After reading (and re-reading) the laws, I think they did (but I’m no lawyer). Here’s what happened;
Residents in King were fumed over the weekend after a state of emergency declaration restricted the sale of alcohol and the carrying of firearms in vehicles.
[. . .]
The state of emergency for King was declared by members of the City Council after Stokes County authorities also declared a state of emergency.
Under North Carolina law, May said, when a state of emergency is put into place that includes a ban on driving, the carrying of firearms in vehicles is also banned. The King city curfew banned the sale of alcohol.
[. . .]
“By law, statute 14-288.7 automatically went into effect. And that law which goes into effect when there’s a state of emergency prohibits the transportation, purchase sale and possession of firearms other than on one’s own premises.” [bold mine]
Here is what North Carolina statue 14-288.7 actually says;
§ 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).)
This also happened after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans;
After 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, honest citizens were able to defend themselves and their neighbors against looters, arsonists and other criminals.
And Congress responded with the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 5013 [109th]), which was signed into law in October 2006. The portion of the law to examine;
SEC. 706. FIREARMS POLICIES.
(a) Prohibition on Confiscation of Firearms- No officer or employee of the United States (including any member of the uniformed services), or person operating pursuant to or under color of Federal law, or receiving Federal funds, or under control of any Federal official, or providing services to such an officer, employee, or other person, while acting in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency, may–
(1) temporarily or permanently seize, or authorize seizure of, any firearm the possession of which is not prohibited under Federal, State, or local law, other than for forfeiture in compliance with Federal law or as evidence in a criminal investigation;
(2) require registration of any firearm for which registration is not required by Federal, State, or local law;
(3) prohibit possession of any firearm, or promulgate any rule, regulation, or order prohibiting possession of any firearm, in any place or by any person where such possession is not otherwise prohibited by Federal, State, or local law; or
(4) prohibit the carrying of firearms by any person otherwise authorized to carry firearms under Federal, State, or local law, solely because such person is operating under the direction, control, or supervision of a Federal agency in support of relief from the major disaster or emergency. [bold mine]
My reading is that, if the county that declared an emergency receives federal funds (and they all do), they cannot (jump to number 3) prohibit the possession of firearms unless it’s normally done so under federal, state, or local law. Since in the case of King, N.C., firearms being prohibited is NOT normal operating procedure, the state statue seems to be in violation of federal law.
The hole in this line of logic may be in the type of emergency, but the N.C. statute clearly runs opposite the spirit of the law as seen in the findings section of the federal law.
If I were a bad guy, the middle of a snow storm would be the perfect time to commit any number of crimes, with the authorities either unable to respond or taking care of other situations. But I’m a good guy, so that’s the time I’m most vigilant. Citizens have a right to defend themselves, and a snow storm does not negate that right.
Recent Comments