Posted on 03/21/2020 8:44:11 AM PDT by marktwain
Exactly!
They are simply quoting RS29:727. One of the points of the article is the Mayor is simply declaring she has the powers granted to her in an emergency by the statute.
Paragraph (8) is only one of several paragraphs that are quoted from the statute.
She also says: Subject to the provisions of ACT 275 of 2006 (regular session),
Which says she may not confiscate firearms any more than normal.
Then, when she issues the actual proclamation of what she is doing, it has *nothing* to do with firearms at all!
She only quotes the statute, which is simply good practice, but she clearly states her powers are limited by ACT 275.
Then, when she actually uses those powers, there is nothing in her proclamation about firearms or ammunition, at all.
Thanks for the timely reminder... Have to admit that it has been 10-12 years since I re-read this important document...
Back in the early FR years it used to be a great discussion enabler... An endless source of wisdom for postings...
One of my favorites and often used:
"Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. -- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law"
Another:
"The politician attempts to remedy the evil by increasing the very thing that caused the evil in the first place: legal plunder." -- Frederick Bastiat
Eternal truths from the mid 1800's...
Or simple abridgment of constitutional rights and settled law? But I would point to Marbury v. Madison 1803, vol 5, pg 137
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
And yet the supremacy clause of the Constitution seems to be overlooked by liberals and some conservative legislatures routinely.
She is merely quoting the emergency power statute, which states she has such power. She did not write the statute. The Louisiana legislature did. She is careful to note her power under the statute is limited by Act 275.
When she issues her proclamation on 16 March, using her emergency powers, she takes no actions involving firearms, at all.
Dunno? Interpretation cannot precede construction? I guess it depends on what side of the bed America’s robed mullahs wake up on. Shades of gray areas.
It sounded as though she just assumed the power in the original proclamation.
Then I worked at finding original sources. I read the actual proclamation, and the statutes being cited in the proclamation.
I tracked down ACT 275 to see what the limitations were.
Then I read the second proclamation on March 16, where Mayor Cantrell takes action, instead of stating the authority she has to take action, as she did on 11 March.
Tracking down ACT 275 and the statute took a bit of time, but the article on Ammoland gives links you can use to verify what I wrote.
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.