Gov. Perdue issues another Illegal Executive Order...

The last week of heavy rain has prompted Gov. Bev to issue another State-wide SoE EO:

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

Please note section 7 of this EO:This is illegal for her to do. Nowhere in NC Statute does the Governor have the power or authority to selectively implement NC Statutes. When a SoE is declared, G.S. § 14-288.7 AUTOMATICALLY becomes effective. By telling the people of NC that this restriction is not in effect, Gov. Perdue is selectively enforcing the law of our state, and is committing a far-reaching overstep of her Executive Powers.

This action on her part is a direct threat to the separation of powers as outlined in our State Constitution, and is an attempt by the Governor to re-write State Law extra-legislatively.

Hopefully SAF is aware of what she is doing, and will bring this illegal and unconstitutional over-reach of executive power to light in their lawsuit. Because the ONLY reason she is adding this little addendum to her recent SoE EO's is because this is an election year, and because SAF has a lawsuit pending which addresses this very issue.

Never before has a Governor of NC put these qualifications in an SoE EO. The only reason Gov. Perdue has done this in her last two EOs is because SAF has a lawsuit pending against the State to strie this provision down. She is intentionally telling LEAs not to enforce the firearms restriction because she wants to set a precedent that this law is not used in SoEs, as a defense against SAF's lawsuit.

We see through your ruse, Gov. Perdue...

Gov. Perdue, you were elected to be the chief executive of our state. That means it is your SWORN DUTY to uphold and execute the laws of our state as laid out in the North Carolina General Code. It is NOT within your power or legal ability to CHANGE the way the law is applied. IT is NOT within your power or authority to change NC law for politically expedient reasons.

We see through your ruse Bev. And come November, we're going to make sure that you have a LOT fewer friends sitting in the GA.

We don't want treasonous, seditious dictators who manipulate the law for their own political expediency in the State House, Bev. We see through your ruse, and we're going to start calling you out publicly on your illegal activities.

Better start packing your bags now, Bev, because in 2012, you're going to be shown the door too...

I'm not following, what's the issue? She's saying that you may still keep and bear arms, and consume alcohol..

Under a state of emergency, it is written in our laws that no one is allowed to even so much as look at a gun off of your own personal private property. When she goes and says "I'm issuing a SoE, but I'm not going to follow clauses A,B, and C" is illegal because she's not allowed to pick and choose what laws can be enforced or not. Her job is to enforce the law and make sure the law is upheld - not neglect to act on a certain part of the law because its unpopular

Tawnos said:

I'm not following, what's the issue? She's saying that you may still keep and bear arms, and consume alcohol..

Click to expand...

Basically, she's choosing which parts of the law to enforce, which she has no right to do. Dreamer's point, which I completely agree with, is that this law is unconstitutional, and additionally, that the reason she is explicitly stating not to enforce this part is due to election concerns and the pending suit.

Sultan has hit the nail on the proverbial head.

The ONLY reason Perdue is putting these little "exemption clauses" in her recent SoE EOs is because she doesn't want a law-abiding citizen to get jacked under this law--and join the SAF lawsuit as a citizen with a legitimate grievance.

Bu issuing these EOs with an "exemption clause" she is attempting to build the case that since this provision of the NCGC is not used, it doesn't violate anyone's rights, and therefore the State can argue that SAFs lawsuit has no standing.

It's VERY clever manipulation of the legal system, and it evil, duplicitous, and illegal on it's face.

Hopefully SAF sees through this ruse, and will press forward with their suit with full force of the Rule of Law, and bolstered by the lessons learned from Heller and McDonald.

This lawsuit is just another brick in the Civil Rights Bridge that SAF and Alan Gura are building across the River of Filth that spews forth from the Gun Control wellspring. This lawsuit here in NC isn't an end goal in and of itself--it is a piece of a MUCH bigger puzzle, and the entire picture tey are attempting to put together is nation-wide normalized, standardized adherence to the original spirit of the 2A as articulated by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.

Go, go, Gura!!!

I don't follow her political leaning too closely but maybe she's sending a signal to the assembly to change the law, or at least showing support to the 2A. Declaring a state of emergency has much larger ramifications than restricting gun rights and stopping the flow of alcohol. There's money and resources that get switched on, which is the big reason the law exists.

I have no issue with the concept of a declared State of Emergency. Don't get me wrong. I understand that it sets in motion the mechanisms to get Federal funding for disaster relief, and to bring in help as needed for rebuilding roads and bridges, repairing water systems, and getting insurance companies to help people rebuild their homes.

The issue I have is this whole ban on transport, possession, and sales of firearms during an SoE. That law has NOTHING to do with "maintaining civil order", or "public safety" or anything like that. That law was put into place during the race riots in 1950's and 60s, to keep "the wrong kinds of people" from patrolling their own neighborhoods with firearms to keep out marauding bands of racists, Klansmen, and the like. It was put in place so that Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans couldn't defend themselves and secure their neighborhoods against men in white robes with torches and nooses.

And it needs to be stricken from the books.

It is an embarassment. It is based on the racist, morally repulsive idea that certain people don't have the right to defend themselves. It is a giant Jim Crow dog turd sitting on the dining room table of this fine state, and it needs to be tossed out like the putrid piece of offal that it is.

Anyone in government who defends this law needs to be IMMEDIATELY and loudly called out in public--to their face and in full view of the press--as a racist and a supporter of Jim Crow era policies. Again and again.

And they need to be asked--again and again, LOUDLY and in public--why they support such a repulsive, racist law that was designed to protect the Klan, and put the poor, the minorities, little children, and single women at risk.


But maybe someday I'll tell you all what I REALLY feel about this law...:banghead:

She is being bashed for declaring it, she is being bashed for not enforcing part of it. She didn't pass the law and she can't void the law. In 1969 she was finishing a Bachelor's at the University of Kentucky and didn't win her first elected position in the NC HofR until 1987. She may be the Governor but her hands are apparently tied in this issue as it concerns satisfying anyone here. Again, I don't have a dog in this fight, but...

What would you all have her do?

I'll say it again. She has selectively changed hours of service for truck drivers in the state of NC. And hours of service are set at the federal level, typically. She limited the SOE to truckers hauling fuel that did not drive out of the state of NC. But she suspended a federal law in the process. I don't think the argument needs to be that she can't choose to make an exception for firearms. The argument needs to be a very clear statement that the firearms restriction needs to be removed completely. The ambiguity of an argument can lead to devision, and that can lead to defeat or not even getting started.

paramedic70002 said:

What would you all have her do?

Click to expand...

Press to have the law changed to omit the restrictions on firearms & ammunition ASAP.

The way I see it, while I like it that she is effectively telling law enforcement to NOT enforce that restriction, at the same time she is setting up a legal precedent which I believe is potentially dangerous.

Our elected leaders shouldn't be able to pick & choose on a whim which parts of a law/statute are carried out. If a law is bad, then it needs to be changed/abolished. If this same type of governing were to be carried over to other laws & statutes in other circumstances it would be very bad.

The biggest issue I have is that every time someone pees in the ocean, she declares a SOE. This is really BS. Also the laws as they are written are BS. State of Emergency, what an abuse of BS!

paramedic70002 said:

Again, I don't have a dog in this fight, but...

Click to expand...

So are you saying that you have NEVER transported a firearm off your own property, or purchased a firearm or ammo during a declared State of Emergency?

Because if you HAVE ever done any of these things, you DO have a dog in the fight, and you should be mad as hell because an unconstitutional state law caused your otherwise normal, lawful actions to become the commission of a Class 1 Misdemeanor...

paramedic70002 said:

What would you all have her do?

Click to expand...

I would have her get 100% behind pushing the GA to repeal this law during the next legislative session. I would have her coming out publicly, denouncing this law for the racist, Jim Crow stinking piece of filth that it is. I would have her pushing her buddies in the GA to remove this foul, unconstitutional bit of statutory tripe from the books.

I would have her get up in front of the Courts in the SAF lawsuit about this law and saying, "yeah, Mr. Gura, you are right. This law needs to be struck down. And I'm going to do everything in my power as Chief Executive of the State to see that gets done."

I'd have her act in good faith to represent the will of the People, and to operate our State under rule of law, rather than selectively enforce a bad law for political expediency during an election year. I'd have her be honest, truthful and acting in a constitutionally respectful manner, rather than over-reaching her executive powers as a way of preemptively jockeying against the SAF lawsuit. I'd have her admitting this is a bad law, and that on HER watch, such laws would be rooted out of our Statutes and done away with by the legislature.

I'd have her pushing her comrades in the GA House and Senate to trash-can this law, rather than encouraging them to "desk-drawer-veto" it when it comes for vote again.

I'd have her do her job--which is to run this state according to her oath to uphold the Constitution, and represent the will of the people, rather than perpetuate the fithly tradition of racism, classism, and gun-grabbing propaganda of her party, and her fellow uber-rich elitist cronies...

I'd have her do the RIGHT thing.

Dreamer said:

So are you saying that you have NEVER transported a firearm off your own property, or purchased a firearm or ammo during a declared State of Emergency?


I'd have her do the RIGHT thing.

Click to expand...

1. I don't live or work in NC. I usually go down there one week a year for vacation (White Lake, it's GREAT!!).

2. The RIGHT thing takes time.