·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. |
Excellent job. Wee-weed up’s grasp of the Constitution is wee-weed up.
Anarchy is PRECISELY the time when Americans will NEED their arms!
Got it?
When Lincoln asserted suspension of habeas corpus, he did not summarily dispossess people of the arms, nor did he effect an order that the people could not go about their business "armed" if that was their wont. His suspension of habeas corpus affected ONLY the ability of jailed people to challenge the cause for which they were jailed, with the challenge being heard by a judge.
Whereas the statement "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" leaves no room for suspension the constitutional right cannot be legally infringed even in a so called emergency. Also note, habeas is called a privilege, the second ammendment is not merely a privilege but a right. A right given for the stated purpose of "...in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (governments') powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."
BOR is radically opposed to the constitution. What the police are supposed to do when they encounter looters, gangs etc is arrest them and if violently opposed shoot them! Then, after the badguy is shot they can legally remove their firearms to complete the arrest or safely transport them to the morgue. Keep the public well armed so that they too can protect themselves from looters, thieves and even rouge government agents.
Andrew Napolitano calls Lincoln one of this country’s worst Presidents for this very reason.
Buddy, you are still wee-weed up about the constitution. You are really stretching apples and oranges here.
Troll?
Who could seriously make such an argument?
The only armed criminals I saw running around were the thugs going door-to-door disarming those trying to protect their homes.
What they should have been doing was to muster up civvies for militia duty and put them to work safe-guarding against Lootie and Co.
Or will you stick to Lincoln's example, despite the SCOTUS ruling it unConstitutional, and try to equate Katrina with open Civil War?
Has it been used in that manner?
There are people like wee weed up sitting high in courtrooms in this country.
SCARY does not begin to cover it.
Besides Bill O'Reilly?
I agree, a troll by action. Not to be taken seriously.
Doesn’t matter. This place is just as bad as those Liberal sites, total partisan, except in the other direction. You say one thing that doesn’t agree with whatever FR article is posted and you get bombarded by a bunch of hyenas. I’m over it.
When you are dead wrong, expect to be corrected.
LOL!
Are you kidding? You make a specious argument and then complain when there is an uproar?
Dude. This started out as a simple question as the beginning of a debate. Why did you have to go show your ass and get all stupid with everyone? You made a statement about the Constitution. Doing so on FR GUARANTEES you will get folks checking your statement and wanting sources.
Ok, I will. Apparently in this case I’m wrong.
not just wrong.....but by a mile!
This isn't a debate over an opinion but over a fact. If you can't defend your position perhaps you should go back to Romper Room.
Whatever. Wrong is wrong. By an inch or a mile.
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.