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

Skip to comments.

SAF VICTORY STRIKES DOWN NORTH CAROLINA EMERGENCY POWERS GUN BAN
SAF ^ | 29 March, 2012 | SAF

Posted on 03/29/2012 12:18:04 PM PDT by marktwain

BELLEVUE, WA – A federal district court judge in North Carolina has just struck down that state’s emergency power to impose a ban on firearms and ammunition outside the home during a declared emergency, ruling that the provision violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The case, Bateman v. Purdue, was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, Grass Roots North Carolina FFE and three individual plaintiffs. Defendants in the case were Gov. Beverly Purdue and Reuben F. Young, secretary of the state’s Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, in their official capacities.

In his opinion, Judge Malcolm J. Howard, senior United States district judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina, wrote, “…the court finds that the statutes at issue here are subject to strict scrutiny…While the bans imposed pursuant to these statutes may be limited in duration, it cannot be overlooked that the statutes strip peaceable, law abiding citizens of the right to arm themselves in defense of hearth and home, striking at the very core of the Second Amendment.”

“When SAF attorney Alan Gura won the Heller case at the Supreme Court,” noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “the gun ban crowd said that we were a ‘one-trick-pony’ and that we would never knock out another gun law. Well, SAF has now knocked out gun laws in Maryland, Illinois and North Carolina.

“We filed this lawsuit on the day we won the McDonald case against Chicago,” he added, “extending the Second Amendment to all 50 states. This was part of our strategy of winning firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time.”

Gottlieb pointed to language in Judge Howard’s ruling that solidifies the Second Amendment’s reach outside the home. The judge noted that the Supreme Court in Heller noted that the right to keep and bear arms “was valued not only for preserving the militia, but ‘more important(ly) for self-defense and hunting.”

“Therefore,” Judge Malcolm wrote, “the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms ‘is not strictly limited to the home environment but extends in some form to wherever those activities or needs occur."

“Under the laws at issue here, citizens are prohibited from engaging, outside their home, in any activities secured by the Second Amendment,” Judge Malcolm wrote. They may not carry defensive weapons outside the home, hunt or engage in firearm related sporting activities. Additionally, although the statutes do not directly regulate the possession of firearms within the home, they effectively prohibit law abiding citizens from purchasing and transporting to their homes firearms and ammunition needed for self-defense. As such, these laws burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. In addition to the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case, SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; New Orleans; Chicago and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and numerous amicus briefs holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; constitution; nc; saf
Another Second Amendment decision confirming a right to bear arms outside of the home.
1 posted on 03/29/2012 12:18:13 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

WINNER!!!!!!


2 posted on 03/29/2012 12:22:24 PM PDT by Eureka_Lead (There shall not be a dictatorship when the citizens have firearms & Ammunition - Stay Vigilant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Thank you, Second Amendment Foundation!


3 posted on 03/29/2012 12:37:18 PM PDT by Standing Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; wku man; SLB; ...
Outstanding news.

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!

4 posted on 03/29/2012 12:55:32 PM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

The 2nd ammedment to the Federal constitution has no ligitimate baring on the State of North Carolina.

The legitimate article in question is Article 1 Section 30 of the North Carolina State Constitution:

“Sec. 30. Militia and the right to bear arms.
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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.”


5 posted on 03/29/2012 1:06:50 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

“The 2nd ammedment to the Federal constitution has no ligitimate baring on the State of North Carolina.”

Yes, it does. The McDonald decision vs. Chicago fully incorporated the 2nd Amendment as pertaining to state laws.


6 posted on 03/29/2012 1:15:38 PM PDT by green iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: green iguana

““The 2nd ammedment to the Federal constitution has no ligitimate baring on the State of North Carolina.”

Yes, it does. The McDonald decision vs. Chicago fully incorporated the 2nd Amendment as pertaining to state laws.”

I’m sorry ‘green iguana’ you must have overlooked the word LEGITIMATE in reading my remark.

The edicts of Federal employees in black-robes is incapable of legitimately altering the Federal Constitution.

The fact that they not only ignore the text of the document(which says nothing of application to States), but also 222+ years of practice, understanding, and numerous prior federal court edicts in issuing their new incorporation doctrine does not grant them a new power to rewrite the extent of their own power.


7 posted on 03/29/2012 1:33:37 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Halleluiah !
The governor, Bev. Perdue, has issued States of Emergency several times for weather related events.
If I had had to leave my home, and if I had a firearm, I would have ignored the law anyway.


8 posted on 03/29/2012 1:37:19 PM PDT by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

WTG SAF!!!


9 posted on 03/29/2012 1:39:56 PM PDT by CodeToad (I'm so right-wing if I lifted my left leg I'd go into a spin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
Our "justice" system is ridiculous some times. Why cases like there weren't settled a long time ago is a National shame.

"Shall not be infringed". "Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding..."

I mean, COME ON FOLKS! It's not like were asking you to do complex conjugation Fourier transforms on a cocktail napkin...

10 posted on 03/29/2012 1:45:12 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Steampunk- Yesterday's Tomorrow, Today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: green iguana; Monorprise
Yes, it does. The McDonald decision vs. Chicago fully incorporated the 2nd Amendment as pertaining to state laws.

...meaning that no state law can place restrictions on the rights specified in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution without demonstrating a compelling interest in doing so.

Thanks to Heller, the 2nd Amendment can now be treated like the 1st is as a matter of course.

11 posted on 03/29/2012 1:46:49 PM PDT by Oberon (Big Brutha Be Watchin'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

It’s not even as difficult as including a ‘ between your we and your re...


12 posted on 03/29/2012 1:47:15 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Steampunk- Yesterday's Tomorrow, Today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Boy it’s a good thing the NRA was closely involved in this lawsuit helping out with money, attorneys and all that.

Oh wait, they weren’t.


13 posted on 03/29/2012 3:28:55 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vinnie

“The governor, Bev. Perdue, has issued States of Emergency several times for weather related events.
If I had had to leave my home, and if I had a firearm, I would have ignored the law anyway.”

The same governor Bev. Perdue that suggested we skip the 2012 election so that congress can act against the will of the people.

Some governor you got there, looks like she likes her subjects helpless before government and any other from of criminal for “emergency” situations.

Im not sure ill ever understand how it is in the mind of leftist they think everyone will be alright if their helpless before criminal looters in a disaster situation where the government is quite explicitly and predictably will unable to provide any emergency services, security or otherwise.

I suppose democrats want the lawless bit of our population(whom they seem to sympathizer with most) to overrun the lawfully bit?


14 posted on 03/29/2012 4:16:51 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

“”Yes, it does. The McDonald decision vs. Chicago fully incorporated the 2nd Amendment as pertaining to state laws.”

...meaning that no state law can place restrictions on the rights specified in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution without demonstrating a compelling interest in doing so.

Thanks to Heller, the 2nd Amendment can now be treated like the 1st is as a matter of course.”

If we were to accept the legitimacy of Heller and the idea that Washington can tell people what powers they can cede to their own government in their own Constitution.

Then all you have here is a uniform set of holes in the right to bear arms that can be just as abuse-able by Washington to usurp our rights as anywhere and everywhere else.

Like it or not Heller is a usurpation of our right to self government just like every other edict deriving from the lawless incorporation doctrine. People who support it might as well support Roe V. Wade, the persecution of the church and our religious expression in our own states.

The so called Federal “bill of rights” Were never intended to apply to the states. You would that that would be rather clear given how they are written. Congress IS NOT your state legislation. The Federal Constitution is NOT your State constitution.

Just because you don’t give a power to Washington Does not mean you can’t give that same power to your State or local government their respective Constitutions.

In supporting this edict you walk an indefensible line thus putting many of our other remaining right rights in perpetual jeperty. Incorporation is wrong from every


15 posted on 03/29/2012 4:30:59 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

Thanks, bud. You’re out there.


16 posted on 03/29/2012 6:57:47 PM PDT by green iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise
Monorprise said: "Just because you don’t give a power to Washington Does not mean you can’t give that same power to your State or local government their respective Constitutions."

One may argue the justification for the Civil War, but one cannot argue that the restoration of liberty to slaves and their descendants in the U.S. was an appropriate outcome purchased at the price of about 500,000 lives.

How ironic that subsequent amendment of the Constitution, clearly intended to prohibit states from infringing the unalienable rights of freed slaves, is today being used to prohibit Kalifornia from infringing MY unalienable rights.

I'm sure that our nation's Founders would never have dreamed that a state would choose to disarm its own citizens. The only problem I have with incorporation is that it has been done piece-meal and, at least with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, at a snail's pace.

17 posted on 03/29/2012 9:32:34 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

“Monorprise said: “Just because you don’t give a power to Washington Does not mean you can’t give that same power to your State or local government their respective Constitutions.”

One may argue the justification for the Civil War, but one cannot argue that the restoration of liberty to slaves and their descendants in the U.S. was an appropriate outcome purchased at the price of about 500,000 lives.”

I guess that depends upon your idea of appropriate which seems rather twisted from where I’m sitting. It also depends upon your acceptance of the promise. The slaves were not freed they just got new a master.

I think its horrible when thousands of people die only to end up enslaving their posterity to a boundless government.


“How ironic that subsequent amendment of the Constitution, clearly intended to prohibit states from infringing the unalienable rights of freed slaves, is today being used to prohibit Kalifornia from infringing MY unalienable rights”

If they could not dream that men would not everywhere have perfect freedom of speech or the right to bare arms then they must never have left Washington D.C. Many of them must never have been to the states they claim to represent.

State and local level restrictions were even at that time not terribly uncommon place.


“I’m sure that our nation’s Founders would never have dreamed that a state would choose to disarm its own citizens.”

They more than dreamed it, but they were not concerned with what states choose to do to themselves, as that was no more their business than it is your business what your neighbor does to himself in his own home.


” The only problem I have with incorporation is that it has been done piece-meal and, at least with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, at a snail’s pace.”

Perhaps the reasons the Federal employees in black robes “incorporated” piece-meal, is many if not most of the so called “bill of rights” were impossible to apply to the States either literally like the 10th ammedment or piratically like most of the others.

Simply put the States did not raditify theses ammedment with the idea of them being limitations IMPOSED by Washington upon themselves. Theses Ammedments were quite literally intended to limit Washington and thus reserve to the people their right to govern themselves in theses areas.

Incorporation turned their entire propose on its head, they quite frankly turned the Federal “Bill of rights” from a shield into a weapon. You may like some of the ways this weapon has been used lately but you do not like how it has been used in the past and will not like at all how it will be used in the future.

Here is a Good article for you to read: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/03/12/the-14th-amendment-and-the-bill-of-rights/


18 posted on 03/29/2012 11:17:18 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise
Monorprise said: "... and thus reserve to the people their right to govern themselves in theses areas."

I am certainly not among those who believe that "due process" has anything to do with the substance of any particular law.

I am of the opinion that among the "immunities" of citizens of the United States is the protection against infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

From the Fourteenth Amendment:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"

The claim that this statement simply protected the right of freed slaves to use the navigable waters of the U.S. is simply nonsense.

19 posted on 03/29/2012 11:38:17 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

“Monorprise said: “... and thus reserve to the people their right to govern themselves in theses areas.”
I am certainly not among those who believe that “due process” has anything to do with the substance of any particular law.

I am of the opinion that among the “immunities” of citizens of the United States is the protection against infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.”

The Federal judge first deciding what this meant quite correctly concluded that any interpretation other than to say all people in the state must have the same rights relative to each other would open the door to judges rewriting the Constitution at whim, by means of mearly inventing a new concept to call either a “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”

It was exceedingly wreckless of the radical republican anthers of the 14th Amendment to even insert such a potently broad clause. But then again we were talking about people who had just finished wagering an imperial war of conquest. They were anything but republican in values, Constitutionally thoughtful in judgement, or patriot in spirit.

Anyway it was about 50 years later that anther Federal employee in a black robe decided that it was acceptable to go down that path and as such started the “incorporation doctrine” in a 1925 case out of New York.


“The claim that this statement simply protected the right of freed slaves to use the navigable waters of the U.S. is simply nonsense.”

The claim that it intended to give the Federal Court a blank check to invent “privileges or immunities” to impose upon the States is tyrannical.

What we have in the 14th Amendment is an irresponsible amendment, written by some of the worst despots ever to hold office in Washington. But it was nonetheless never intended to convey such broad & undefined powers. It is also worth noting that the 14th Amendment itself was also never ratified without blackmail.(Southern states were denied representation in congress & self government until ratify the 14th Amendment)


20 posted on 03/30/2012 12:26:33 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise
From the article

the court finds that the statutes at issue here are subject to strict scrutiny…While the bans imposed pursuant to these statutes may be limited in duration, it cannot be overlooked that the statutes strip peaceable, law abiding citizens of the right to arm themselves in defense of hearth and home, striking at the very core of the Second Amendment.”

From your post

The 2nd ammedment to the Federal constitution has no ligitimate baring on the State of North Carolina.

Maybe you should get ahold of that judge and correct him. I'm sure an armchir expert or your caliber would cause him to change his tune.

21 posted on 03/30/2012 4:58:52 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

Yeah, she’s a piece-a-work.

Took 41 plane trips, donated by supporters while running for office, claimed she either overlooked or subordinate failed to report them.
One of her followers is going to fall on the sword for her.

She’s a whiny little b____ with a mouth like the Joker.
Had it not been for the Bush/Republican revulsion in 2008 she would never have been elected.


22 posted on 03/30/2012 5:01:32 AM PDT by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

Wow! Thanks. I just joined SAF.


23 posted on 03/30/2012 9:19:18 AM PDT by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga


Maybe you should get ahold of that judge and correct him. I’m sure an armchir expert or your caliber would cause him to change his tune.”

The federal employee is just as much an “armchair expert” when it comes to the Federal Constitution as any american. To call them who are supposedly chained down by this same document more honest experts on the lawfully limits of their chains is no different than to call the top prisoner more authoritative regarding the terms of his imprisonment than his warranted.

I would whole heartily agree with this federal judge if and only if the 2nd amendment were illegitimately applicable to the States. Instead his eyes are in the wrong Constitution all together. For the law that chains down the government of North California for the protection North Carolinian is not written or kept in Washington but rather it is Written BY north Carolinian for the protection of North Carolinian from their Government.

That law, or contract as some like to call it is known by the title the Constitution of North Carolina. In that Constitution written and approved by the People of North Carolina is a clause almost a verbatim copy of the 2nd Amendment in Article 1 Section 30:

http://www.ncleg.net/Legislation/constitution/article1.html

Had this judge simply sited this relevant law rather than the irrelevant 2nd amazement to the FEDERAL constitution he would have made a near flawless argument in this regard.

So you see I am not disputing the limitations binding the Government of North Carolina, mearly where they come from and where they reside. The people of North Carolina have EVERY RIGHT to govern themselves in this and all other respects. It is after all THEIR state.

It is in fact the people of North Carolina not the several States that have declared their government incapable of robing them of their right to keep & bear arms. It is the people of North Carolina that justly control this & all other political issues internal & species to North Carolina.


24 posted on 03/30/2012 11:17:16 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Vinnie

“Yeah, she’s a piece-a-work.

Took 41 plane trips, donated by supporters while running for office, claimed she either overlooked or subordinate failed to report them.
One of her followers is going to fall on the sword for her.

She’s a whiny little b____ with a mouth like the Joker.
Had it not been for the Bush/Republican revulsion in 2008 she would never have been elected.”

I must admit my surprise that the people of North Carolina would find such a governor tolerable to their sensibilities.


25 posted on 03/30/2012 11:19:45 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise
The so called Federal “bill of rights” Were never intended to apply to the states. You would that that would be rather clear given how they are written. Congress IS NOT your state legislation. The Federal Constitution is NOT your State constitution.

Just because you don’t give a power to Washington Does not mean you can’t give that same power to your State or local government their respective Constitutions.

In supporting this edict you walk an indefensible line thus putting many of our other remaining right rights in perpetual jeperty. Incorporation is wrong from every...

Be that as it may, there is good evidence to indicate that the framer of the 14th Amendment intended that incorporation be the law of the land.

The following is copied from Wikipedia for its succinctness, but the content is easily verified from primary sources:

Rep. John Bingham, the principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, advocated that the Fourteenth applied the first eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights to the States. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently declined to interpret it that way. Until the 1947 case of Adamson v. California, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black argued in his dissent that the framers' intent should control the Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and he attached a lengthy appendix that quoted extensively from Bingham's congressional testimony. Although the Adamson Court declined to adopt Black's interpretation, the Court during the following twenty-five years employed a doctrine of selective incorporation that succeeded in extending to the States almost of all of the protections in the Bill of Rights, as well as other, unenumerated rights.

That indicates to me that the Constitution has been duly amended to make incorporation under the 14th Amendment the law of the land. As a constructionist, I find the framer's intent to be of primary interest. If Bingham intended incorporation and wrote the amendment for that purpose, then I must therefore believe the premise that incorporation is the duly ratified law of the land to be the correct interpretation.

26 posted on 03/31/2012 9:17:48 AM PDT by Oberon (Big Brutha Be Watchin'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise
I must admit my surprise that the people of North Carolina would find such a governor tolerable to their sensibilities.

As is the case in many another divided state, the liberal urban centers hold sway in such matters.

27 posted on 03/31/2012 9:19:20 AM PDT by Oberon (Big Brutha Be Watchin'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

“”I must admit my surprise that the people of North Carolina would find such a governor tolerable to their sensibilities.”

As is the case in many another divided state, the liberal urban centers hold sway in such matters.”

Makes you morn the loss of your republican form of Government with the regionally Representative State Senate eh?

To me it leftist dominated urban centers makes me start to wonder if a nuclear war might have definite silver lining. lol


28 posted on 03/31/2012 4:50:52 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

I am aware of the despotic insanity of the radical republican Rep. John Bingham. He is among the lead authors responsible for the destruction of our once free & republican government.

Whatever his intentions however that was not the intentions of the ratifying states, the ones that were not blackmailed into ratification, nor were his extreme views shared by most in Congress.

Rep. John Bingham was an evil man on the level with Linclin himself. He may still today in his little corner of Hell believe the Federal government has the right to impose its politicians arbitrary concept rights & obligation upon every member of the union, thus abolishing in practice the Federal constitution and federal system with it.

But we who have to live in the land still occupied by his empire cannot afford to tolerate such an imperial believe. To their magnanimous credit the first bunch of Federal employees in the Federal courts and most of the congressmen of the time recognized this fact.


29 posted on 03/31/2012 5:07:33 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

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