Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill O’Reilly On Citizens Maintaining Second Amendment Rights During States Of Emergency
NRA - ILA ^ | February 19, 2010 | NA

Posted on 02/22/2010 8:58:30 AM PST by neverdem


·11250 Waples Mill Road ·   Fairfax, Virginia 22030    ·800-392-8683

 
Bill O’Reilly On Citizens Maintaining Second Amendment Rights During States Of Emergency: “That’s a pretty extreme position.”
 
Friday, February 19, 2010
 

As we have often reported, in the wake of the illegal gun confiscations in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, NRA focused its attention on legislation to amend existing emergency-powers statutes to guarantee that local authorities never again attempt the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms during states of emergency.

As you know, following Hurricane Katrina, many New Orleans residents legally armed themselves to protect their lives and property from civil disorder. With no way to call for help, and police unable to respond, lawful citizens were able to defend themselves and their neighbors against looters, arsonists and other criminals.

However, just when these people needed their guns for self-protection the most, New Orleans’s Police Superintendent ordered the confiscation of firearms, allegedly under a state emergency-powers law.  Fortunately, an NRA lawsuit brought an end to the seizures, and subsequent NRA-backed legislation ensured the gun confiscation travesty would not repeat itself. 

Unfortunately, many states have “emergency powers” laws that give the government permission to suspend or limit gun sales, and to prohibit or restrict citizens from transporting or carrying firearms. In some states, authorities are authorized to seize guns outright from citizens who’ve committed no crime, and who would then be defenseless against disorder. 

Within the past few weeks, a state of emergency was declared in King, North Carolina following a relatively heavy snowstorm.  As a result of the emergency declaration, local residents were banned from carrying firearms in their vehicles.

Entering into the fray this week was Bill O’Reilly, host of The O’Reilly Factor, on Fox News. 

In a February 18, interview that discussed, in part, the confiscation of legally-owned guns during a declared state of emergency (as was the case in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina), O’Reilly affirmed his support of such confiscations.

When it was explained to O’Reilly that whether or not there’s a state of emergency, it’s still unconstitutional to confiscate lawfully-owned guns from honest citizens wanting to defend themselves, the Fox talking head retorts, “That’s a pretty extreme position.”

Perhaps in your opinion, Bill.  But for most law-abiding Americans, the notion that the government can suspend the Constitution and leave citizens without the most effective means of self-defense just because of a snowstorm or hurricane -- well, that would qualify as an extreme position.

Of course, no one condones the mindless violence of those who would loot a helpless city, or shoot at rescue workers.  But one reason for the citizens to retain a legal right to arms, is precisely because the government has no legal duty to protect them.  Legislative bodies can, and should, act to protect the self-defense rights of citizens at the times when those rights are most important.

NRA-ILA was instrumental in passing H.R. 5013--the “Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act,”--federal legislation to protect gun owners’ rights during emergencies.  And we continue to fight for state legislation to do the same.  NRA-ILA has successfully passed Emergency Powers legislation in 28 states since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and we will not rest until we reform all emergency powers laws to prohibit these types of arbitrary attacks on Second Amendment rights.



Find this item at: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5452


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Front Page News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2nd; 2ndamendment; banglist; billoreilly; billorino; bor; gunrights; molonlabe; oreilly; orino; secondamendment; shallnotbeinfringed; supportgoa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-122 next last
O’Reilly vacillates from populist to statist and vice versa in the blink of an eye, IMHO.
1 posted on 02/22/2010 8:58:30 AM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It wasn’t just the ahole New Orleans police who were confiscating guns.

Members of the California Highway Patrol, Oklahoma Highway Patrol, and other out-of-state law enforcement agencies also participated in the New Orleans Nazi gun grabbing, as did members of the 82nd Airborne.

A curse on all those who violated the rights of their fellow citizens.


2 posted on 02/22/2010 9:03:06 AM PST by july4thfreedomfoundation ("And when the Antichrist comes, millions will love him.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

A wise citizen keeps a .12 gauge ‘off the books’ for just this reason.


3 posted on 02/22/2010 9:03:37 AM PST by olepap (God help us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

BOR says, paraphrasing, why would there ever be any reason for govt would to declare martial law?


4 posted on 02/22/2010 9:04:14 AM PST by Rennes Templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This also shows the true colors of our quisling gendarmerie.


5 posted on 02/22/2010 9:04:55 AM PST by olepap (God help us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Bill just needs to get over himself.

Once he understands that I’m the smartest guy on the planet he’ll be O.K.


6 posted on 02/22/2010 9:05:29 AM PST by alaskanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: olepap
No....you want to keep an off-the-record .22 bolt action available, and learn how to make your own suppressor. ;)

Henry Bowman would be proud.

7 posted on 02/22/2010 9:06:47 AM PST by DCBryan1 (FORGET the lawyers...first kill the "journalists".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: olepap

Were they confiscating based on their records, or just house to house?


8 posted on 02/22/2010 9:08:19 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
So does BOR have armed security? And if so, I assume they will turn their guns in during martial law/sarc
9 posted on 02/22/2010 9:09:13 AM PST by Red in Blue PA (If guns cause crime, then all of mine are defective!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

"F'ING THING SUCKS!!!"

10 posted on 02/22/2010 9:09:35 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; All

11 posted on 02/22/2010 9:09:50 AM PST by Cobra64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; All

BOR “logic”: Gun confiscation is legal because Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Two Unconstitutional Acts apparently make One COnstitutional Act.

Says all that needs to be said about the guy!


12 posted on 02/22/2010 9:10:45 AM PST by Red in Blue PA (If guns cause crime, then all of mine are defective!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Neither really. Whenever they encountered someone with them they would take them. Good reason to keep your mouth shut whenever you are confronted with LEO’s.


13 posted on 02/22/2010 9:10:48 AM PST by Double Tap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Any person or persons who has in their employ or employed on their behalf for the purpose of providing Protection or Security with a Firearm of any kind ,Shall be Guilty of a Class A Felony, punishable by a Mandatory Sentence of 25 years in State Prison and COMPLETE CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE.

This will fix the problem overnight. Why should We The People allow Hired Guns to protect the Elite that can afford them?? Unless ALL PERSONS have the same right to Self Defense, then Nobody does. That’s Equal Protection Under The LAW


14 posted on 02/22/2010 9:10:54 AM PST by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Ted Baxter, constitutional scholar. Not!


15 posted on 02/22/2010 9:11:21 AM PST by y6162 (q1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I wonder if Bill O’Reilly would support shutting down cable news if a terrorist attack was underway as a means to prevent panic among the population?


16 posted on 02/22/2010 9:12:12 AM PST by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
Excellent point!
17 posted on 02/22/2010 9:12:55 AM PST by Red in Blue PA (If guns cause crime, then all of mine are defective!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
O’Reilly vacillates from populist to statist and vice versa in the blink of an eye

This is very very common in many so-called conservatives. They are all for free markets but they do not want free people. It seems to be especially prevalent in the Northeast. Wm. F Buckley had a touch of that as does Bill Bennett and others of note. The Democrats do not have a monopoly on elitists.

18 posted on 02/22/2010 9:13:07 AM PST by atomic_dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Bam!!!


19 posted on 02/22/2010 9:15:52 AM PST by Niteranger68 ("Obama voters will pay dearly!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

That was funny! LOL


20 posted on 02/22/2010 9:16:03 AM PST by gimme1ibertee ("In a time of universal deceit,telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"-George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gimme1ibertee

He definitely has some anger management issues, don’t he?


21 posted on 02/22/2010 9:20:00 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I am 100% behing the 2nd Amendment. But this article fails to quote everything Bill O’Reilly said. It specifically says in the Constitution, in the a state of emergency, the government can temporarily suspend the 2nd Amendment in order to get things under control. Then it is up to the court to decide if the temporary suspension is credible or not. And like I said, I am pro-2nd Amendment. But the law is the law, and you can’t claim to support one part of the Constituttion and not the other part.


22 posted on 02/22/2010 9:29:29 AM PST by Wee-Weed Up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Seems to me that when a government violates the constitution and confiscates guns we have a real state of emergency. It was just that circumstance for which the framers included the second amendment - to protect the people from the tyrants and would be tyrants.


23 posted on 02/22/2010 9:30:28 AM PST by DaveyB (Alcohol ,Tobacco and Firearms should be a convenience store not a bureaucracy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

BOR would be, mistakenly so, a fat and juicy target for the left if violence breaks out.

In this case, BOR would be praying that he has neighbors who believe in the Second Amendment and STILL have guns and ammo and will take him in!!

Kissing libs butts is a national sport in the talking heads’ echelon!


24 posted on 02/22/2010 9:32:27 AM PST by melancholy (Stop USA change, destroy the 0b0z0ne layer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
It would be OK with me if the government suspended BO’s First Amendment rights.
25 posted on 02/22/2010 9:32:50 AM PST by skimbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wee-Weed Up
It specifically says in the Constitution, in the a state of emergency, the government can temporarily suspend the 2nd Amendment in order to get things under control.

I'm sorry. I'm not a constitutional lawyer like Barack Hussein so I'm going to have to ask you to put a link to the part of the Constitution you're referring to here.

26 posted on 02/22/2010 9:35:30 AM PST by VeniVidiVici ("Bring out yer dead! Bring out your dead!" - Cries of a Navy Corpseman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“That’s a pretty extreme position.”

Oh I see... I must disarm myself when NO help can come to my aid. Right.


27 posted on 02/22/2010 9:38:42 AM PST by RedMDer (Recycle Congress in 2010, 2012... Forward with Confidence! Forward!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

O’really is a blowhard. Rush nailed him good.


28 posted on 02/22/2010 9:39:45 AM PST by NonValueAdded ("Roll back Pelosi" Rush Limbaugh, 2/12/10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atomic_dog
If you do not trust your fellow citizens with a firearm, then you can be duped into restricting that and other rights.
29 posted on 02/22/2010 9:42:19 AM PST by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

Make that include elected people and you’ve got a deal-!!


30 posted on 02/22/2010 9:46:47 AM PST by imjimbo (The constitution SHOULD be our "gun permit")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Saying a president in the time of war is equal to a policeman during a hurricane is pretty stupid. Having a firearm is more important during a catastrophy than at anytime. O’reily is just wrong!


31 posted on 02/22/2010 9:47:59 AM PST by ontap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

He must be vacillating because I know I heard him say that the looting in NO during Katrina made him completely change his mind about the right to bear arms. How soon he forgets.


32 posted on 02/22/2010 9:57:09 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

Any person or persons who has in their employ or employed on their behalf for the purpose of providing Protection or Security with a Firearm of any kind ,Shall be Guilty of a Class A Felony, punishable by a Mandatory Sentence of 25 years in State Prison and COMPLETE CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE.
There Shall be NO EXCEPTIONS, EXCLUSIONS or IMMUNITIES FOR ANY PERSON, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, EVER.

There fixed it.


33 posted on 02/22/2010 9:58:11 AM PST by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok
Any person or persons who has in their employ or employed on their behalf for the purpose of providing Protection or Security with a Firearm of any kind ,Shall be Guilty of a Class A Felony, punishable by a Mandatory Sentence of 25 years in State Prison and COMPLETE CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE.

That's kind of extreme. How about:

No person providing protective services shall have any more right to own or carry a firearm than any other private citizen. Police officers, off-duty, shall have no more rights to carry firearms than any other private citizen.

34 posted on 02/22/2010 10:02:24 AM PST by PapaBear3625 (Public healthcare looks like it will work as well as public housing did.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RedMDer

Hey, why not go after the looters and disarm them, and not waste time disarming people protecting their homes and businesses? Is it possible that because for at least for a few in law enforcement, it is more about being a big shot and a bully and not about protecting and serving?


35 posted on 02/22/2010 10:04:27 AM PST by JTHomes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Wee-Weed Up
"It specifically says in the Constitution, in the a state of emergency, the government can temporarily suspend the 2nd Amendment in order to get things under control."

The Articles enumerated within the Constitution's Bill of Rights are not conditional. 100% behind the 2nd Amendment, are you? Obviously not.
36 posted on 02/22/2010 10:06:39 AM PST by PowderMonkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Wee-Weed Up; VeniVidiVici
It specifically says in the Constitution, in the a state of emergency, the government can temporarily suspend the 2nd Amendment in order to get things under control.

Like VeniVidiVici, I am fairly up on the contents of the Constitution and I am calling a solid BS alert... I can't wait to see the link I am sure you will provide, even the liberal dems have never made a statement like that.

P.S. if you need a link to a copy of the Constitution, just let me know, I'll be glad to help out... ;-)

37 posted on 02/22/2010 10:09:09 AM PST by AvOrdVet ("Put the wagons in a circle for all the good it'll do")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I didn’t even have to read the article - I’m sure that Bill O’statist wants to disarm people during a state of emergency. Well, guess what - I will be very well armed and I will defend myself, my neighbors, and my property against all comers.


38 posted on 02/22/2010 10:10:40 AM PST by meyer ("It's not enough just to not suck as much as the other side" - G. Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wee-Weed Up
It specifically says in the Constitution, in the a state of emergency, the government can temporarily suspend the 2nd Amendment in order to get things under control.

"A well-regulated militia, being Necessary to the security of a FREE STATE, the right OF THE PEOPLE to Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

I don't see it there.

39 posted on 02/22/2010 10:16:14 AM PST by meyer ("It's not enough just to not suck as much as the other side" - G. Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
It's not during quiet times that the rule of law has to be reinforced, it's during Emergencies, Because that's what it's there for.

What if the government decided to take away our 1st amendment rights during an ‘Emergency’?

Does BORe realize that those confiscations were deemed unconstitutional later on?

So it it BORe’s contention that Adhering to the Constitution is a “pretty extreme position.” ?

Who makes the decision on what constitutes an emergency, could Economic Chaos be considered an emergency?

40 posted on 02/22/2010 10:16:24 AM PST by chainsaw56 (Do you have the right to defend yourself??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wee-Weed Up
It specifically says in the Constitution, in the a state of emergency, the government can temporarily suspend the 2nd Amendment in order to get things under control.

Where does it say that?

41 posted on 02/22/2010 10:19:39 AM PST by chainsaw56 (Do you have the right to defend yourself??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: chainsaw56
BOR is a pig and a moron. A pig in the Tiger Woods mold, he harassed that staffer, paid her off and was caught red handed trying to get porn-star Jenna Jameson to sleep with him after an interview. When a man is a personal degerenerate, everything else follows.
42 posted on 02/22/2010 10:20:50 AM PST by pburgh01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: meyer

The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which states:

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

Which in the case of the aftermath of Katrina required it, it was lawful according to the Constitution to ban firearms.


43 posted on 02/22/2010 10:24:16 AM PST by Wee-Weed Up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: chainsaw56

The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which states:

“ The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.


44 posted on 02/22/2010 10:24:47 AM PST by Wee-Weed Up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: AvOrdVet

The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which states:

“ The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

Call me on my BS.


45 posted on 02/22/2010 10:26:40 AM PST by Wee-Weed Up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
O’Reilly vacillates from populist to statist and vice versa in the blink of an eye, IMHO.

IMHO he vacillates from idiot blowhard to mindless narcissist in the blink of an eye.

46 posted on 02/22/2010 10:27:50 AM PST by hsalaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PowderMonkey

“The Articles enumerated within the Constitution’s Bill of Rights are not conditional. 100% behind the 2nd Amendment, are you? Obviously not.”

Read the Suspension Clause of the Constitution (Article One, Section 9, clause 2) which states “ The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

I am behind the Costitution 100%, Then again, I understand most of.


47 posted on 02/22/2010 10:30:38 AM PST by Wee-Weed Up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici

Ok, one more time

The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which states:

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”


48 posted on 02/22/2010 10:32:52 AM PST by Wee-Weed Up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Wee-Weed Up
“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

Ok. I'll bite. What does suspending habeas corpus have to do with suspending the 2d?

49 posted on 02/22/2010 10:35:38 AM PST by VeniVidiVici ("Bring out yer dead! Bring out your dead!" - Cries of a Navy Corpseman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Wee-Weed Up
"But this article fails to quote everything Bill O’Reilly said. It specifically says in the Constitution, in the a state of emergency, the government can temporarily suspend the 2nd Amendment in order to get things under control."

What section of the Constitution sez such?

50 posted on 02/22/2010 10:37:11 AM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the next one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-122 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson