North Carolina declared 'gun free zone' in anticipation of Hurricane Earl - National gun rights | Examiner.com
Because common sense says that guns are only needed when things are fine and dandy, when SHTF you cannot have one when you need it most according to the government. The 2nd amendment disagrees.
If this stands, I can easily see The United States being declared a Gun-Free Zone during some future nebulous declaration of emergency. Keith
Maybe we should suggest that the governer ask the Polish Jewish community how well the "disarming for national security" went for them circa 1940. :twocents:
Exactly. And the hurricane makes the guns go all crazy, they escape your house and start doing all kinds of stuff...all on their own!
Based on average age, I suspect a lot of you have never lived as an adult where you couldn't have a CPL. Most of us with a lot of gray on our heads (or no hair at all) recall life before shall-issue concealed handgun licenses... or have lived where they were non-existent. All you need to do is look back about 20 years in most states. That said, people had some difficult choices to make when it came to protecting themselves and their loved ones. I'm not saying what I would do, or asking what you would do if the Governor of your state declared a state of emergency and told the LEO community that guns couldn't be carried by civilians. I am just pointing out that some difficult decisions would have to be made... well not that difficult! I hope the good guys in North Carolina don't get sucked up in the mess their government is creating for them.
Actually, Washington has a Katrina-style statue which allows the governor to abrogate the Art I Sec 24 rights of citizens during an declared emergency. (RCW 43.06.220, (1) (e): "The governor may prohibit ... The possession of firearms or any other deadly weapon by a person (other than a law enforcement officer) in a place other than that person's place of residence or business;" And how, pray tell, do you get the weapon back & forth between "place of residence" and "business"? By becoming subject to the "only ones" interpretation of the governor's whims? I'd say that it's past time to challenge the constitutionality of that one, both under Art I Sec 24, and (now) under 2A. SAF, Alan Gottlieb, where are you?
