·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. |
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.
It does NOT say that, you know that, I know that and everyone else reading these postings knows that.
“Where, pray tell, does it say that? Post it, please.”
The Suspension Clause. Article One, Section 9, clause 2
“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.”
“You stated:
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.
It does NOT say that, you know that, I know that and everyone else reading these postings knows that.”
Ok, it doesn’t specifically say those exact words. if I have to post them, i will.
“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.”
Tha Suspension Clause. Article One, Section 9, clause 2
You happy now?
Of course the guns are taken from those jailed. But this has no effect whatsoever on the rights of the non-jailed people.
You still didn't answer.
Kind of like if I had asked "What time is it?", and you answered "Yellow".
How many libs, who advocate gun control have admitted of been caught with either weapons or armed private security? I would bet that Bill would fall into that group.
“In law school, are you? Nice stretch, but writ of habeas corpus has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. You’re attempting to equate judicial procedure with a constitutional right.”
Not in law school, but I’m aware that lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus for very similar reason as what happened in N.O.
I know the whole thing, but i could have sworn Lincoln suspended habeus Corpus for the very reasons I have explained. Am i wrong?
Oh, and according to your quote, habeas corpus is a "privilege".
Keeping and bearing arms is a "right".
I can understand how a "privilege" might be suspended, but not a "right".
Ok, it doesn’t specifically say those exact words.
So you were WRONG.
Why do you keep repeatably reposting the same thing?
We can all see the responses you've made to others, and you keep on repeating the same thing over and over again, as though it will make it true just as long as you repeat it enough times.
“You still didn’t answer.”
I didn’t answer what. It says it right there. It has also been used by a President once for the very reasons I’m talking about.
Epic fail.
Ok, try this....I’m not a lawyer, don’t play one on TV, and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
I do not understand habeas corpus. Please explain it to me.
Since I do not understand habeas corpus, I cannot possibly understand how it relates to suspension of the Second Amendment.
Pretend I’m a liberal and talk me through it using small English words, ok?
So far so good, but you are fabricating the meaning and effect of the suspension, out of your imagination.
Lincoln jailed reporters and newspapermen, and would not allow them to see a judge to challenge the jailing. He did so in cities that were not battlefields. The Supreme Court ruled that the suspension was unconstitutional.
Ex parte Merryman is one such case. The name of the other escapes my immediate recall.
EPIC FAIL.
“So you were WRONG.”
wrong on the specific words - yes
Not wrong on what it can be used for since it has been used once in this country’s history
hahaha...
“Suspending writ during open rebellion or invasion is one thing. Suspending individual RKBA under martial law something entirely else.”
So which one do you put the situation in N.O. under? law enforcement in shambles. A bunch of armed people running around looting everything in sight, citizens’ security at risk. What category is that?
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.