gun law question

Status
Not open for further replies.
brboyer said:
No it is not true.
Click to expand...

Can you explain this Federal statute, then, please?

42 USC 5207:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00005207----000-.html

§ 5207. Firearms policies

(a) Prohibition on confiscation of firearms
No officer or employee of the United States (including any member of the uniformed services), or person operating pursuant to or under color of Federal law, or receiving Federal funds, or under control of any Federal official, or providing services to such an officer, employee, or other person, while acting in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency, may—
(1) temporarily or permanently seize, or authorize seizure of, any firearm the possession of which is not prohibited under Federal, State, or local law, other than for forfeiture in compliance with Federal law or as evidence in a criminal investigation;
(2) require registration of any firearm for which registration is not required by Federal, State, or local law;
(3) prohibit possession of any firearm, or promulgate any rule, regulation, or order prohibiting possession of any firearm, in any place or by any person where such possession is not otherwise prohibited by Federal, State, or local law; or
(4) prohibit the carrying of firearms by any person otherwise authorized to carry firearms under Federal, State, or local law, solely because such person is operating under the direction, control, or supervision of a Federal agency in support of relief from the major disaster or emergency.
(b) Limitation
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any person in subsection (a) from requiring the temporary surrender of a firearm as a condition for entry into any mode of transportation used for rescue or evacuation during a major disaster or emergency, provided that such temporarily surrendered firearm is returned at the completion of such rescue or evacuation.
(c) Private rights of action
(1) In general
Any individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may seek relief in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress against any person who subjects such individual, or causes such individual to be subjected, to the deprivation of any of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by this section.
(2) Remedies
In addition to any existing remedy in law or equity, under any law, an individual aggrieved by the seizure or confiscation of a firearm in violation of this section may bring an action for return of such firearm in the United States district court in the district in which that individual resides or in which such firearm may be found.
(3) Attorney fees
In any action or proceeding to enforce this section, the court shall award the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.
Click to expand...
 
NavyLT said:
Can you explain this Federal statute, then, please?

42 USC 5207:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00005207----000-.html
Click to expand...
Well, first there's this:
No officer or employee of the United States
Click to expand...

It only applies to the Feds and folks working under their direction, it does not prevent State or local officials from doing it.

Second, no law will prevent criminals from breaking the law.

Third, Governor's have almost unlimited power under their State Constitutions or state laws to do just about anything they deem necessary in an emergency.

Fourth, We only have a civil (possibly criminal) remedy available to us after the unlawful confiscation.
 
As a matter of law, your guns would likely be safe from confiscation and many instances.

In practice however, if soldiers, police, etc. show up at your door and demand them, what can you do? Tough situation when those charged with enforcing the law are the very people violating it . . . though you may have an actionable case in the future once your area recovers from the disaster.
 
It was illegal the first time they did it and it didnt stop anyone from doing so

The law was feel good BS nothing more
 
Well the cops...
I'd tell them to go make the place safe, and I'll put my guns up, but since they aren't doing their job....

Soldiers don't have ammo in their guns, IT IS ILLEGAL FOR FEDERAL TROOPS, OR FEDERALLY CALLED UP RESERVE OR GUARD TO BE USED IN THE US FOR MILITARY PURPOSES, look up Posse Comitatus.

State guard (as in the local state) maybe be armed, and unless they are in a martial law zone, usually are only there to 'assist' local authorities, they do have police powers at the will of the governor. Point is most aren't that armed, this law means any gun grabbing is Illegal.

Soldiers with blanks, yeah... hey buddy this here has lead in it it.
 
AZ did pass a law that prohibits the confiscation of firearms in emergency situations. We don't HAVE many natural disasters out here, so I don't know how well it will work. I will say that if we,
A) had a natural disaster that required us to,
B) accept outside LE help, we'd better,
C) let them know what OUR laws are here, so we don't have CHP slamming some old woman to the ground on national TV because she dared to have a firearm., Or, more likely, CHP running away under fire from our little old ladies, outraged that someone was trying to take their firearms!
 
We read these gun websites, but we have no guns. So many guys actually believe that the types of agencies which people worry about are that stupid?
Such a stale joke fools nobody.

After Katrina, TN passed a law which seems to prevent confiscation.
 
"Never" is not the correct word to use in that sentence.

In PA, they passed a law that says unless there is some underlying circumstance, no weapons will be confiscated during a natural disaster.
 
Folks - wasn't it last summer when the governor of one of the Carolina's (can't remember which) made some rash statement to the effect that, in the event of a natural disaster, he would authorize police forces to do exactly the same thing as those jackwipes in NO did after Katrina?
 
That law is a cruel joke. There is no penaty for the offending officer. You are only allowed to sue. The rest of the federal gun laws are all felonies, IIRC.
 
After the uproar over the Katrina confiscations, some state legislatures did indeed pass laws against such confiscations. Texas was one. I think, but am not positive, that Louisiana also did that. So, once again, it's a state-by-state search of the laws. As usual, no "One size fits all."
 
Louisiana did indeed pass such a law. BUT, when the next hurricane hit, and people were fleeing the city, people were being stopped and searched for weapons. If they were found, (whether they were legal or not,) they were asked to prove ownership. If they didn't have the receipt in their pocket, they were confiscated. (Stolen.) Apparently this is a trick New Orleans cops have used for decades.

Yes several states passed laws preventing this, but the last thing Ray Nagin was concerned about was the rule of law.
 
So during hunting season, everyone has to carry proof of ownership, or the "stolen" guns are confiscated?
 
>>Posse Comitatus<<

Don't count on any military member carrying an empty firearm... only idiots send troops out with automatic weapons that can be stolen by a thug with a baseball bat (yes, I know some Army CCs did just that, but that was then.....)

Even when NOT authorized to work as Law Enforcement agents, they are legally authorized to protect themselves, government facilities, and prevent weapons from being taken...

But they CAN be used in LE efforts... Congress can authorize them... It was permitted in the original Posse Comitatus Act...

Then there is this... the Insurrection Act of 1807... from before Posse Comitatus, and still the law of the land....

§ 332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

It got worse in 2007 but was repealed and the original 1807 act restored in 2008...

This sort of limits the ability of a State to mobilize their own militia to defend against an oppressive FedGov invasion...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top