State of Emergency (like a hurricane)

Discussion in 'Places Off-Limits' started by Gunstar1, Nov 2, 2005.

  1. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    Just wondering what we could do to make sure the anti-gun stuff that happened in Louisiana does not happen here.

    Most schools around here are emergency shelters. Which means we would have to be unarmed to take shelter.

    I think that in a time of emergancy that open carry should be allowed by those who are not prohibited from owning firearms.
     
  2. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,351
    383
    83
    They aren't herding me into one of those government camps.


    We certainly need to strike out "firearms" from the law on the Governor's emergency powers allowing him to interfere in the free market. I think that should be an easy sell to legislators given the ABC News video of military troops and police kicking in doors, handcuffing people, humiliating them, and searching their homes for weapons.

    Listening to a young enlisted man talk about how strange it is to be doing this in your own country, but then confirming that he will shoot American citizens to follow his orders, ought to convince just about anyone that this part of the law should be struck out.
     

  3. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,351
    383
    83
    I know that isn't really what you were posting about, but "Colorado carry" and removing this from the Governor's powers during emergency should accomplish what you seek.
     
  4. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,351
    383
    83
    My wife and I were discussing Ban Francisco's vote today, and she asked, what are you going to do if that happened here and they showed up at our door?

    I would tell them, "I sold them in response to the ban. Private sale. No record." It is nice not to have registration like in Ban Francisco.

    "What if they just forced their way in to search like in New Orleans?" she wanted to know.

    I didn't answer, and even if I did, I wouldn't answer in a public forum.

    Suffice it to say that we need to get rid of this particular emergency power in the statute, so this will not even be an issue we need to worry about.
     
  5. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,351
    383
    83
    What do you think, guys? Given the ABC News video of soldiers harassing people, handcuffing them, humiliating them, and forcibly searching their homes and confiscatiing weapons, as well as soldiers talking on camera about shooting American citizens to follow their orders if necessary, is there a more opportune time to push this on our representatives and Senators?

    SECTION 3.

    Code Section 38-3-51 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to the emergency powers of the Governor, is amended by striking paragraph (8 ) of subsection (d) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

    "(8 ) Suspend or limit the sale, dispensing, or transportation of alcoholic beverages, firearms, explosives, and combustibles; provided, however, that any limitation on firearms under this Code section shall not include an individual firearm owned by a private citizen which was legal and owned by that citizen prior to the declaration of state of emergency or disaster or thereafter acquired in compliance with all applicable laws of this state and the United States; and".


    Hmmmm . . .

    The strike out lines did not come through. :x Well, it strikes out the word "firearms" and then the word "provided, however" and everything after it.
     
  6. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,351
    383
    83
    OK, I edited it to underline the offending language. Any comments or suggestions?

    Any reason this should not be pushed as a discrete item?
     
  7. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    38
    MP, First I think the entire section of the statute is unnecessary. That said, agree that you have selected the correct language (although I'd hate to have to pass up a drink during an emergency). I also agree that it should be pushed as a stand alone agenda item, and I would add that it ought to be a much lower priority than overhauling the GFL and public gathering statutes.

    The reason I give it a lower priority is that the statute does not purport to give the governor power to confiscate guns or restrict their use or possession. It only gives him the power to restrict their sale. Again, I think the statute is unnecessary on all counts, but, compared to the ridiculous public gathering restrictions on carry, not being able to buy a gun in an emergency (and only if the governor so decrees) is not nearly as big a deal.
     
  8. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,351
    383
    83
    While this is a low priority for all of us, I find the timing propitious. It ought to be an easy sell after what we saw in New Orleans. Also, we might be able to get NRA and other organizational support.

    We would not think it such a low priority in a disaster if the police and military troops come in and seize weapons while holding your wife and child at gunpoint before leaving you defenseless to the rioting hordes . . .

    Avian flu . . .

    Tornado . . .

    Who knows?

    I would just rather remove this contingency. There is no good reason to have it in the law.
     
  9. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    38
    Weeeellllllll.......

    I don't think my priority for repealing the power of the governor to restrict the sale of firearms would change if the police seized my firearms at gunpoint. Either way, the police would have exceeded their authority. But, if you think it will be an easy sell, go for it. I just wouldn't want to see this done at the expense of not repealing the public gathering rules.
     
  10. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,351
    383
    83
    Not at the expense of . . . just not tied to it. This code section is not even in the criminal title.

    They are really separate issues.

    I would like to hear more opinions about whether this is a bad idea.

    Oh, and, jrm. please re-read the statute, above. It covers way more than simply the "sale" of firearms.

    "sale, dispensing, or transportation"

    While this supposedly does not include ones legally acquired prior to the disaster, how are you going to prove that?

    I'd prefer to get rid of it.

    And, if looters got all my guns, I'd certainly want to be able to get new ones without waiting for the emergency to be over . . .

    Think about it like this. In times of emergency, statutes get read rather broadly in favor of the exercise of police power - not the other way around.
     
  11. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    38
    Must have been a smudge on my glasses

    Mea culpa. I would have sworn it said only sale.

    I give. Let's get it changed.