Bill To Prevent Feds From Confiscating Guns


PDA






Mobile Vulgus
January 14, 2006, 04:21 AM
Concord, New Hampshire

In the January session of the New Hampshire legislature, a bill has been introduced to prevent officials from confiscating legally owned guns from the citizens of the state during a state of emergency. (See text of bill - House Bill 1639-FN)

During the Katrina disaster, attempts were made by Federal Marshals to sweep certain areas free of guns. Naturally, there was no way to discern legal guns from illegal in the midst of the crisis, so it was assumed that all guns would be confiscated by Federal officials.

Now, as a gun rights advocate, I must stand against this abuse of Federal power. Though, I must say that I can certainly understand the desire that FEMA officials had to assure the safety of rescue workers who were trying to help the citizens of a devastated area. It is certainly not an unreasonable assumption to make that rescue workers should expect not to be shot at as they attempt to save people's lives, after all.

However, tromping on the Constitutional rights of everyone in an affected area is not the best way to settle this matter. Gun confiscation sweeps should not be made as a matter of course in an emergency under any circumstances.

It should go without saying that if such sweeps are made as a matter of course in an emergency we will not only leave the citizenry with no means of self-protection during that very crisis, but we are handing to the government the kind of power that could easily be abused and expanded to the point where just any reason can be offered as an "emergency situation" where private guns might be confiscated. This is not an unwarranted fear, but one very real to which the people in the Katrina hurricane area can attest.

Furthermore, it would be foolish to assume it will be common from this point forward that rescue workers will be fired upon while carrying out of their duties in emergencies. Unfortunately, that it happened once is enough for certain Federal agencies to make the wild assumption that this isn't an isolated incident. To their great credit, the sponsors of the New Hampshire bill are aware that the government will jump to the conclusion that in the future gun confiscation should be a part of every response to an emergency and the Granite Staters wish to prevent a future overextension of Federal police powers.

The bill is sponsored by Rep. Paul Hopfgarten at the urging of an organization called The New Hampshire Underground in an effort to guide New Hampshire's laws in a more Libertarian direction. (This group is attempting to encourage like-minded, Libertarians to move to New Hampshire to gain political influence in connection with The Free State Project.)

Now, I don't know how much support this bill has in the New Hampshire legislature and have no idea of how sanguine its supporters are of passage. But it is a bill that should be introduced in every single state of the Union and I hope it sees passage in New Hampshire.

In any case, all who are reading this who are interested in the great American tradition of self-protection and 2nd Amendment rights should contact their state representatives and urge a replication of New Hampshire's efforts.

Source:
http://www.publiusforum.com/hustonnhguns.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Bill To Prevent Feds From Confiscating Guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Alex45ACP
January 14, 2006, 04:29 AM
In the January session of the New Hampshire legislature, a bill has been introduced to prevent officials from confiscating legally owned guns from the citizens of the state during a state of emergency.

Why only during a state of emergency?

WT
January 14, 2006, 01:02 PM
I thought this was already covered by the 2nd Amendment.

CAPTAIN MIKE
January 14, 2006, 01:32 PM
The law you're referring to was already passed.
It's called The Second Amendment to the Constitution.

dolanp
January 14, 2006, 01:45 PM
And not to mention the Fourth. It's a shame this even needs to be addressed with legislation.

Robert J McElwain
January 14, 2006, 02:48 PM
And not to mention the Fourth. It's a shame this even needs to be addressed with legislation.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

Any time we pass a law further defining an existing right, we run the risk of reducing that right.

Bob

benEzra
January 15, 2006, 01:26 AM
The law you're referring to was already passed.
It's called The Second Amendment to the Constitution.
The Second Amendment doesn't specify what level of crime gun confiscation is, nor does it set forth punishment for offenders.

The proposed law does both. It has the same relationship to the Second Amendment that laws setting forth punishments for warrantless searches have to the Fourth. It is a law enforcing the Second Amendment, and I think it's a good thing.

LAK
January 15, 2006, 10:22 AM
Interesting. Will a "law" stop an executive order issued under the magic words "a matter of national security"....

So, on the subject of law and confiscation, I received the following from a source I can not name. I can state that the source is not an employee of the two banks mentioned - nor the Office of the Fatherland Security. Anyone else know anything about this? I know the economic paper bubble is about to burst in this country. But what about this; true? False?

Bank Of America and Compass Bank managers have been instructing their employees in the last few weeks on how to respond to customer demands in the event of a collapse of the U.S. economy - specifically telling the employees that only agents from the Department Of Homoland Security will have authority to decide what belongings customers may have from their safe deposit boxes - and that precious metals, weapons and other valuables will not be released to them. The bank employees were also stictly prohibited from revealing to anyone the bank's new "guidelines."
----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

antarti
January 21, 2006, 01:29 PM
or at least, in print now.. I dunno if i would call this confirmation, but it's out there.

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=9995

beerslurpy
January 21, 2006, 02:19 PM
Bank Of America and Compass Bank managers have been instructing their employees in the last few weeks on how to respond to customer demands in the event of a collapse of the U.S. economy - specifically telling the employees that only agents from the Department Of Homoland Security will have authority to decide what belongings customers may have from their safe deposit boxes - and that precious metals, weapons and other valuables will not be released to them. The bank employees were also stictly prohibited from revealing to anyone the bank's new "guidelines."

Where did this come from? And why would the US economy collapse? And who keeps weapons and gold boullion in safety deposity boxes?

Manedwolf
January 21, 2006, 02:48 PM
The law you're referring to was already passed.
It's called The Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Yeah, it is. But apparently some local officials in states need it pounded into their heads in more of a stated law, since they completely ignored that in New Orleans, remember?

Manedwolf
January 21, 2006, 02:50 PM
Interesting. Will a "law" stop an executive order issued under the magic words "a matter of national security"....

So, on the subject of law and confiscation, I received the following from a source I can not name. I can state that the source is not an employee of the two banks mentioned - nor the Office of the Fatherland Security. Anyone else know anything about this? I know the economic paper bubble is about to burst in this country. But what about this; true? False?


----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

I've give it five tinfoil hats and expect it on Snopes soon. There are NO sources cited in that terribly leftist rumor blog, there... check out one of the other "stories", 'PREPARE TO DEFEND THE PEOPLE OF IRAN FROM A NUCLEAR ATTACK!' ...uh...

Manedwolf
January 21, 2006, 02:55 PM
or at least, in print now.. I dunno if i would call this confirmation, but it's out there.

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=9995

Another "article" on that site: 'Bush Honors 9/11 by Putting Assault Weapons Back onto American Streets '

Gee, I wonder what way THAT rumorblog site leans, hm?

LAK
January 23, 2006, 06:01 AM
Well, the person who passed it on to me had already sent it out to a pile of individuals on the web - and I have no doubt it has wound up, and will continue to wind up on any number of websites "left" and "right". FWIW though, it has since been confirmed by another bank employee. The original source was out of the State - the confirming bank employee works in a local branch. That's good enough for me.

I do wonder why so many people seem to worship at the feet of snopes.com.
------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

xd45gaper
January 23, 2006, 08:33 AM
what would happen if say they where sweeping your area and they came to get your guns and you killed a couple federal agents for trying to take your guns away??

would you be cruisfied for this?or would the second amendement take care of you?

Can'thavenuthingood
January 23, 2006, 09:10 AM
In a sweep of weapons confiscation and you shot a couple of federal agents?

You'd die of lead poisoning, right there on your own doorstep.

I have a problem with Legislatures passing additional laws to stop confiscation. Anything they give, they can take away. Passing these laws erodes the 2nd Amendment.

Snopes makes for a decent central location to begin checking out some of the oddball crap that fills my mailbox. Some of this stuff has been out there a long time. I can always tell when an aquaintance has discovered the Internet and Email.

Vick

xd9fan
January 23, 2006, 11:09 AM
The law you're referring to was already passed.
It's called The Second Amendment to the Constitution.


NO Kidding.....Just further proof the Govt does not think the BofRs matters and that only through them can we have liberty and freedom. This is dangerous.

I wish more Republicians would wake up

Camp David
January 23, 2006, 12:10 PM
I thought this was already covered by the 2nd Amendment.

Agreed... any additional legislation would be redundant...

TallPine
January 23, 2006, 12:41 PM
if such sweeps are made as a matter of course in an emergency
That's going to be an awfully dang dangerous business :p

We know what the FEMAnazis are up to now - don't try that in MY neighborhood :fire:

What are they going to do, turn Anycity, US into Falujah....? :uhoh:

Pilgrim
January 23, 2006, 02:44 PM
Bank Of America and Compass Bank managers have been instructing their employees in the last few weeks on how to respond to customer demands in the event of a collapse of the U.S. economy - specifically telling the employees that only agents from the Department Of Homoland Security will have authority to decide what belongings customers may have from their safe deposit boxes - and that precious metals, weapons and other valuables will not be released to them. The bank employees were also stictly prohibited from revealing to anyone the bank's new "guidelines."
How would the bank know what you have in your safe deposit box?

Pilgrim

engineer151515
January 23, 2006, 02:53 PM
The Second Amendment doesn't specify what level of crime gun confiscation is, nor does it set forth punishment for offenders......................


Plus - there are those in Congress (aka Feinstein) who do not believe that the 2nd Amendment applies to citizens of the United States. Only "Militia", which they interpret as the State National Guard.

Scary, huh.


You would think that would be settled by now, but sadly, it is not.

Johnnybgood
January 23, 2006, 04:08 PM
there was an economic collapse and the banks try to hold what legally belongs to citizens they may start having some real difficultys.

LAK
January 24, 2006, 07:59 AM
How would the bank know what you have in your safe deposit box?
Well, it is not the bank that would be the problem ;)

The way things were worded the banks are, in a declared state of emergency, under Federal directive to do as they are told. And it would seem that customers would have only supervised access to their boxes, access only after a " representative" of the federal government had examined the contents and removed certain items, or more likely - in practice IMO - the boxes would be opened prior to customers having access.
----------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

LAK
January 24, 2006, 08:12 AM
there was an economic collapse and the banks try to hold what legally belongs to citizens they may start having some real difficultys.
You mean "difficulties" as when Roosevelt seized everyone's gold in the 1930s? Or the 1934 NFA took subguns and machineguns out of many hands, then heavily taxed and licensed them? Difficulties as when the 1968 Gun Control Act was passed? The "Assault Weapons Ban"? As the income of millions of Americans has been stolen at source and redistributed in the form of income taxes? A system with a plethora of recurring taxes - "fees" - and "licensing" for many private activities? This could be a long list.

Let's just bear in mind that it would be nothing new. And it is amazing what so many people will agree to allow perpetrated upon them when the idea is packaged in the right manner, by the right people ;)
----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

If you enjoyed reading about "Bill To Prevent Feds From Confiscating Guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!