The latest SOE

http://www.governor.state.nc.us/NewsItems/ExecutiveOrderDetail.aspx?newsItemID=1455

Order 66, Section 7:

This order is adopted pursuant to my powers under Article 1 of Chapter 166A of the General Statutes and not under my authority under Article 36A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes. It does not trigger the limitations on weapons in G.S. § 14-288.7 or impose any limitation on the consumption, transportation, sale or purchase of alcoholic beverages.

Click to expand...

Interesting....

Ruger said:

http://www.governor.state.nc.us/NewsItems/ExecutiveOrderDetail.aspx?newsItemID=1455

Order 66, Section 7:



Interesting....

Click to expand...

But this does still say she has the "authority" to restrict the weapons possession etc...she is just choosing not to enact it. Trying to not further piss off voters 32 days away from the election and trying to keep us apathetic (so as not to fight to change the law) to the SOE declarations and the fact that she has the right to limit our carrying and purchases.

As mentioned by someone else on another thread, I still am not sure I believe she has the NC Constitutional authority to declare "a different kind of state of emergency". Pretty sure she is not able to simply make law on her own and trigger it one way and not another way. The statute clearly reads as follows

"§ 14‑288.7. Transporting dangerous weapon or substance during emergency; possessing off premises; exceptions.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to transport or possess off his own premises any dangerous weapon or substance in any area:

(1) In which a declared state of emergency exists; or

(2) Within the immediate vicinity of which a riot is occurring.

(b) This section does not apply to persons exempted from the provisions of G.S. 14‑269 with respect to any activities lawfully engaged in while carrying out their duties.

(c) Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (1969, c. 869, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 192; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)"


It doesn't say "in which the governor's choice of state of emergency exists"....I feel kind of weird arguing FOR a law being in effect that bans me from carrying while I will actually be carrying and breaking that law...hmmmm

But the law is the law...even though I believe the law is unreasonable AND unconstitutional. Too many dimensions to consider.

Long story short, she is trying to placate us and other gun owners to be less fed up with that law. We will still need to obviously push ahead this winter/spring to get that changed.

seriously, how can you pick and choose what you are like that? And the point still stands, the law against firearms in SOE needs to be remanded no matter what kind of SOE exsists...

Not to mention just a general WTF on why it is a SOE to begin with. It's a lot of rain that's it. Does she call it for any and everything or what?

Maverick9110e said:

seriously, how can you pick and choose what you are like that? And the point still stands, the law against firearms in SOE needs to be remanded no matter what kind of SOE exsists...

Not to mention just a general WTF on why it is a SOE to begin with. It's a lot of rain that's it. Does she call it for any and everything or what?

Click to expand...

Normally Governors call SOE in anticipation of possible disaster situations for various reasons, one of which is to open the gates to federal disaster relief funds which otherwise would not be available had they not declared the SOE. Additionally, it makes it possible to tap into other related funds the state has that are reserved for such declared situations. It's my guess that she called it for these reasons.

I'm also kind of stymied as to the legalities of picking and choosing which parts of the SOE she wanted to enact. Seems kind of weird to me as I was not aware that Governors could use what is virtually "line item" provisions at will. Hmmmm.

Either way, I think she heard enough from the last time she called SOE from gun owners and wasn't going to risk going through that again if she could help it lol. If that is the case, then I will take it as a small victory

If you've ever seen those videos from Katrina gun seizures you understand the importance of striking this law down. I remember one in particular of a little old lady with a tiny revolver being slammed to her kitchen floor by a big gun toting officer.

She was being forcefully evacuated and I think they took her down hard because she was showing an unloaded shooter to the camera crew.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1Qx0cTze0M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

rotorhead said:

Normally Governors call SOE in anticipation of possible disaster situations for various reasons, one of which is to open the gates to federal disaster relief funds which otherwise would not be available had they not declared the SOE. Additionally, it makes it possible to tap into other related funds the state has that are reserved for such declared situations. It's my guess that she called it for these reasons.

I'm also kind of stymied as to the legalities of picking and choosing which parts of the SOE she wanted to enact. Seems kind of weird to me as I was not aware that Governors could use what is virtually "line item" provisions at will. Hmmmm.

Either way, I think she heard enough from the last time she called SOE from gun owners and wasn't going to risk going through that again if she could help it lol. If that is the case, then I will take it as a small victory

Click to expand...

oh i knew all the benefits that come with calling a SOE, but it seems like calling it for every drop of a hat is a little ridiculous.

Maverick9110e said:

oh i knew all the benefits that come with calling a SOE, but it seems like calling it for every drop of a hat is a little ridiculous.

Click to expand...

I agree. I think State authorities got a little skittish after Katrina and now blow whistles at the slightest hint of "disaster". There's probably more to it than we know though.

The REAL reason Gov. Perdue has not enacted the SOE gun ban for this and the most recent SOEs is twofold:

1) this is an election year, and she is trying not to piss off the Law-abiding VOTERS of NC by disarming them with an illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral law, and,

2) SAF has a pending lawsuit currently on the docket in NC specifically addressing this law, and challenging its validity. By taking a "gubernatorial pass" on the "SOE firearms ban", she is hoping to weaken the case of SAF, by showing them that this law is rarely used, so they can keep it on the books to use when they want to.

This law needs to be purged from the NCGC. It is illogical. It is unconstitutional. It is a direct violation of the McDonald Ruling, and the NC State Constitution. It is immoral on it's face. It was passed for racist reasons, and is an embarrassment to EVERY law-biding citizen of this state who believes in fundamental human rights.

Call the Governor. Let her know that you think this law is bad, and needs to be struck from the books. And let her know that you do NOT appreciate her telling the press that she has the authority to NOT enact this provision during SOEs, because she DOES NOT have that authority. Let her know that we don't like the law, but it IS the law, and she is breaking it by NOT enforcing it.

And let her know that we don't appreciate treasonous lawbreakers sitting in the NC State House and General Assembly, and will be working with all our might to be sure she and her kind are put on the unemployment lines at the FIRST available electoral opportunity.

She can change the law. But she CAN'T just ignore it for political expediency. The Governor DOES NOT have the legal authority to pick and choose which parts of the NCGC she wants to enforce, based on political expediency...

What I can't understand is why she has to declare a SOE for the entire state. Why not just declare one for the affected area?

Adam H said:

What I can't understand is why she has to declare a SOE for the entire state. Why not just declare one for the affected area?

Click to expand...

its all about the money. why issue a SoE for a small part of the state, and only get a small part of federal emergency funds, when you can issue a SoE for the entire state, and get more money?