Skip to comments.NE: Bill to Prevent Ban on Gun Transport During Emergencies
Posted on 04/03/2014 5:09:15 AM PDT by marktwain
Current Nebraska law grants broad powers to the governors, allowing them to ban the sale or transport of firearms during declared emergencies. Police and other government agents confiscated thousands of guns in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana. Some troops refused to confiscate guns.
A current scandal in Canada involves the Royal Canadian Mounted Police breaking down doors to confiscate firearms in High River Canada after they had cordoned off the town during a flood.
To prevent future confiscations, second amendment supporters, including the NRA, pushed for legislative guarantees that such abuses would not occur again. Over two thirds of the states have passed such measures, and legislation is pending in Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts, Colorado, Washington, and Georgia.
The current Bill in Nebraska is LB390. It removes the firearms from the list of items that the governor may regulate during an emergency. The original bill would have banned the confiscation of guns by local authorities as well. Opponents of the original bill were able to remove that provision by using ridicule instead of logic. From the starherald.com:
The original bill would have banned any state or local official from confiscating legally held firearms and ammunition. Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha ridiculed the proposal in a hearing last year, suggesting facetiously that Nebraska should also prohibit the government from confiscating knives, hammers and steel-toed boots.
"How about lawn trimmers?" Chambers asked. "How about sickles that you use to cut grass with? That's what I use, by the way, and it would make a very effective weapon."It is difficult to see Chambers point. The fact that guns have been confiscated during emergencies seems to have been lost on him. In any case, that provision was removed from the bill.
Yet they don’t have the balls to go after people that WILL shoot back like gang-bangers or Chris Dorner, but they will enthusiastically go after law abiding citizens.
I hope all of it bullying and intimidation are worth it, because IF law abiding citizens ever find the nerve to start shooting back, you’re all completely hosed.
Just remember, in a disaster like Katrina (or worse) they are still going to come for your guns - law or no law. They’ll figure it’s better to do it and deal with the fallout later. Take precautions.
Police: We're in a state of emergency due to ...
Citizen: Oh my gosh! Are you here with food, water, directions/transportation to shelter or medical supplies?
Police: No, we're here for your guns. Step aside or I will be forced to taser you...
Why is it so many people of questionable character - yes I'm referring to those in "authority" positions - have this knee-jerk reaction to any situation: grab control, infringe on freedom and rights. That seems to be their default position going into, well, any situation.
It is the “Progressive” mindset. The assumption of the “progressive” mindset is that everyone else is not capable of making decisions, the government knows best and you need to let them do what they want.
Government as god.
I am sure that he is. It is weird that the legislator who opposed the stronger measure used the non-argument of “they will never do that, so there is not need to tell them that they cannot”
If he was sure that “they would never do that” then what harm is there in reminding them not to?
The Florida House and Senate, backed by the Governor, are are on the same path. The Florida Sheriffs Association are opposed to the legislation and are taking big heat for their stance ...
Because any person that seeks a position of power over others has inherently disqualified himself from being trusted with that power...
FIFTY? It's been going on for far longer than at. My personal least-favorite, Wickhard v Filburn, was in the 1930's... but even our Founders had the Federalists vs Anti-Federalists. (The Federalists were for a large, strong national government, and did not want competition for authority from the States.)
In reference to my earlier posse comitatus statement about disasters, it seems to me that the way to approach this is as a dichotomy. That is, police tend to view citizens as either unfriendly or friendly. By creating statutes that encourage them to see citizens as “friendlies”, perhaps even helpful in keeping order, it would incline police to see them as such.
Right now, a cop approaching a group of armed people is inclined to fear the worst, his natural worry. But if there are ground rules in which he can see them as helpful, his approach will be a lot friendlier.
Gun liberty is a great example of this. Before the gun liberty laws, a lot of police were apprehensive about armed citizens, putting them in the “unfriendly” column. But once the laws were passed, the police quickly figured out that armed citizens were great allies and very helpful, and even made their job easier.
Government is not our friend and never will be.
That is all.