·11250 Waples Mill Road · Fairfax, Virginia 22030 ·800-392-8683
Posted on 02/22/2010 8:58:30 AM PST by neverdem
| Bill O’Reilly On Citizens Maintaining Second Amendment Rights During States Of Emergency: “That’s a pretty extreme position.” |
| Friday, February 19, 2010 |
|
As we have often reported, in the wake of the illegal gun confiscations in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, NRA focused its attention on legislation to amend existing emergency-powers statutes to guarantee that local authorities never again attempt the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms during states of emergency. As you know, following 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, lawful citizens were able to defend themselves and their neighbors against looters, arsonists and other criminals. However, just when these people needed their guns for self-protection the most, New Orleans’s Police Superintendent ordered the confiscation of firearms, allegedly under a state emergency-powers law. Fortunately, an NRA lawsuit brought an end to the seizures, and subsequent NRA-backed legislation ensured the gun confiscation travesty would not repeat itself. Unfortunately, many states have “emergency powers” laws that give the government permission to suspend or limit gun sales, and to prohibit or restrict citizens from transporting or carrying firearms. In some states, authorities are authorized to seize guns outright from citizens who’ve committed no crime, and who would then be defenseless against disorder. Within the past few weeks, a state of emergency was declared in King, North Carolina following a relatively heavy snowstorm. As a result of the emergency declaration, local residents were banned from carrying firearms in their vehicles. Entering into the fray this week was Bill O’Reilly, host of The O’Reilly Factor, on Fox News. In a February 18, interview that discussed, in part, the confiscation of legally-owned guns during a declared state of emergency (as was the case in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina), O’Reilly affirmed his support of such confiscations. When it was explained to O’Reilly that whether or not there’s a state of emergency, it’s still unconstitutional to confiscate lawfully-owned guns from honest citizens wanting to defend themselves, the Fox talking head retorts, “That’s a pretty extreme position.” Perhaps in your opinion, Bill. But for most law-abiding Americans, the notion that the government can suspend the Constitution and leave citizens without the most effective means of self-defense just because of a snowstorm or hurricane -- well, that would qualify as an extreme position. Of course, no one condones the mindless violence of those who would loot a helpless city, or shoot at rescue workers. But one reason for the citizens to retain a legal right to arms, is precisely because the government has no legal duty to protect them. Legislative bodies can, and should, act to protect the self-defense rights of citizens at the times when those rights are most important. NRA-ILA was instrumental in passing H.R. 5013--the “Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act,”--federal legislation to protect gun owners’ rights during emergencies. And we continue to fight for state legislation to do the same. NRA-ILA has successfully passed Emergency Powers legislation in 28 states since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and we will not rest until we reform all emergency powers laws to prohibit these types of arbitrary attacks on Second Amendment rights. |
He definitely has some anger management issues, don’t he?
I am 100% behing the 2nd Amendment. But this article fails to quote everything Bill O’Reilly said. It specifically says in the Constitution, in the a state of emergency, the government can temporarily suspend the 2nd Amendment in order to get things under control. Then it is up to the court to decide if the temporary suspension is credible or not. And like I said, I am pro-2nd Amendment. But the law is the law, and you can’t claim to support one part of the Constituttion and not the other part.
Seems to me that when a government violates the constitution and confiscates guns we have a real state of emergency. It was just that circumstance for which the framers included the second amendment - to protect the people from the tyrants and would be tyrants.
BOR would be, mistakenly so, a fat and juicy target for the left if violence breaks out.
In this case, BOR would be praying that he has neighbors who believe in the Second Amendment and STILL have guns and ammo and will take him in!!
Kissing libs butts is a national sport in the talking heads’ echelon!
I'm sorry. I'm not a constitutional lawyer like Barack Hussein so I'm going to have to ask you to put a link to the part of the Constitution you're referring to here.
“That’s a pretty extreme position.”
Oh I see... I must disarm myself when NO help can come to my aid. Right.
O’really is a blowhard. Rush nailed him good.
Make that include elected people and you’ve got a deal-!!
Saying a president in the time of war is equal to a policeman during a hurricane is pretty stupid. Having a firearm is more important during a catastrophy than at anytime. O’reily is just wrong!
He must be vacillating because I know I heard him say that the looting in NO during Katrina made him completely change his mind about the right to bear arms. How soon he forgets.
Any person or persons who has in their employ or employed on their behalf for the purpose of providing Protection or Security with a Firearm of any kind ,Shall be Guilty of a Class A Felony, punishable by a Mandatory Sentence of 25 years in State Prison and COMPLETE CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE.
There Shall be NO EXCEPTIONS, EXCLUSIONS or IMMUNITIES FOR ANY PERSON, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, EVER.
There fixed it.
That's kind of extreme. How about:
No person providing protective services shall have any more right to own or carry a firearm than any other private citizen. Police officers, off-duty, shall have no more rights to carry firearms than any other private citizen.
Hey, why not go after the looters and disarm them, and not waste time disarming people protecting their homes and businesses? Is it possible that because for at least for a few in law enforcement, it is more about being a big shot and a bully and not about protecting and serving?
Like VeniVidiVici, I am fairly up on the contents of the Constitution and I am calling a solid BS alert... I can't wait to see the link I am sure you will provide, even the liberal dems have never made a statement like that.
P.S. if you need a link to a copy of the Constitution, just let me know, I'll be glad to help out... ;-)
I didn’t even have to read the article - I’m sure that Bill O’statist wants to disarm people during a state of emergency. Well, guess what - I will be very well armed and I will defend myself, my neighbors, and my property against all comers.
"A well-regulated militia, being Necessary to the security of a FREE STATE, the right OF THE PEOPLE to Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
I don't see it there.
What if the government decided to take away our 1st amendment rights during an ‘Emergency’?
Does BORe realize that those confiscations were deemed unconstitutional later on?
So it it BORe’s contention that Adhering to the Constitution is a “pretty extreme position.” ?
Who makes the decision on what constitutes an emergency, could Economic Chaos be considered an emergency?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.