King, NC declares state of emergency due to weather -- restricts gun rights
- Thread starter jg0001
- Start date
I'll bet dollars to donuts that if you track down the origins of the N.C.
emergency laws as well as a number of their restrictive gun laws you will find they did not come from 'left leaning' politicians but from very 'right leaning' ones back in the 60's who were attempting to restrict the rights of blacks... and I'll bet no one of any importance protested this back then. Now your 'evil left' is using the same laws. Any law that restricts the right of any common man, regardless of his beliefs, is just wrong.
emergency laws as well as a number of their restrictive gun laws you will find they did not come from 'left leaning' politicians but from very 'right leaning' ones back in the 60's who were attempting to restrict the rights of blacks... and I'll bet no one of any importance protested this back then. Now your 'evil left' is using the same laws. Any law that restricts the right of any common man, regardless of his beliefs, is just wrong.
SigP6Carry
New member
Blume, I could kiss you! This is something that many people don't realize about a lot of laws. You may not hear about them until it comes up. And most of the times, those weird laws were put in place to oppress some kind of minority. There were THOUSANDS of laws that were used to disarm minorities in both literal and figurative ways. I would wager that this "emergency" law about firearms is an old Jim Crow law. (is it weird that I want some Old Crow on the rocks, now?)
Unfortunately, until the law is repealed, it must be obeyed. We can't pick and choose which laws we obey based on how we feel about them. So, if you're in the North Carolina area: I suggest you write your lawmakers and police departments about it. Petition the area. Let people know about this law. Work the system itself instead of just complaining about it.
Unfortunately, until the law is repealed, it must be obeyed. We can't pick and choose which laws we obey based on how we feel about them. So, if you're in the North Carolina area: I suggest you write your lawmakers and police departments about it. Petition the area. Let people know about this law. Work the system itself instead of just complaining about it.
Yes, many of the laws discussed in this thread and other restrictive laws in North Carolina were passed long ago (the pistol permit law was passed in 1919), for all the wrong reasons.
Thanks for the advice. Every year bills are introduced to correct the problems and every year those bills are typically bottled up in committee, primarily by Representative Deborah K. Ross (D), Judiciary Committee Chairman and Democratic Majority Whip. While the system is grossly stacked against change, we keeping trying.
Thanks for the advice. Every year bills are introduced to correct the problems and every year those bills are typically bottled up in committee, primarily by Representative Deborah K. Ross (D), Judiciary Committee Chairman and Democratic Majority Whip. While the system is grossly stacked against change, we keeping trying.
Doc Intrepid
New member
Not that I want to sound like a voice of reason, but in U.S. jurisprudence the most egregious acts have historically been forced to be tolerated, because at the time they occurred there was no law against them.
44 AMP makes a good point, that after hurricanes came through there were some who used chainsaws to try to perform contructive acts, while others went on looting sprees because everyone else had fled their homes, and they were easy picking. No one was even around to witness the acts.
Its important to remember that law enforcement has a significant amount of discretion regarding whom they choose to apply laws to.
Occasionally a law may be needed so that it may be applied against genuine criminals, when there is no intention of stopping every car going to the 7-11 for milk to see whether there is a handgun in the car or not.
If there is no law against a behavior that a criminal might exhibit during an emergency situation - which on it's face might not appear criminal from the point of view of the law-abiding - (such as walking down a street carrying about 10 long guns recently liberated from some empty house), there may be no particular law that the police might use to charge such a person with breaking.
I agree completely with Pax that laws must be carefully written to protect citizens' rights. But its important to realize that laws apply both to those who obey them as well as those who are disinclined to do so. If you want to charge some lowbrow azzhat who is taking desperate advantage of an emergency situation, there must be some law in existence that allows this disenfranchised citizen to be stopped and held.
Laws work both ways, which is why they must be carefully crafted.
That said, I can't figure out the bit about ammunition either.
(OTOH, most of us are going to have a fairly substantial stock of ammunition available anyway. Could it possibly be that the ammunition sales ban is also aimed at those who may have suddenly acquired a firearm by dubious means?)
44 AMP makes a good point, that after hurricanes came through there were some who used chainsaws to try to perform contructive acts, while others went on looting sprees because everyone else had fled their homes, and they were easy picking. No one was even around to witness the acts.
Its important to remember that law enforcement has a significant amount of discretion regarding whom they choose to apply laws to.
Occasionally a law may be needed so that it may be applied against genuine criminals, when there is no intention of stopping every car going to the 7-11 for milk to see whether there is a handgun in the car or not.
If there is no law against a behavior that a criminal might exhibit during an emergency situation - which on it's face might not appear criminal from the point of view of the law-abiding - (such as walking down a street carrying about 10 long guns recently liberated from some empty house), there may be no particular law that the police might use to charge such a person with breaking.
I agree completely with Pax that laws must be carefully written to protect citizens' rights. But its important to realize that laws apply both to those who obey them as well as those who are disinclined to do so. If you want to charge some lowbrow azzhat who is taking desperate advantage of an emergency situation, there must be some law in existence that allows this disenfranchised citizen to be stopped and held.
Laws work both ways, which is why they must be carefully crafted.
That said, I can't figure out the bit about ammunition either.
(OTOH, most of us are going to have a fairly substantial stock of ammunition available anyway. Could it possibly be that the ammunition sales ban is also aimed at those who may have suddenly acquired a firearm by dubious means?)
My first and foremost obligation, as head of my Family, is to protect it from harm of any kind, as best as I can. I don't advocate breaking any rules unnecessarily, but any rule that puts my family in danger, I will break. It's too bad that sometimes, there are rules made, that endanger the welfare of the people.