun shops sell out of stock. Riots never develop and while the military is deployed to assist in the clean up and rebuilding there is no need to employ them to keep order despite much of the government infrastructure being destroyed.

NOLA August 2005 - Well, we all know what happened there. Or maybe we don't. What we do know is that the government was in no way capable of dealing with the mess. We know that there were house to house search and seizures by the police. We know there was uncontrolled violence and looting (some of it by the police who had not deserted).

Pick your disaster. Which one do you want to be in? I want to be in the one where I can exercise my rights.

I have no idea how this thread relates to gun rights for felons. I don't think it does.

 

[miboso]

the first amendment does not let you yell fire in a theater,

I am, oh, so tired of this inane argument. The first amendment begins "Congress shall make no law (would that they had stopped there).
Please show me where Congress has made a law about yelling anything in a theater. This does not violate the first, therefore it is "absolutely" NOT an example of the first not being absolute.

The meaning of the Constitution is only difficult to understand when we want it to mean something that it does not.

 

[paull]

CT:

I do think this law has the possibility to be abused. I would think that who exactly can declare the emergency and what makes a legitimate emergency should be well defined.

Most phones use electricity to operate today. Plus, if the weather is that bad what office worker can make it to work to man the NICS office? Loosen the tinfoil, not a giant conspiracy to take away your rights.

The ability to purchase a firearm is functionally suppressed by the loss of electric power and/or transportation, if that power or transportation is needed to conduct the transaction. I don't see why there would need be a law for this.

help me on this..?

p

 

[stevelyn]

Not only does Alaska law (passed post-Katrina) forbid such shinanagans during disasters, it provides criminal sanctions for the first idiot that violates it.

 

[ScottRiqui]

I am, oh, so tired of this inane argument. The first amendment begins "Congress shall make no law (would that they had stopped there).
Please show me where Congress has made a law about yelling anything in a theater. This does not violate the first, therefore it is "absolutely" NOT an example of the first not being absolute.

The meaning of the Constitution is only difficult to understand when we want it to mean something that it does not.

Actually, it's a very good example of the First Amendment not being absolute.

Even thought the First Amendment prevents Congress from passing laws abridging the freedom of speech, there are several classes of speech that are *not* protected, including the classic "fire in a crowded theater" example of inciting speech.

Thus, the First Amendment protection against abridgement of speech is not absolute.

 

[pax]

Actually, it's the silliest possible example of a non-issue.

Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is perfectly legal. You can shout any damn thing you want. It's a free country.

What you cannot do is avoid the consequences for your behavior, if there is not in fact a fire in the theater.

Nobody issues muzzles or gags at the door to the theater house (no matter how much, in this day of poor public manners, we might wish they would). In other words, the 1st Amendment is protected, but its abuse is not.

This is in contrast to the way we treat the 2nd Amendment, which is to prevent its exercise entirely in some situations. Such as the situation that started this thread, where some petty bureaucrat decided to make a play for federal dollars, and an unconstitutional but currently-legal provision of law kicked the 2nd Amendment in its teeth.

When theater owners are required by law to issue gags to their patrons at the door, then that tired old argument about shouting "fire!" in the theater will be a parallel. Until then, it's just a cop-out.

pax

 

[Al Norris]

Thanks Pax.

I have lost count on the number of times someone says you can't shout "Fire!" in a theater, only to be told, "Yes You Can!"

Just to add to what you said, even if there is a fire and your shouting "FIRE!" results in hysteria, ultimately injuring others, you can still be prosecuted and/or sued.

But this whole concept is off topic for this thread. Someone start another thread if you wish to discuss this.

What is unfortunate is that a law has been passed that does not define what an emergency is, in order to proclaim a State of Emergency, and then proceed to tell the citizens they can't be allowed to protect themselves during this "declared" state... A state wherein presumably, those tasked to protect the community can't do anything, because they are stuck where they are, just like you!

Talk about vague and arbitrary rules!

 

[ScottRiqui]

I never claimed that the "fire in a theater" example was any kind of parallel to any Second Amendment issues. I was only saying that it's a valid example of Constitutionally-guaranteed rights not being absolute.

Comparing it to the Second Amendment, the "shall not be infringed" language in the Second Amendment does not prevent a private property owner from prohibiting the carrying of guns on his property. Therefore, the right to carry a firearm is not absolute, even though the language of the Second Amendment doesn't explicitly include any exclusions.

 

[langenc]

"...buying a gun and going on a looting spree."

So one needs a gun to go looting in NC???

 

[Freight_Train]

Ummm,The Constitution grants and restricts powers of the GOVERNMENT so the private deal argument above holds about as much water as a fishing net also.

 

[gc70]

North Carolina is in many ways a paradox - a Southern state with a left-leaning legislature that is dearly in love with Jim Crow laws from a bygone era. At any rate, here is some background to the recent brouhaha.

The police chief caught flak for discharging her legal responsibility (in most municipalities) for publicizing the actions of the municipal governing body.

Is there no leash on local law enforcement?

Residents Fumed Over Weekend Alcohol, Firearm Ban
The state of emergency for King was declared by members of the City Council after Stokes County authorities also declared a state of emergency.

State law gives municipalities authority for state of emergency ordinances, but if municipalities do not act, the governor has power to do so.

I wonder if this is legal at all.

North Carolina General Statutes § 14-288.12. Powers of municipalities to enact ordinances to deal with states of emergency.
(a) The governing body of any municipality may enact ordinances designed to permit the imposition of prohibitions and restrictions during a state of emergency.
(b) The ordinances authorized by this section may permit prohibitions and restrictions:
(1) Of movements of people in public places;
(2) Of the operation of offices, business establishments, and other places to or from which people may travel or at which they may congregate;
(3) Upon the possession, transportation, sale, purchase, and consumption of alcoholic beverages;
(4) Upon the possession, transportation, sale, purchase, storage, and use of dangerous weapons and substances, and gasoline; and
(5) Upon other activities or conditions the control of which may be reasonably necessary to maintain order and protect lives or property during the state of emergency.

If fact, the governor declared a state of emergency on January 29th "due to a winter storm."

Just to be sure municipalities do not overlook carrying firearms, that activity is redundantly covered in state law.

It appears that the local government is violating state law: North Carolina General Statute § 14-415.23 (state pre-emption of firearms laws).

See above, and:

North Carolina General Statutes § 14-288.7. Transporting dangerous weapon or substance during emergency; possessing off premises; exceptions.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to transport or possess off his own premises any dangerous weapon or substance in any area:
(1) In which a declared state of emergency exists

While the laws are a travesty and need to be changed, they are the key to unlocking state and federal financial assistance. And while they are ripe for abuse, the restrictions in the state of emergency laws are generally not enforced.

 

[pax]

While the laws are a travesty and need to be changed, they are the key to unlocking state and federal financial assistance.

Yeah, didn't I say that?

It's all about getting federal money -- that's MY money and YOUR money, not "government" money -- for a minor dusting of snow.

There was nothing that happened in NC so severe that it required politicians to rush in and burn stacks of money.

And while they are ripe for abuse, the restrictions in the state of emergency laws are generally not enforced.

"To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt." -- Elizabeth Cady Stanton

pax

 

[44 AMP]

Follow the money....yet again

It is the short sightedness of the public officials that causes the problem. All they see is, declare an emergency, and get Fed money to deal with it, thereby preserving their own local budget.

However, once a state of emergency is declared, they are locked into a frame work of response, by law. And in that framework is restrictions on firearms sales and use. And I am not entirely opposed to this. The devil is in the details.

The underlying concept (which may be flawed) is that the "good" people will stay home, and weather the storm, and that people out and about (wothout being response workers) are up to no good. Now this is patently not true in all cases, but is true many times. Thats where looters come from, after all.

There is some logic to bans on sales, as people who are not responsible enough to already have a gun (and ammo) are likely also not going to be responsible with it. They are operating in panic mode. And panicky people do stupid things. I don't agree with it completely, but I do see the logic.

Note that this order did not include disarming citizens in their homes. NO confiscation of the law abiding, unlike what happened in New Orleans. Just don't go out armed. Too bad if you need to get food or water, you have to do it unarmed.

It would be better if the law recognised legal permit holders (ccw) and provided an exemption for them. Or was simply not in place at all.

Govt has the legal and lawful authority to restict ALL our rights during "emergencies". What we have to ensure is what constitutes a valid emergency, and its duration. And this can only be done in law, when no emergency is taking place.

 

[The Tourist]

Don't panic guys. I suppose you have to put something down for all contingencies, but it's pretty worthless in reality.

If wide-spread tragedies or anarchy happened, I think I'd worry more about looters and wild animals than offending Sarah Brady. Besides, in a life threatening scenario you're going to think about shooting more than paying a fine.

I heard once that the Federal Government has a plan on how to deliver mail in case of a nuclear attack. As I sit in a dank cave slowly dying of radiation sickness it's comforting to know that my "Girls Gone Wild" DVDs will get to me promptly.

I'm more concerned that idiots who think this stuff up actually run the government.