You’ll notice I actually mentioned securing the well-being of my neighbors (such as getting food, fuel or medicine for elderly or disabled) as being a conceivable reason for needing to venture out in chaotic times.
The law in question is not limited to weather events, though we’ve seen how extreme weather (particularly in big cities) is plenty sufficient to wreak havoc.
According to the second section of the linked article, Republican-sponsored attempts to exempt “lawfully possessed firearms and ammunition” from the law were blocked by Democratic state legislators.
The law shouldn’t disarm people during times of emergency. It should allow the government to shoot any armed person on sight because of the likelihood they are drunken morons, robbers, murderers and mayhem-causers.
Should mention that last remark was not serious. I’m no gun nut or fan of them. But I am a fan of the Constitution. The 2nd amendment is explicit and clear:* the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*
Or maybe people defending themselves from the above list. A state of emergency means chaos. If I’m stuck away from home because of evacuation, I refuse to allow myself to be disarmed in the process.
I second this.
As a gun owner and CHL holder, I do my best to obey all gun laws. Even the ones I think are stupid. But I can only be pushed so far. If a law is passed (or enacted via a “state of emergency”) that violates my ability to protect myself and my family, I will break the law and remain armed.
In a true state of emergency, being well armed would be of the *utmost *importance to me. I would double-up (or triple-up) on the amount of handgun ammo I normally carry. I would also have a semi-auto rifle in the trunk (.223 or .308) with at least 500 rounds of ammo.
Wouldn’t that then make you a gun-toting criminal, just the sort that other people have guns to protect themselves from?
Define criminal.
If criminal = breaking a law, then I would be a criminal.
If criminal = inflicting harm on innocent people, then I would not be a criminal.
I am armed for strictly defense purposes.
Someone who commits a crime?
Sometimes laws should not be followed.
Don’t be silly. Plenty of people who have broken laws here or there are no threat to me. Possibly some who haven’t, are.
Then why is he bitching about the governor? See Post 3.
The OP should speak for himself, I guess. The remark about the governor was perhaps off base, but I’m OK with the thread title.
Stupid, stupid law.
And one I might well choose to violate.
But I regret to say it’s NOT unconstitutional. Wish it were.
Why do you think it’s constitutional?
Is this one of those reasonable limits on freedoms? What are the major US cases on reasonable limits to fundamental freedoms (especially the 2nd amendment)?
It doesn’t restrict ownership, just transport off-premises during an emergency. Perfectly legal and constitutional.
I’m still going to violate it if necessary.
Isn’t the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms?
Who cares? I have a natural/inalienable right to bear arms, even during a so-called “state of emergency.” I have this right regardless of what the law says, or what the constitution says or doesn’t say.
It doesn’t seem likely that anyone would use this law to target people legitimately evacuating from the defined state of emergency – I can’t see cars on an evacuation route being stopped and searched, for example. In fact the authorities would probably rather you took your guns and bombs and so forth with you instead of leaving them behind in your soon-to-be-looted house. So, those of you with that in mind don’t seem to me to be in any danger from the jackbooted thugs who are busy contending with a riot or hurricane or whatever, but if it gives an added thrill to feel that you’re defying tyranny at great personal risk, by all means, enjoy the feeling all the way out. When you get to safety, check the local gun laws before you unpack.
If you are not evacuating, and I’m assuming that any situation resulting in the state’s inability to maintain public order and safety is probably also a reasonable excuse to call your boss and take a personal day, do what you’re supposed to do and stay home. That’s what you need to protect, and that’s where your guns will be. Still no problem, granting the need to defend yourself and your property with guns.
However, if you decide it’s a good idea to replenish the disaster kit, or check out what the angry mobs are wearing this year, do it naked of armament. Shopping and/or sightseeing in a disaster zone while armed is an act of such aggressive disregard for your own safety and that of others that it’s hard to attach a lot of importance to the constitutional argument. The assertion that you’re entirely defense-oriented, completely level-headed and can remain so despite desperate circumstances may be true, but it’s asking a lot of the National Guardsmen at the end of the block to read your mind and character and discern that you’re not just separated from the gangs a few blocks away, or looking for the guys who siphoned the gas from your generator, or are temporarily off your nut. In such crises, the rule “armed = dangerous” is an easy rule and therefore a good one. Remember: winning at trial is a good strategy only if you manage to get arrested first.