State of emergency: ban gun sales, carry
WXII:
Authorities lifted a curfew and alcohol restrictions in King on Sunday, but said a state of emergency declaration remained in effect until Monday.
Authorities said the state of emergency declaration would continue until Monday 9 a.m., barring any unforeseen circumstances or severe changes.
Effective Sunday afternoon, alcohol restrictions and a curfew were lifted. All other remaining restrictions would continue until Monday, said Paula May, King police chief.Other restrictions include a ban on the sale or purchase of any type of firearm, ammunition, explosive or any possession of such items off a person’s own premises.
ETA: Good question from comments: Does NC have a Katrina anti-confiscation law?
Update: Looks like NC law is just the opposite:
5. Areas of Emergency and Riot
It is also a misdemeanor under North Carolina law for a person to transport or possess, off his or her own premises, a dangerous weapon in an area during a declared state of emergency, or in the vicinity of a riot. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.7 A concealed handgun permit does not allow a permittee to carry a weapon in these areas. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14-415.11(c)
February 8th, 2010 at 10:49 am
So did they invalidate all CCW permits for a state of emergency?
Does NC have a Katrina anti-confiscation law?
February 8th, 2010 at 11:09 am
Sounds pretty bogus to me. Luckily in this part of the world a little snow does not constitute an emergency. For that matter if we did have one, an emergency, looting would not be a major concern.
Course if the event is big enough, I do not know what kinds of shennaigans the goverment would try to pull.
Got to watch them like a hawk.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:29 am
NC is not the gun friendly state they like for it to appear to be. The restrictions on licensed CCW are endless, and open carry is effectively barred by the Common Law provision, Going Armed to the Terror of the Public. To transfer a handgun, even between family members, either a CCW or a permit issued by the Sheriff’s Dept. is required. Many laws, from far worse times, such as providing for “Company Police” with the same powers of public officers while operating privately, and the elimination of the right of a citizen to make an arrest under any circumstances, although a citizen may detain someone, such as merchant holding a shoplifter, limit the citizen’s ability to protect himself. Only those authorized by government are to have any meaningful protection or powers.
February 8th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
If things were really that bad, a real sheriff would have been calling in armed citizens for posse service.
They say an oak still grows in Wilkesboro.
February 8th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Agreed Nc is heavily anti-gun. Raleigh-Durham, Charlotte and Ashville tend to be the where the state takes its lead from. Here is a good example of how things work. A while back there were drought conditions in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg area. The water authority asked locals to conserve water by limiting watering lawns, washing cars things like that. Well it worked the locals did cut back. They cut back so much that the water authority decided to raise the cost of water because they were not making enough profit. Now with thinking like that try passing pro-gun laws. I consider nc to be the most restrictive state in the south when it comes to firearms. Here is a way to cause a crapstorm. Visit nc with a pistol from a state that does not require a pistol purchase or possession license. The cops get a little excited even when you are simply transporting. It is hard for them to accept that I being a nonresident cannot get one of their stupid licenses. They always want you out of the state asap.
February 8th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Isn’t NC the state that classifies some shotguns as “Weapons of Mass Death and Destruction?”
February 8th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Everyone in the state should file a lawsuit aleadging violations of thier 2nd ammendment rights. Not just one, but EVERYONE Inundate the federal district court in that district and attack the state and jurisdiction that did that and get judgement against them. They violated Heller, violated the Constitution and without looking fisrt, I would be that they violated at least some part of the State Constitution. This mass scale attack on the state through federal district court would do one of two things, they would either back down and comply with the appropriate laws, or they would go BROKE paying out judgments and fighting the lawsuits in court. Im glad I live here and not there, but I would be OBLIGATED to SUE if Did live there. BUY MORE AMMO……..AND A SNOW BLOWER!
February 8th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
It really depends on the county you live in. Mecklenburg county(where charlotte is located) was very class III unfriendly, sheriff pendergraph would not even sign for one of his officers to get class III weapons. But the next county over, gaston, had no problems with them. With 100 counties, NC is like a little version of america, some counties very restrictive & others where they dont care what you walk around with.
Also the “going armed to the terror of the public” has been repeatedly shot down in court unless you where actually doing something to intimidate people. It has been ruled numerous times that just being armed does not count.
We have a very good gun group in state, Grass Roots North Carolina, http://www.grnc.org/
February 8th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
I remember going out during the power week-long power outage that followed our big ice storm to try to find an open gas station that had gas in their tanks and their pumps up and running. You bet I was carrying. This notion of only banning guns at a time when they’d most be needed is so far removed from reality it’s sad.
February 8th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
So during any declared “state of emergency” we just suspend constitutional rights? These I know what’s best a holes need to be voted out!
February 8th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Living in NC I thought of being a test case for repealing this law. First thing is though you have to get arrested for it, otherwise they trot out the old “you don’t have standing to challenge the law” technicality. If I was single I’d do it but I have my family to worry about.
February 8th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Any such thing should be UNLAWFUL in Tennessee IF the State or a local government obeys their Constitutional oath and doesn’t act criminally:
That no citizen of this state, except such as are employed in the army of the United States, or militia in actual service, shall be subjected to punishment under the martial or military law. That martial law, in the sense of the unrestricted power of military officers, or others, to dispose of the persons, liberties or property of the citizen, is inconsistent with the principles of free government, and is not confided to any department of the government of this state. –Article I, Section 25, Tennessee Declaration of Rights
February 8th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
And the liberty or RIGHT to keep AND CARRY arms for self-defense is stated in the very next section of Article I (Sec. 26) of the Tennessee Declaration of Rights
February 8th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Hopefully the Chicago case will change this law….
February 8th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
I am not entirely sure which is more pathetic: the stupidly immoral idea that people should be required by law to disarm themselves in the presence of a known danger, or the silly notion that a cold snap equals such a serious threat that the government should immediately rush in and burn stacks of money in order to warm the place up a bit.
February 8th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
I live in the area and one of the local TV stations has a video clip of the Chief of Police for King passing the buck:
http://www.wxii12.com/video/22503468/index.html
According to the police chief, the various rules came into effect automatically upon declaration of a state of emergency. As it happens, a lot of the area was w/o power due to the ice storm last Friday.
FYI, NC has been run by the democrats since reconstruction. (And before the “Late Unpleasantness” as well.) We conservatives are doing what we can.
February 8th, 2010 at 10:26 pm
I would dare guess in many states there are provisions for disarming in a state of emergency. This should be looked into, as the very thought of disarming the public during an emergency is ridiculous at face value.
February 8th, 2010 at 10:33 pm
SEC. 706. FIREARMS POLICIES. (a) PROHIBITION ON CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS.— No officer or employee of the United States (including any member of the uniformed services), or person operating pursuant to or under color of Federal law, or receiving Federal funds, or under control of any Federal official, or providing services to such an officer, employee, or other person, while acting in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency, may— (1) temporarily or permanently seize, or authorize seizure of, any firearm the possession of which is not prohibited under Federal, State, or local law, other than for forfeiture in compliance with Federal law or as evidence in a criminal investigation; (2) require registration of any firearm for which registration is not required by Federal, State, or local law; (3) prohibit possession of any firearm, or promulgate any rule, regulation, or order prohibiting possession of any firearm, in any place or by any person where such possession is not otherwise prohibited by Federal, State, or local law; or (4) prohibit the carrying of firearms by any person otherwise authorized to carry firearms under Federal, State, or local January 9, 2007 Sec. 705 ROBERT T. STAFFORD DISASTER RELIEF 62 law, solely because such person is operating under the direction, control, or supervision of a Federal agency in support of relief from the major disaster or emergency. (b) LIMITATION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any person in subsection (a) from requiring the temporary surrender of a firearm as a condition for entry into any mode of transportation used for rescue or evacuation during a major disaster or emergency, provided that such temporarily surrendered firearm is returned at the completion of such rescue or evacuation. (c) PRIVATE RIGHTS OF ACTION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Any individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may seek relief in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress against any person who subjects such individual, or causes such individual to be subjected, to the deprivation of any of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by this section. (2) REMEDIES.—In addition to any existing remedy in law or equity, under any law, an individual aggrieved by the seizure or confiscation of a firearm in violation of this section may bring an action for return of such firearm in the United States district court in the district in which that individual resides or in which such firearm may be found. (3) ATTORNEY FEES.—In any action or proceeding to enforce this section, the court shall award the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs. (42 U.S.C. 5207) January 9,
February 9th, 2010 at 12:58 am
So, the state suspends the Constitution over some bad weather, the people do what they want anyway, and the politician feels threatened.
Sounds like a lesson learned.
February 9th, 2010 at 10:23 am
First, NC only requires a permit to acquire a pistol, it does not require that you have one to own a pistol. A CHP also suffices.
Now, the law in question is most likely left over from reconstruction and designed to allow for disarming populations when there were race riots and the like. It is clearly unconstitutional but you have to have standing to challenge it.
Therein lies the problem, for you to challenge it you have to get arrested for violating it. By the time you get to court on the charge, the emergency would be over and the charge could be dismissed without ruling on the constitutionality of the law.