North Carolina town calls snow emergency, so gun sales are banned…huh?

The snow emergency is over in King, N.C., but while it was in effect, according to published reports and a cursory glance at state statute, there was a curfew, restrictions on alcohol and a ban on the sale or possession of firearms off of one’s property.

When I called officials in King, the police department referred me to the mayor’s office, and the mayor’s office referred me to state statute. I don’t know what they call that in North Carolina, but out here in Washington, it’s called “passing the buck,” and that dog don’t hunt.

The inquiry was simple, and the conversation with a lady named Judy at the police department was pleasant. All I wanted to know was “What on earth does a snow emergency have to do with possession of a firearm?”

Only in Washington, D.C. do guns seem to come into play when people play in the snow, but then it’s only the cops who seem to pull those guns.

The mayor, it appears, did not have any discretion when the emergency was declared over a heavy snowfall late last week. The ban on transporting dangerous weapon(s) or substance(s) during an emergency is detailed under North Carolina statute 14-288.7, which appears to have been adopted originally in 1969.

http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m2d8-North-Carolina-town-calls-snow-emergency-so-gun-sales-are-bannedhuh

KING, N.C. -- Authorities lifted curfew and alcohol restrictions in King on Sunday, but said a state of emergency declaration remained in effect until Monday.

Authorities said the state of emergency declaration would continue until Monday 9 a.m., barring any unforeseen circumstances or severe changes.

Effective Sunday afternoon, alcohol restrictions and a curfew were lifted. All other remaining restrictions would continue until Monday, said Paula May, King police chief.

Other restrictions included a ban on the sale or purchase of any type of firearm, ammunition, explosive or any possession of such items off a person's own premises.

http://www.wxii12.com/news/22487153/detail.html

Glad it wasn't a blue state that did this!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Because I didn't see anything in that post that warranted its deletion. YOURS on the other hand, is a direct attack.

Nobody ever said you can't attack an argument directly.

you would want to have the ability to defend yourself or your family.

You don't think criminals are on the prowl when theres no power, phone lines, or 911 response time? Newsflash, if I were a looter or had a particular target in mind (rape, murder, harassment) this would appear to be the golden opportunity to get away with it. You don't need a vehicle to get around you know... there's always walking.

If I were forced to brave the weather to get medication or food/water/heat for my family (or even just to get back home to them) I would certainly want to have my firearm with me. Yes, the odds of needing firearms (even without disasters is small), but that doesn't help you much if you are unlucky enough to be a victim. You can choose to arm yourself with hope... I'll stick with my Glock. :smoke:

That's really a testament to how far right the country has gone.

Banning liquor and gun possession in a state of emergency is the only common sense thing to do. I can't understand anybody who can't see that. YES, the only people who should have guns out on the streets are cops.

You know, the criminals?

:eyes:

That's the entire point. There will be NO DOUBT as to who is a criminal and they can be arrested immediately if they have a gun. I just don't see what is so complicated about this.

You can keep a gun in your home. You're safe.

to the problems of individuals, you would prefer the Citizenry to be less able to defend themselves against looters, rioters, thieves and other criminals.

I don't think I trust you with my Civil Rights.

People can still defend themselves.

Besides, if I was in the middle of an emergency, I'd be smashing open whatever store was available to make sure people had food and whatever supplies they needed so they didn't die. What we should have is an emergency decree that you can't keep food, water, shelter, warm clothing, shoes, etc., away from people. Shows how fucked up our society is that we're arguing over who we can shoot instead.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Or helping your neighbors? Or checking your neighborhood?

You think I would need a gun?? No.

So they wouldn't need a gun to take it from me.

and the goods you looted in order to give it to those that need it.

Most people won't do that. I just don't care about the people that do. Don't care today. Won't care tomorrow. Certainly won't care in the middle of an emergency. I'll direct them to the tv store if it will keep them out of the way of all the people who are helping each other. It's just STUFF.

gets along just fine, what you envision just is not the case. Like I said before, good luck with that, I hope it works out for you.

Nobody acted the way you insist they do. Nobody.

Your experience was different from mine. Just goes to show that we NEVER really know how people are going to act.

Just don't presume to limit my rights because you don't want one.

As I understand our statute, if the governor declares a farm crisis because it isn't raining enough, then gun sales, licensed carry, and transporting guns in your car to and from the shooting range technically become crimes in the affected counties.

It is a truly asinine law, and I can't believe people here are actually defending it. What would you think about a law that said the governor can suspend the right to speak and assemble if he declares a drought, issues a storm warning, or declares a "terrah crisis"?

Fortunately, almost no one (including law enforcement) know about the law, so I have never known it to actually be taken seriously, but the fact that it remains on the books is no less problematic just because it's not being misused right at this moment.

Would you allow the owners of that business to defend their property, using deadly force if necessary? Remembering of course that you are committing a felony.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

If the emergency is so important that civil rights need to be suspended, then perhaps a curfew or a "stay in your home" order would be the right call. To arbitrarily prohibit the legal carry of guns and the legal purchase of alcohol, but still allowing the populace to move about freely makes no sense.

Then most of the country has today.

In 1969, in the South, any deputy would have told you that ban wasn't meant for white folks. Do the names of good upstanding Democrats like George Wallace, Lester Maddox, or "Bull" Conners ring any bells?

There are other examples of remarkable honesty from the state supreme courts on this subject, of which the finest is probably Florida Supreme Court Justice Buford's concurring opinion in Watson v. Stone (1941), in which a conviction for carrying a handgun without a permit was overturned, because the handgun was in the glove compartment of a car:

"I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied."

(emphasis added)

Not to state it was all in the South, up through the Thirties, the Klan in Indiana was to the Democratic Party what the IRA was to Sinn Fein.
Indiana Klan

Do you really think that because they're snowed in, everyone's going to go out looting, getting drunk, and shooting each other? How the hell is that even vaguely relevant to the situation, let alone common sense?

I suppose you think Korean shop owners, AWAY FROM THEIR HOMES, defending their lives and livlihoods during the Rodney King riots, should have been disarmed by the state?

The cops fled man. In the face of rioters, they ran away. They refused to go in until the CANG showed up.

If law abiding citizens cannot exercise their rights when they are most needed, what the hell point is there in America(TM) anyway?

and when they get frustrated with getting stuck in the snow, blast away at the snow with their guns.

Or the idiot who forced them off the road into the ditch.

:sarcasm:

...oh wait, no, it doesn't actually. In fact, even suggesting it DOES happen all the time would be a fairly shocking reminder of just how amazingly ignorant somebody is of the situation at hand.

and drinking at the same time. And obviously they don't know that there's no better time to hunt than after a freshly fallen snow.

What do they think people are going to do--because it's a snow day, they'll hike to the liquor store, get drunk in public, and start shooting at the snowplows thinking they're giant monsters?

the streets is a good thing.

In the aftermath when there is no electricity, no gas, no food, no phone, no tv, and every animal you never knew existed around you is swimming in the water restricting guns on the street are OK. If the storm passes early in the evening, then there is one long night where you don't need to be out and certainly not with a gun.

Who do you think will be able to protect you after a hurricane?

Hint: It won't be the police.

There will also be no police to respond to potentiall dangerous situations should you call for them.
You're advocating people have no right to protect themselves during an emergency should they have to venture outside.

Legally Endorsed Behaviors:
Option 1: Be good little sheeple and wait inside. Don't bother calling police should something happen - they're too busy.
Option 2: If you're going to head out, be a nice little lamb and don't resist any looters/criminals that come across you.

Use your head, genius...
When might people need protection the most? (disaster/emergency)
When might police be too busy to respond to your 911 call, assuming you can call 911? (disaster/emergency)
Ergo, when might you be most likely have to provide your own protection? (:think:)

I swear, people nowadays are a bunch of pussies. :yoiks:
I'm sorry, but in such a situation I would carry anyways (if I must go out).
I'd have a ballistic vest under my jacket as well.

I have already put my 5 rnd 12 ga Remington 11-87 in the face of a teenager that came to the door just before Floyd was supposed to hit and everybody on the street except me had left. I had it loaded and sitting near the door. Right before dark: knock, knock, knock. Picked it up, and stood as far back from the door as I could holding it high. Snapped the door open and first thing he saw was the wrong end of a pipe and very angry big guy behind it. Tick, safety off. When I stepped around the opening door that barrel ended up about 1 foot from his eyes.

He looked like he was thinking about hitting it out of the way, I kind of growled and borrowed a line from a John Wayne movie, "It doesn't matter how this thing goes off, I sneeze, I trip, or I just wanna .. you're head will vaporize. He took a step back and I cycled a round to let him see a 3" 00 fly, "There are four more, and it ain't a moral obligation keeping me from killing you, by my Jeep is behind you." He never turned his back on me till he had backed clear out to the street.

That's something I'm sure when he describes that barrel it's as big as a cannon. The only thing that saved his life was that he was empty handed. He and his buddies were casing. They ran home and called the cops; cop told them "if you go down that street and he don't shoot you, I'll arrest you." Then the cop came down and told me what he had said.

Armed? Just turning to give me a front shot is all you get. Even if you're on the street, I'm not taking chances; you're not supposed to be there AND you aimed a gun at me ... 'nuf said.

So, feel free to wander about armed on a hurricane night. Oh, and a jacket? Well I guess it would give your family something to bury.

It must be nice in your little world to know EXACTLY what to expect and what you'll need in an emergency. :eyes:

There are several legitimate reasons you might have to leave your shelter:
You need more supplies (the emergency lasted longer than anticipated)
A friend or family member has called/contacted you for assistance for whatever reason.
Your house floods, catches on fire, becomes structurally unstable, fills with CO, etc...

I'm sure there are more reasons as well but the fact remains, you cannot say with certainty you will be inside your shelter for the duration of any such disaster as seen on the east coast this past. Please tell me, if you were forced from your shelter and lived in an area that banned arming yourself for protection during emergencies... would you leave your pistol and or shotgun or take them with you? This is a dilemma that people qualified to own & carry firearms should not have to face. An inevitable fact is that some people will have to venture out during emergencies and, should they desire to protect themselves, they should not be stripped of their means of defense - especially by something completely unrelated like natural disasters.

I would not advocate toting around shotguns, tactical rifles, and bandoleers while dressed in full tactical regalia. Having a firearm does NOT have to be overt or make you a target - a holstered pistol conceals well and offers more than enough protection to deal with looters or other threats that come your way. For the more well prepared, concealable body armor (such as officers wear) is inexpensive and would not be noticable... heck, it'd probably be advisable around assholes who feel they are the arbiters of curfew and shoot at passers-by in the street because they're "not taking chances".

...give me a front shot is all you get.

Not even with a carry permit ... it's just no.

Just like the cop said, you come down my end of the street during a hurricane night with a weapon ... your life expectancy is a small as your IQ for "bringing it". The fact that you are there when your not supposed to be is your first mistake. And, next time I'll park the Jeep out of the way.

Please, don't ever own a gun.

You must know EVERY one of your neighbors and your neighbors' acquaintances to know who "belongs" on your street.
Furthermore, it's called "public" for a reason - people have a right to be there and travel down the street.
It's not your place to determine who belongs where so long as they are off your land and pose no reasonable threat.
I hope to god you never brandish a firearm at a mere passer-by or, god forbid, shoot at one unprovoked & unthreatened.

If you saw me out in public (even during a state of emergency) you would not know I was carrying.
I keep my pistol(s) concealed mostly because people who would respond like you have described - irrationally.

And I never said "public shelter" - I said "shelter".
Could be your house, a place of business, RV, playschool treehouse, whatever.
I would likely not carry a firearm into a public safety shelter because most locales prohibit carry on city-premises.
Plus, i'm sure there would be several officers at a public shelter so that area would be reasonably safe.
I'll type slower for you next time.

as well. I note the date 1969: I'm sure the legislators had a good eye-full of the late 60's inner-city riots, and saw Bla... excuse me, red.

There is no rational reason put forth to justify such a law, esp. as it deals with a Constitutional protection. Liquor sales can be regulated, even if there is little justification.

and arbitrary declarations of various mundane crises, unlimited in duration.

As I mentioned downthread, the only saving grace of this last gasp of the Jim Crow era is that it isn't enforced, because most of the citizens and LEO's don't even know it exists, and those who know (LEO and ordinary citizen) ignore it. It's like NC's law criminalizing living with your significant other without being married to them, on the books but not enforced. It still needs to go, though.

It would be foolish to think that because guns are banned on city streets after a hurricane that criminals suddenly decided to leave them at home when they come to loot your home. They know the police are too busy to enforce the laws, so they're going to commit burglaries, robberies and rapes- and they're right- police are far too busy trying to cope with the conditions themselves and save others.

But you think they going to leave their guns at home, because it's against the law? And you think they're going to get caught?

Passed in 1969, this law was mainly targeted at blacks, in response to the 1967 Durham riot, and the 1968 Orangeburg Riot (ended by the Orangeburg Massacre) in neighboring South Carolina.

That DU posters would agree with this, knowing where it came from, sickens me.

eta:

Here's a wiki link to the Orangeburg Massacre- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangeburg_Massacre

The 1967 Durham riot started as a peaceful demonstration over housing. Grabarek summoned the National Guard to enforce order

There was also the 1969 takeover of Duke Univ by black students.

This poster is the one equating the two, not me.

YOU are the one that equated the two.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=289501&mesg_id=289503

14‑288.7. Transporting dangerous weapon or substance during emergency; possessing off premises; exceptions.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to transport or possess off his own premises any dangerous weapon or substance in any area:

(1) In which a declared state of emergency exists; or

(2) Within the immediate vicinity of which a riot is occurring.

(b) This section does not apply to persons exempted from the provisions of G.S. 14‑269 with respect to any activities lawfully engaged in while carrying out their duties.

(c) Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (1969, c. 869, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 192; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

As the OP referred to.

This isn't about riots.

however, "state of emergency" is not the sole reason for passing the law.

Given the time period (and geographical area), when this law was enacted, the genuine purpose/intent of the law
is highly suspect.

Civil rights laws would prevent racial discrimination in implementing such a ban today.

To keep Blacks under control....the law was never taken off the books and it was re-activated this past weekend. Suspending civil rights is suspending civil rights, period. Many arguments have been made in this thread as to why this law was unconstitutional then and is unconstitutional now.

Your naivete is both refreshing and amusing. Thanks! :eyes:

P.S. I think your diet might be a tad rich in iron....

Baseless arguments usually happen that way.

This one will probably end up in court too. But it's guaranteed that if they only prevented minorities from carrying guns, it would be challenged.

Letting everyone wander around with a gun so they can shoot minorities, er, I mean "looters", that won't be challenged one bit.

No. This law has never been used to specfically target minorities, regardless of what all was behind it at the time. It is now a common sense law to address emergency situations, and it is the correct response. All the other shit in this thread is just buck shot to try and divert from the very sensible response that law enforcement has in an emergency. Stay home and keep your guns home.

Funny how that works.. scrub hard enough and you can make any turd shine.

Keep shining, this one still stinks.

Funny how times change, but don't.

You're bound and determined to avoid the history of this bullshit law steeped in racism.

*polish* *polish* *polish* - *sniff*, no, still a turd.

thanks :spray: :rofl:

It was you that stated you would , and I will quote as best as I remember, "smash open places that had food, clothing, etc, and distribute them to people that need them", forgive me if I got a word or two wrong. However good your intentions, that IS looting.

Equating looters to minorities is very telling, since you also said that "the south had more common sense in 1969" when talking about when the emergency law was put into effect. It was discussed, at length, about how and why this law was put into place. Thats TWO direct references you have made that seem thinly veiled as racism. Whats going on here?

abiding by the rules is disturbing.

People take action, not statutes. When those in power wish to ignore those laws, they do. It happens all the time. If it didn't we wouldn't have to entertain so many motions to suppress in the judicial system. Granted, maybe the abuses get remedied by a judge keeping something out, but that does not remove the occurrence of the original wrong.

about the Gun Control Act of 1968:

" to shut off weapons access to blacks... while leaving the over-the-counter purchases to the affluent."
-- Robert Sherill, another journalist.

At the time of the law, the anticipated emergency was race riots, possibly race war. It was used for snow in modern times because it was the only law available.

But hey, you stick up for Ol Jim Crow, I'm sure he's feeling rather put upon these days.

You show me where this law was ever implemented to deprive minorities of weapons.

The law was passed in '69 to cover any declared "state of emergency", regardless of cause, though it's un written intent was to be aimed at minorities.

The current declared "state of emergency" is due to a large amount of snow. There does not exist a set of rules specifically for a "snow emergency".

Don't yell at me for calling it a snow emergency, the OP did that to ridicule the need to limit guns. Not state of emergency due to riot. That's a red herring.

Got it. Thanks!

In the late 60's, there were race riots across the south. Many of them turned violent.

After the ones in North Carolina, the state legislature passed a law that said 'no guns in emergencies'. This meant that when a race riot broke out, the state could 'declare an emergency' and disarm any and all protesters.

The act of 'declaring an emergency' can be applied to many conditions, some natural, some man made. Hurricanes, snow storms, ice storms, floods, tornadoes, outbreak of communicable disease- those would be examples of natural events. Riots, insurrections, revolts, destructive "celebrations" after sporting events- those would be examples of man made events.

The governor has the ability to 'declare an emergency' for a whole host of reasons.

I'm really surprised I have to explain this to you- are you being intentionally obtuse, or do you actually not really get the link between the governor declaring a state of emergency over snow and laws limiting alcohol and firearms during a declared emergency?

Oh, and in answer to your question-



That would be 1970, after a federal judge ordered Durham city schools integrated, and a group of Black Panthers tried to protect the sixteen kids in one of the whitest enclaves.

(See Upbuilding Black Durham: Gender, Class, and Black Community Development in the Jim Crow South by Leslie Brown)

dated back to the Civil Rights era and the fear of riots by African-Americans among the white residents and legislators. Guess they forgot about this part of the law and now the with the national posting they have egg on their face.

Funny how the Freepers don't have a clue about the history of this law.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2446524/posts

They were pretty thankful I came along.
What would I have done if I couldn't carry my RPGs around?

...trying to shoot all of the snowflakes out of the air before they landed on my driveway!

Notice when that law was passed. 1969. Anybody remember what was happening back then? OK, lots of the people on this site weren't even born then, or were too young be be involved. Here is a refresher.

Race riots, and lots of them. Every summer it would seem like a few dozen cities would erupt.

Watts had exploded in 1965. Cleveland, Omaha, Chicago and others in 1966. 1967 saw Detroit burning, along with Newark. They made the cover of Time

1968 was even more active. DC rioted for 4 days, Los Angeles broke out again, Chicago, and hundreds of smaller cities after the assination of MLK. It seemed like the entire country was about to explode in a race war.

Look at this Time magazine cover. The brave white cop, standing alone, defending against the forces of anarchy. The firemen and the politicians are all white. Notice who is doing the looting and burning. Why it is black folks.



Now just what kind of state-of-emergency does anyone here think the legislature (1968 in North Carolina it was likely all-white)was worried about? I very seriously doubt that they were concerned that it might someday snow a lot. Now just who does anyone here think they were really concerned about getting and carrying guns? What does anybody want to bet that the guns law was intended to be enforced, shall we say, selectively?

LOL. The Jim Crow roots of gun control rears it ugly head again.

I have clearly shown the racism underlying that law.

Then perhaps subsequent civil rights laws prevented it - but the state of emergency and riot provisions still make sense so they haven't been repealed.

There are lots of old, and sometime silly laws on the books that legislators have never gotten around to removing.

For a good laugh, check out this site: http://www.loonylaws.com/

Since I am a Texan, I shall list some of my own states follies. Thankfully, no one enforces them.

In Dennison it is illegal for a woman to adjust her stockings in public. Doing so can result in up to a year of jail time.

In Texas, no one other than a registered pharmacist may sell condoms or other kinds of contraceptives "on the street or other public places." Not even Physicians! Anyone one who tries to make a few extra bucks doing this will be severely prosecuted for the dire act of "unlawfully practicing medicine."

In Lefors, it is illegal to take more than three swallows of beer at any time while standing.

And here are some from North Carolina: http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/north-carolina

Elephants may not be used to plow cotton fields.

Organizations may not hold their meetings while the members present are in costume. (Take off the sheets, gusy.)

If a man and a woman who aren’t married go to a hotel/motel and register themselves as married then, according to state law, they are legally married.

It’s against the law to sing off key. (Well, I guess that means I better not try to sing in NC.)

is going to come full circle.

As is most often the case with these type of things, the NC "state of emergency" law, came about as a reaction to recent events.

In this case... the race riots of the late 60's.

As a result of the situation that took place in King, I can almost predict that the state legislature will reexamine the law
with the intent of repealing it.

Precedents have already been set when a number of state legislatures enacted post-Katrina laws barring the confiscation of firearms
during a "state of emergency".

So... perhaps the chiefs over reacting could turn out to be a blessing in disguise?

..into a rather upscale white enclave as part of federally mandated integration.

Read a few court opinions and you will see what I mean. Something being criminal was, at common law, almost always at least partially based upon the mindset (called mens rea) of the person in doing the act. The same is true of legislatures, a law is just as abhorrent based upon its intended result as upon its facial value.

particularly devastating hurricanes in that time period that would have prompted the passing of that law...

# August 29, 1966 – Rough seas from Hurricane Faith cause four drownings along the coastline.<20>
# September 16, 1967 – Tropical Storm Doria enters the state from the northeast with slightly above normal tides; damage is minor.<6>
# June 9, 1968 – Former Hurricane Abby moves across much of the state, dropping moderate precipitation and spawning a tornado near Charlotte.<6>
# October 19, 1968 – Hurricane Gladys passes just offshore, bringing moderate to heavy rainfall across the state; the rainfall is beneficial due to previously dry conditions.<6>
# August 20, 1969 – The remnants of Hurricane Camille drop light rainfall across the western portion of the state.<2>
# September 9, 1969 – Hurricane Gerda brushes the coastline with light winds and rainfall.<6>
# September 24, 1969 – A tropical depression brings light precipitation to much of the state.<2>
# October 15, 1969 – Originally predicted to strike the Outer Banks, Hurricane Kara passes offshore, only affecting small craft.<21>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_Carolina_hurricanes_(1950%E2%80%931979)#1960s

who up to that time was the most anti-gun governor in California history. That law was specifically intended to disarm "wrong color" people and assuage the fears of white suburbanites, as I recall.

The thing is, most of this state is NOT particularly susceptible to hurricane disasters, and the fact that the NC coastal plain even exists often seems a foreign concept to our legislators, who seem to think the state is bounded by Raleigh on the east and Charlotte on the west. This law was not written about hurricanes; back then, NC's seacoast was FAR less inhabited than it is now.

"The July 17 (1989) cover story is the most recent in a Growing number of attempts on the part of Time editors to keep the gun-availability issue resolutely in view. Such an Editorial closing of ranks represents the exception rather than the rule in the history of the magazine, which has always endeavored to provide a variety of opinions and comment, in addition to straightforward news reporting, as a way of engaging readers in interpreting the significance of issues and events as they arise. BUT THE TIME FOR OPINIONS ON THE DANGERS OF GUN AVAILABILITY IS LONG SINCE GONE, REPLACED BY OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT IT REPRESENTS A GROWING THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY." (emphasis added. From a form letter, sent to a reader who objected to the magazine's gun stories.)

Yeah, we knows about the Republican-oriented TIME. And we know why the 60s-era gun laws were passed.

Incidentally, according to Arthur Waskow (From Race Riot to Sit-in), the last true "race riot" was probably in Jacksonville, Florida in 1960. Waskow considers a race riot a conflict in which members of one race single out members of another race and attack those persons, usually in the latter's neighborhood. Most of the riots thereafter he classified as types of civil insurrections in which race plays a factor, but was not a focal point of the insurrection.

..... redneck snowmen?

"Death to guard duty."

I presume this is to prevent armed gangs from taking to the streets, or to prevent neighborhoods from becoming armed camps during times of civil disorder. Presumebly you and your armed gang/militia would have to be operating under the direct direction of law enforcement to bring your guns outside.

Hmph. I have mixed feelings about this.

This applies to any emergency/crisis/problem declaration. If farmers' crops are dying because we have a drought or a hard frost and the government declares five counties a disaster area as a result, why should the residents of those counties lose half their gun rights as a result?

This is a really stupid law, and its only saving grace is that few people in or out of law enforcement realize it's on the books.

1969, which would mean the legislation was introduced only a couple of years after the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act, the riots in LA, the massive student protests on university campuses, and the assassination of MKL.

The powers that be in North Carolina might have been worried about certain people getting... "uppity".

If you were older, you would understand better what 1968 was like.

It wasn't just history for those of us who lived through it.

should never be repealed, though.

and got the wrong year (ratification of the 18th Amendment/Volstead Act bait-and-switch both occurred in 1919). The Sedition Act is another good example, though.

The fact that we might understand irrational reactions to real or perceived crises does not validate those irrationalities, or mean that they should be immune to criticism or repeal.

The NC law is wrongheaded, blatantly counterproductive, and (IMO) unconstitutional, and needs to be repealed.

When it comes to discussing the timing of when this law was passed.

To you, MLK is just a figure from out of history on your tv screen.

You weren't here when that happened.
You weren't even born yet.

So, you don't remember what the country was like at that time.
You don't know how ugly the mood of the country was at that time, especially in the South.
You don't remember the race riots, or the dogs that were being sicked on blacks by the police in the South.

So, if you think you're going to give me a history lesson about 1968, you can drop that idea right now.
We've had this conversation before, but you just don't get it.

were a Bad Thing. How do you feel about the Bush Administration's suspension of the 4th amendment and habeus corpus in the wake of 9/11? If you defend this, you exactly can't say Cheney and Gonzales were wrong for doing the exact same thing during another "bad time".

Jim Crow laws were and are a bad thing, regardless of how "ugly" the mood was at the time. The mood was ugly after Pearl Harbor, too, but that doesn't justify the imprisonment of innocent Japanese-Americans in concentration camps that occurred, and 9/11 doesn't justify the Patriot Act, warrantless surveillance, or waterboarding.

The Bill of Rights does not have a "bad times" exception clause.

I drive thru King, several times a week...WHILE LAWFULLY ARMED....

This is unbelievable. Time to get on the phone, and rally the troops..

and you have no means to defend yourself against predators.

I realize that you would be wise to stay off the roads in a snow emergency, however often people do travel in a blizzard.

Assume for example that you got an emergency call from your parents who live five miles away. You decide to travel to their home but you get stuck in a snowdrift. You have a North Carolina concealed carry permit, but you had to leave your weapon at home because of a snow storm. Chances are nothing will happen, but if they do you are at a serious disadvantage.

Or what if you are a tourist looking for a place to ride out the storm. You have a concealed carry permit from another state that North Carolina recognizes. You have a firearm in your vehicle or on your person. You get pulled over by a police officer who informs you that you are in violation of the snow emergencies rules. He decides to confiscate your every expensive handgun. Good luck getting it back.

History has shown us that during an emergency is when people become most humane. People come together during a disaster to help each other and those who can't help themselves. Selfishness, greed, and self preservation are set aside in the interest of cooperation and love for fellow man.




*Hmmm, do I need that little 'sarcasm' label thing? Nah.*

during an emergency.

Still, there are those despicable fools who prey on the helpless or loot homeowners.

Firearms can discourage such activity.

Very scary stuff. Mostly people really are "just folks". But you get that percentage who realize they can do what they want without fear of repercussions.

That reminds me, I need to go get Red Cross certified. Me and a bunch of guys from a gun forum were going to N.O to help. We had boats and trucks and everything. We were told we would be denied access, and that if we wanted to help, we should volunteer with the Red Cross.

...should be denied firearm ownership in an emergency.

:shrug:

Can't have people with the wrong color skin possessing guns during times of uncertainty, you know. :sarcasm:

We're also one of the only states in the nation where it's theoretically a crime to cohabit with someone you're not married to. We have a whole lot of moralist crap in our state statutes.

... at the prospect of being snowed in and not being able to buy booze. I mean, what the hell else is there to do in the circumstances but stay home and get drunk?

And what if the St. Bernards run out of brandy and need resupply?

I found this on a gun forum that I frequent:

"I just received a reply from a buddy of mine, who is a pro gun attorney in NC, and also one of the best shots I have ever known (sorry Moses ).

If you read 14-288.7 there is an exception for "(b) This section does not apply to persons exempted from the provisions of G.S. 14-269 with respect to any activities lawfully engaged in while carrying out their duties." 14-269 is our statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons and in there, there is an exception for " (2) The deadly weapon is a handgun, and the person has a concealed handgun permit issued in accordance with Article 54B of this Chapter or considered valid under G.S. 14-415.24." The problem I see is that 14-288.7 references "while carrying out their duties" which, to mean, probably means the legislature only intended that exception to apply to LEOs, etc. But, if you look at the legislative history of those two laws, you will notice that 14-288.7 was enacted in 1969, well before we had our CCW permits and thus the exception to 14-269 so I would certainly argue that the exception applies to CCW permit holders as well."

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_14.html

The relevant portion begins at 14-288.1.

It also authorizes police checkpoints and vehicle searches WITHOUT probable cause during "states of emergency", so anyone of the "wrong" color approaching the city can be searched with no probable cause or even reasonable suspicion required. Are you "throw the Bill of Rights out the window, the SNOW is falling" people OK with that, too? Who knew that pesky 4th Amendment had a Drought and Snowfall Exception Clause, huh?

Yes, this law was aimed squarely at assuaging white fears about the "wrong" color people and had nothing to do with natural disasters, and the fact that it is being knee-jerk defended here is disturbing.

Laws like this always come crashing down on the unprepared.

Just like those waiting period laws that some places had/have to suffer under. When someone suddenly finds out that some deranged ex-boyfriend our spouse wants to kill them, and they're feeling that a little piece of paper called a protection order might not guarantee their safety, they are shocked to discover that they can't buy the protection they want.

It's a harsh lesson to learn when you find out during a crisis that you are not prepared, but that's life.

The fact of the matter is, the fabric of our civilization is pretty tenuous. You can look at places like New Orleans and Haiti to see how quickly civilization can dissolve.

My advice is to be prepared. Everyone should own at least a shotgun and a case of shells for it. You can feed yourself and your family with it, and you can protect yourself and your family with it.

Those who scoff at this and say, "That will never happen to me" may be right. But damn, $400 is cheap insurance.