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

Skip to comments.

Law changed to allow firearms during emergencies(NC)
beaufortobserver.net ^ | 10 July, 2012 | NA

Posted on 07/12/2012 5:57:22 AM PDT by marktwain

In North Carolina residents are not allowed legally to use deadly force to protect property. Deadly force may be used to protect oneself or others from imminent serious harm. But not so for property.

We posted an article last week in which we argued that in emergencies, such as in the aftermath of a hurricane, residents should be able to protect their property. You can read that article by clicking here.

We hold very little hope that the Castle Doctrine will be expanded to include the use of deadly force to protect property, even when law enforcement is not available to do so. While we think it is needed in extreme circumstances, we doubt it will happen.

But the last session of the Legislature did make a significant improvement in the laws dealing with emergencies. It revoked the provision in the law that allowed officials to ban firearms during an emergency. That provision was removed.

The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action recently issued the following report:

Last week, Governor Bev Perdue (D) stood with the North Carolina General Assembly in recognizing law-abiding citizens' right to self-defense during a declared state of emergency by signing into law House Bill 843. This common-sense statute will take effect on October 1, 2012. While the North Carolina General Assembly only had a short legislative session this year, this action marks significant progress on protection of Second Amendment rights in the Tar Heel state. Your NRA-ILA will continue to work for more improvements as the 2012 legislative session draws to a close.

House Bill 843 makes substantial changes to the North Carolina Emergency Management Act by adding critical language to the section of North Carolina statute that deals with what restrictions may be imposed during a declared state of emergency. Specifically, this bill states that the restrictions section "does not authorize prohibitions or restrictions on lawfully possessed firearms or ammunition." This means that, if there is a declared state of emergency due to natural disasters or other problems that create a state of disarray and unrest that requires emergency procedures to be implemented by a government entity, the rights of law-abiding gun owners will no longer be subject to possible suspension. The Senate added this critical language to HB 843 in the Senate Judiciary I Committee, and HB 843 as amended then passed in the full Senate on Tuesday, June 5, on a 49-0 vote. The House concurred with this common sense language by the Senate on the following day by a vote of 113 to 1 before sending it to the Governor on June 7.

Perdue signed HB 843. We commend her for doing so and to the 162 legislators who made this change to ban this unconstitutional restriction of our Second Amendment rights.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: North Carolina
KEYWORDS: banglist; constitution; emergency; nc
The title is misleading. The legislation does not "allow" firearms during emergencies. It removes the governments legal authority to restrict firearms during emergencies.
1 posted on 07/12/2012 5:57:30 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Yes, we’re talking about the basic human right of self-defense, there is no ‘allow’ to it.

That would be like saying:

"Law changed to allow Freedom of the Press during emergencies”
.
2 posted on 07/12/2012 6:08:00 AM PDT by Voice of Reason1 (Absolute power corrupts absolutely Lord Acton 1887)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
First, as noted, this is a fundamental, inalienable right. No law should "allow" it, for none can take it away.

Normally, I would not use deadly force to protect property. Kill someone over a few bucks in my wallet? No. But if you threaten harm against me, my family, or an innocent third party, you had better make peace with your Lord.

However, I would argue that in an emergency situation, loss of property could very well lead to loss of life. Therefore in an emergency situation I would protect property with deadly force. You can easily imagine any number of scenarios where loss of property results in a life threatening situation. eg. loss of a vehicle results in an inability to evacuate in front of a fire/flood/weather. Or loss of tent/camping-gear results in exposure to elements, etc.

3 posted on 07/12/2012 6:18:40 AM PDT by ThunderSleeps (Stop obama now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I’d just throw the dead body in the chicken coop. After a couple days there’d be nothing left but bones.


4 posted on 07/12/2012 6:36:50 AM PDT by TheRhinelander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheRhinelander

...hog pen... after a couple of days there’s nothing left but teeth!


5 posted on 07/12/2012 6:51:00 AM PDT by hiredhand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“In North Carolina residents are not allowed legally to use deadly force to protect property. Deadly force may be used to protect oneself or others from imminent serious harm. But not so for property.”

In my opinion, that’s the next step that ought to be taken- making it legal to use lethal force to protect property. I spent hours of my life making the means to acquire property. When some POS steals that property, he is negating those hours of my life. Employing lethal force in a situation like that sounds absolutely fair to me. Not to mention it would create a great dearth of thieves, resulting in less thieves incarcerated, less thieves running in circles in the revolving door of the justice system, and would ultimately result in a safer society.


6 posted on 07/12/2012 6:53:48 AM PDT by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GenXteacher

I thought that you could use lethal force to stop a felony. I am reasonably certain that is true in Florida.


7 posted on 07/12/2012 7:27:21 AM PDT by The Old Commander (Anyone who votes for Obama is either delusional or a moron)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The Old Commander
I thought that you could use lethal force to stop a felony. I am reasonably certain that is true in Florida.

In Florida, you can use deadly force to stop a forcible felony:

776.08 Forcible felony. "Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
8 posted on 07/12/2012 7:43:26 AM PDT by ZX12R (FUBO GTFO 2012 !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: The Old Commander

Not necessarily in NC- the general rule of thumb is that you have to be in danger of being killed- although someone breaking into your house is currently presumed to be bent on that, thanks to our adoption of a Castle Doctrine.


9 posted on 07/12/2012 7:58:28 AM PDT by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

This is great at the state level but how does that work at the county/city or town level? In reading Charlotte’s Code of Ordinances 15-20.e (1) (below) you ARE PROHIBITED from having a firearm outside your home if the mayor deems it necessary. Does that override State Law? I was happy at first as like many of you this is the time that I’d rather be armed (as a ccw holder) if I have to evacuate or get food or for whatever reason I’d need to leave my home.

[B][I][U]Sec. 15-20. - State of emergency; proclamation; curfew authorized; restrictions; contracts authorized.[/U][/I][/B]

(a) A “state of emergency” shall be deemed to exist whenever, during times of great public crisis, disaster, rioting, catastrophe, or similar public emergency, for any reason, municipal public safety authorities are unable to maintain public order or afford adequate protection for lives, safety or property.
(b) If an existing or threatened state of emergency occurs endangering the lives, safety, health and welfare of the people within the city, or threatening damage to or destruction of property, the mayor is hereby authorized and empowered to issue a public proclamation declaring to all persons the existence of such a state of emergency and, in order more effectively to protect the lives and property of the people within the city, to place in effect any or all of the restrictions authorized in this section, including the authority to define and impose a curfew.
© The mayor is hereby authorized and empowered to limit by the proclamation the application of all or any part of such restrictions to any area specifically designated or described within the corporate limits and to specific hours of the day or night, and to exempt the following from all or any part of such restrictions:
(1) Law enforcement officers, firefighters and other public employees;
(2) Doctors, nurses, employees of hospitals and other medical facilities;
(3) On-duty military personnel, whether state or federal;
(4) On-duty employees of public utilities, public transportation companies, and newspaper, magazine, radio broadcasting, and television broadcasting corporations operated for profit; and
(5) Such other classes of persons as may be essential to the preservation of public order and immediately necessary to serve the safety, health, and welfare needs of the people within the city.
(d) The mayor shall proclaim the end of such state of emergency or all or any part of the restrictions imposed as soon as circumstances warrant or when directed to do so by the city council.
(e) During the existence of a proclaimed state of emergency, the mayor may, by proclamation, prohibit or regulate any or all of the following:
[B](1) The possession, off one’s own premises, of explosives, any substance which by itself or in combination with other substances could be used to make an explosive device or weapon of mass destruction, [COLOR=”#FF0000”][B][U]firearms, ammunition,[/U][/B][/COLOR] or dangerous weapons of any kind, and prohibit or regulate the purchase, sale, transfer or other disposition thereof.[/B]
The buying or selling of beer, wine, or intoxicating beverages of any kind, and their possession or consumption off one’s own premises.
(3) Any demonstration, parade, march, vigil or participation therein from taking place on any of the public ways or upon any public property.
(4) The sale of gasoline, kerosene, naphtha, or any other explosive or inflammable fluids or substances or any substance which, by itself or in combination with other substances, could be used to make an explosive device or weapon of mass destruction.
(5) Travel upon any public street, alley, or roadway or upon any other public property, except by those in search of medical assistance, food or other commodity or service necessary to sustain the well-being of themselves or their families or some member thereof.
(6) The participation in or carrying on of any business activity, and the keeping open of places of business, places of entertainment, and any other places of public assembly.
(f) Any proclamation may be extended, altered, or repealed in any particular during the continued or threatened existence of a state of emergency by the issuance of a subsequent proclamation.
(g) During the existence of a proclaimed state of emergency, it shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision of any restriction imposed by any proclamation authorized by this section. Any person who violates such a provision shall, upon conviction, be punished in accordance with section 2-21
(h) During the existence of a proclaimed state of emergency involving the health and safety of the people or their property, the city manager is authorized to award contracts for construction or repair work and for the purchase of apparatus, supplies, materials or equipment without regard to the amount of such a contract and without complying with G.S. 143-129, provided that the expeditious award of such a contract is reasonably necessary to address the effects of such emergency. In the absence of the city manager, the following officials shall have the same authority as is provided in this section to the city manager: the deputy city manager, any assistant city manager or the chief purchasing official. The city manager shall submit a report to the city council summarizing all contracts awarded pursuant to this section as soon as reasonably possible after the state of emergency has ended.


10 posted on 03/19/2013 6:51:25 PM PDT by nalexp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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