·11250 Waples Mill Road · Fairfax, Virginia 22030 ·800-392-8683
Posted on 02/22/2010 8:58:30 AM PST by neverdem
| 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. |
See Constitutional Topic: Martial Law
"Martial law" is not an "on/off" condition, and the ability of the government to strip non-prisoners of constitutional rights has been found wrong/unconstitutional, in every case that I am aware of - including Katrina, and including the Civil War.
You say one thing that doesn’t agree with whatever FR article is posted and you get bombarded by a bunch of hyenas.
You said something that was False, there is a vast difference between fact and opinion – you're implying that you stated a adverse opinion and were vilified for it.
That is not the case, you made a statement of fact, and that was easily disproved.
OK, what "Rebellion or Invasion"? Wouldn't the authorities want a militia, i.e. armed, able bodied civilians, to form in either event?
I was trying to let you talk it through and either convince the jury or correct yourself.
As far as being wrong, inch or mile, you are so wrong on this one that you should just bend over, grasp your ankles and let the whole Bang List line up and smack your ass once.
as did members of the 82nd Airborne.”
That part is really disturbing.
So a person with property or family members in several cities or states can't hire people to look after them on his behalf?
Disturbing but not necessarily unexpected. There is a reason Posse Comitatus was enacted. The military has at its heart, the mission to kill people and break things. Using it for civilian law enforcement is tantamount to performing surgery with a broadsword. The truth is we should not expect our military to act more like cops; we should expect our cops to act less like the military.
Sometimes you wonder if BORe’s problem is that he doesn't know what he doesn't know. If the government can arbitrarily suspend fundamental civil rights like the right of self defense because of bad weather, where will it go from there?
Things generally go from bad to worse when ever the government is involved – so given the precedent of NOLA and Katrina, what will the future hold for our rights?
“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.”
Sorry, but I don't see how suspending the writ of habeas corpus (allowed only in cases of rebellion or invasion causing the public safety to require said suspension) authorizes suspension of the entire bill of rights or any other part of the constitution besides writ of habeas corpus.
BOR probably thinks the word ‘inalienable’ has something to do with extra-terrestrials.
Rounding up the armed people running around looting places could possibly involve suspension of habeas corpus, if they were jailed without being charged, and held longer than 72 hours, etc. But that isn't what was happening. The constitutional violation was in the action of the authorities, going into the homes of law-abiding citizens -- who weren't running around armed, but were rather staying at home, prepared to protect themselves and their property -- and confiscating their guns. To argue that these actions were just a simple suspension of habeas corpus is ludicrous.
My father was actually deputized, along with other civilians, during some trouble in Texas many, many years ago. That was a time when our local officials actually trusted average citizens. Now we have the elitists, both in the media & in our local civil offices, who don’t trust us, who think we need to be managed & taken care of. What a change in this country within about 80 years!
This is not the first time Bill O’Reilly has been dead wrong, i remember being pissed off at him during Katrina for saying it was a federal government screw up, when the United States federal government has no legal roll in a Natural Disaster.
The show is and always has been run by the State and local government. The Feds are forbidden to interfere for good reason, to prevent centralized dictatorship!
You know the same kind of dictatorship that leaves no other free States to go and restore the republic, in the dictatorial State and thus making the assuming of such power an insane move by any state or local leader that might try it?
Yea thats not true if the president who has control over all the conservancy and responsible party’s does it.
Thats why you don’t let the president or the federal government in general have anything approaching that kind of authority and power... and THAT is why the Feds have no roll in the emergency management of Natural Disaster.
Insolently the Louisiana State Constitution PROHIBITS the government from disarming its citizenships under ANY circumstance!
Section 11:
Ҥ11. Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.
“
http://senate.legis.state.la.us/documents/Constitution/Article1.htm#%C2%A711.%20Right%20to%20Keep%20and%20Bear%20Arms
New Mexico has exactly the same wording in its Constitution.
This is not a 2nd Amendment issue, as the 2nd amendment does not apply to the States, this is a State Constitutional issues. In-following unlawful orders the law-enforcement officers were BREAKING THE LAW, and violating their oaths!
Those officers should be disciplined, if not fired, this is a very serous issue! It is simply not acceptable to do and ask for forgiveness particularly in a time of emergency.
The people NEEDED their guns to defend themselves, and if the worse had indeed happed the people who declared marshal law never gave up that emergency powers, they would need them guns even more! Particularly if those people were the Federal leaders and thus there were no other free states to help your State restore its republican from of government.
I’m sorry but there is just no way this ends good, and a Natural Disaster is the absolute WORSE time to disarm the people! Particularly in regard to the maintenance of a free state.
I guess they can then suspend other rights too, you moron O’Reilly, like the one about quartering troops in your home, or the one about illegal search and seizure?
A wise citizen never admits to having any guns in a place like NOLA...because if the cops dont seize them people like looterguy will steal them.
BS - there was no invasion post-Katrina, and there was no rebellion. There were people protecting their property against thugs and thieves (some of whom had badges).
Actually, not. Pres. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the CIVIL WAR for the purpose of jailing those who were believed to be committing treason or sedition. (You may recall he actually sent some to Canada, which promptly sent them back, so he had them jailed here, without recourse to habeas corpus.) New Orleans may have been a mess but it was not a war, so the cases aren't even remotely similar.
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.