Replies

Very true. Here is an important part of the Sun-Sentinal article that they left out:

Under the city law, once the city declares a state of emergency, officials would be able to regulate fuel and alcohol sales, close any place of public assemblage and prohibit public possession or display of firearms. In addition, they would be able "to confiscate merchandise, equipment, vehicles or property needed to alleviate any emergency condition."

Confiscated property would be returned within 30 days after an emergency ends. And the city must compensate an owner for using personal property, which would have to be returned in the same condition in which it was seized.

(A hat tip to TankerKC for posting the link.)

The article notes that the state of Florida already has this power legislatively along with other Florida communities but that it has not been used. Given the requirement to return the property in the same condition it was confiscated in and pay for its use (both conditions presenting endless potential for litigation), a town or city would probably be very reluctant to take on that expense and liability unless absolutely necessary, especially if free aid ain the form of supplies, equipment, and services were available from the state or federal government.

The only parts of the report that bother me are the possible confiscation of guns under the prohibition of public possession and display and the lack of some outside authority to terminate the emergency if the local government wouldn't at the end of 30 days. Obviously, for personal security and protection of personal property against looting after a natural disaster, citizens must retain their firearms. Anti-gun zealots might use a real disaster as an excuse to order police to seize firearms and retain them for the duration of the "emergency."

Anti-gun zealots might use a real disaster as an excuse to order police to seize firearms and retain them for the duration of the "emergency."

The other, unstated, possibly un-realized problem that comes with confiscation of firearms..
Getting it back..

I had a simple pellet gun "confiscated" from my nephew..
( I owned it, he and a freind were shooting pigeons with it..)

The Police refused to return it to me until I could show "proof of ownership"..
Luckily, I was able to locate my sales reciept for the gun, or I would have been out one pellet rifle, valued at nearly a hundred bucks at the time..

A warning to all gun owners in areas where confiscation laws are enacted..
Make sure all your papers are in order.. You will be required to show your papers..

Oh, Yeah.. Demand a reciept for any and all items "confiscated"..
Make sure you get the name(s), badge numbers, etc., of any government employees involved in said confiscations...
Note the date / time of the seizure(s)

You will be required to have all this information in order to get your property back..
Even then, in some instances, you may require the services of a lawyer.. And even that is no guarantee..

"Confiscated property would be returned within 30 days after an emergency ends. And the city must compensate an owner for using personal property,..."

This is still unacceptable. What good is the person's property if they are subject to any confiscation? What good is the citizens property that they need during the time of an emergency? Why would any other person, who was unprepared, be considered higher value for the use of these confiscated resources?

This is nothing more than the inevitable results of passing price gouging legislation!