Despite the fact that major storms can leave communities devastated and vulnerable to criminal acts in the aftermath like looting, one North Carolina city is acting to prevent its citizens from defending themselves if Hurricane Florence, now bearing down on the state, makes landfall and wreaks havoc.
As reported by The Gun Feed, the Firearms Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation announced Tuesday that both organizations sent a pre-litigation demand letter to the Town of Leland, N.C., whose officials have banned “some lawful and constitutionally protected firearm-related conduct in advance” of the hurricane. The letter was sent by the Diguiseppe Law Firm in Wilmington, N.C.
On Monday, the report said, city officials issued an order that states, “Effective at 9:00 p.m. Wednesday, September 12, 2018, the transportation or possession, or the sale or purchase of any dangerous weapon or substance, while off one’s own premises, is prohibited.”
Bearing Arms added that city officials were getting additional pushback following the order.
“The town’s prohibition could well increase the vulnerability to damage, injury, or loss of life or property, by chilling the otherwise lawful use and possession of firearms and ammunition in the protection of one’s property during these times – rights expressly preserved under the state law in the event of such states of emergency,” the letter notes.
Federal officials are already predicting heavy damage from Florence, and “long-term” recovery efforts, leading some to conclude that criminal activities like looting in the storm’s wake is a foregone conclusion.
“This will be a storm that creates and causes massive damage to our country,” Jeff Byard, Federal Emergency Management Agency associate administrator, told CNN Tuesday. “It is going to be … a long-term recovery. This is not going to be a storm that we recover from in days.” (Related: You need to know these 8 essential survival tips to prepare you for the next catastrophe.)
That alone is causing some North Carolina residents to ignore evacuation orders issued by state officials.
‘This one really scares me’
“Once you leave, (it will be) hard to get back in to check on damage,” Southport resident Tim Terman told the network. “My home is all my wife and I have, materially speaking, a lifetime of stuff.”He added he will make a final decision about what to do on Wednesday, just ahead of Florence making landfall.
Worth protecting, if possible, in other words.
“Leland’s State of Emergency Notice should immediately be amended to strike the offending language creating this unlawful and unconstitutional weapons prohibition. Should the Town fail to do so, and/or attempt to enforce the same against any resident, it stands exposed to civil actions for declaratory and injunctive relief, and monetary damages,” said attorney Raymond DiGuiseppe, on behalf of the groups.
The letter must have had some effect because city officials did amend the original order somewhat. They added, “This prohibition and restriction does not apply to lawfully possessed firearms or ammunition.”
But some residents and analysts are suspicious nonetheless. They say that the city may prosecute someone for legally carrying a concealed firearm, for example, if they are caught with it outside of their own property.
Maintaining a Category 4 status as it approaches the U.S. southeastern coast, weather forecasters and other experts are fearing the worst.
“This one really scares me,” said National Hurricane Center Director Ken Graham.
Added Byard: “This storm is going to knock out power days into weeks. It’s going to destroy infrastructure. It’s going to destroy homes.”
Forecasters believe that North Carolina could receive as much as 20 inches of rain or more, while other parts of the East Coast including Virginia, Washington, D.C., and parts of Maryland could get as much as 10 inches.
Currently, the storm is generating 130 mile-per-hour winds extending 70 miles out from the eye of Florence.
Read more about apocalyptic storm damage and infrastructure collapse at Collapse.news.
Sources include:
ACLU v. Gonzales, Et al., 04 Civ. 2614 (VM) (USDC S.D.N.Y. 09/06/2007) (The Constitution was designed so that the dangers of any given moment would never suffice as justification for discarding fundamental individual liberties or circumscribing the judiciary’s unique role under our governmental system in protecting those liberties and upholding the rule of law.); http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/nsldecision.pdf
ACLU v. National Security Agency, No. 06-CV-10204 (USDC Mich. ADT 08/17/2006) (It was never the intent of the framers to give the President such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another. It is within the court’s duty to ensure that power is never “condense[d] … into a single branch of government.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 536 (2004) (plurality opinion). We must always be mindful that “[w]hen the President takes official action, the court has authority to determine whether he has acted within the law.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 603 (1997). “It remains one of the most vital functions of this court to police with care the separation of governing powers…. When structure fails, liberty is always in peril.” Public Citizen v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 468 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring). [p. 23-24] [p. 43] Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution. As Justice Warren wrote in U.S. v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967): “Implicit in the term “national defense” is the notion of defending those values and ideals which set this nation apart…. It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense we would sanction the subversion of … those liberties … which makes the defense of our nation worthwhile. Id. at 264.); http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/nsa/aclunsa81706opn.pdf
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) (We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens. Youngstown Sheet & Tube, 343 U.S., at 587. Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake. Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 380 (1989) (it was “the central judgment of the Framers of the Constitution that, within our political scheme, the separation of governmental powers into three coordinate Branches is essential to the preservation of liberty”); http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/03-6696.html
6 Am.Jur.2d 392 § 71 (Effect of Emergency) (No emergency justifies a violation of any provision of United States constitution (even a state of war);
“Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of ’emergency’. It was the tactic of Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini. In the collectivist sweep over a dozen minor countries of Europe, it was the cry of men striving to get on horseback. And ’emergency’ became the justification of the subsequent steps. This technique of creating emergency is the greatest achievement that demagoguery attains.” — Herbert Hoover (1874-1964), 31st US President
I will remember this:
“…the dangers of any given moment would never suffice as justification for discarding fundamental individual liberties…”
Thanks, Amicus.
.
The Mayor is a big fish in a little puddle. He’s so important. Not!
Survival nullifies what ever the city officials think
And since when does some “city official “ have the power to over rule on our rights ?
These people are so full of themselves
I will remember this:
“Survival nullifies what ever the city officials think.”
Thanks, EOTS
.
Flash Backs of Katrina
Never let a good crisis go to waste, right?
Like saying, an alien invasion is coming, it is illegal to be in possession of firearms when they arrive.
Oh wait! The invasion is already here and they are already doing this.
Unfrigginbelievable….
Amicus,
Thank you for this informative post. I feel like we’re in a firefight and you just tossed me a clip full of ammo!
That which is not otherwise permitted, necessity allows, and necessity makes a privilege which supersedes the law {Illud quod alias licitum non est necessitas facit licitum, et necessitas inducit privilegium quod jure privatur; 10 Coke, 61};
That is necessary which cannot be otherwise {Necessarium est quod non potest aliter se habere};
Necessity gives a privilege with reference to private rights. (1) self-preservation; (2) obedience; (3) act of God {Necessitas inducit privilegium quoad jura privata; Bacon, Max. Reg. 5};
Nothing is more just that what is necessary {Nihil magis justum est quam quod necessarium est; Dav. 12};
The thing speaks for itself {Res ipsa loquitur};
Necessity. In general, whatever makes the contrary of a thing impossible, whatever may be the cause of such impossibilities, Whatever is done through necessity, is done without any intention, and as the act is done without will, (q. v.) and is compulsory, the agent is not legally responsible. Bac. Max. Reg. 5. Hence the maxim, necessity has no law; indeed necessity is itself a law which cannot be avoided nor infringed. Clef des Lois Rom. h. t.; Dig. 10, 3, 10, 1; Com. Dig. Pleader, 3 M 20, 3 M 30. It follows, then, that the acts of a man in violation of law, or to the injury of another, may be justified by necessity, because the actor has no will to do or not to do the thing, he is a mere tool; but, it is conceived, this necessity must be absolute and irresistible, in fact, or so presumed in point of law. The cases which are justified by necessity, may be classed as follows: I. For the preservation of life; as if two persons are on the same plank, and one must perish, the survivor is justified in having thrown off the other, who was thereby drowned. Bac. Max., Reg. 5. 2. Obedience by a person subject to the power of another; for example, if a wife should commit a larceny with her husband, in this case the law presumes she acted by coercion of her husband, and, being compelled, by necessity, she is justifiable. 1 Russ. Cr. 16, 20; Bac. Max. Reg. 5. 3. Those cases which arise from the act of God, or inevitable accident, or from the act of man, as public enemies. Vide: Act of God; Inevitable Accident; and also 15 Vin. Ab. 534; Dane’s Ab. h. t.; 2 Stark. Ev. 713; Marsh. Ins. b. 1, c. 6, s. 3; Jacob’s Intr. to. Com. Law. Reg. 74. 4. There is another species of necessity. The actor in these cases is not compelled to do the act whether he will or not, but he has no choice left but to do the act which may be injurious to another, or to lose the total use of his property. For example, when a man’s lands are surrounded by those of others, so that he cannot enjoy them without trespassing on his neighbors. The way which is thus obtained, is called a way of necessity. Gale and Whatley on Easements, 71; 11 Co. 52; Hob. 234; 1 Saund. 323, note. See 3 Rawle, R. 495; 3 M’Cord, R. 131; Id. 170; 14 Mass. R. 56; 2 B. & C. 96; 2 Bing. R. 76; 8 T. R. 50; Cro. Jac. 170; 2 Roll. Ab. 60; 3 Kent, Com. 423; 3 Rawle’s R. 492; 1 Taunt. R. 279; 8 Taunt. R. 24; St. R. 50; Ham. N. P. 198; Cro. Jac. 170; 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1637; and Way.