Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: A Governor's Powers During Times of "Crisis"

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    A Governor's Powers During Times of "Crisis"

    ETA: Ooops - the title should read "A Governor's Powers During a 'State of Emergency'" Mod/Admin, please change, then delete this line. Thanks.

    I received the following e-mail from Dudley Brown and associates aka the National Association for Gun Rights. As I was reading through it, I realized that our Second Amendment was short-sighted in nature. It's intent was to prevent the federal government from infringing upon the RKBA. Do you think it would have been better to confer authority to regulate arms to the federal government AND prevent them from infringement? Or do you think it was written the way it was because if it'd attempted to pull that power from the states it never would have passed?

    Here's the e-mail:

    Do you remember Hurricane Katrina?

    With all the news about Hurricane Irene, I have been thinking about your gun rights in light of the most recent "state of emergency."

    As I'm sure you recall, during Katrina, Second Amendment rights of individuals were trampled on by government officials.

    All because a single elected official issued a decree from up on high.

    But since then, the cry from grassroots gun activists has been so loud that several states have adopted legislation to prevent that very thing from happening in their state.

    During Hurricane Irene, Governor Perdue of North Carolina even tailored her declared "State of Emergency" to make sure it did not infringe on gun owners' rights.

    Governor Perdue was scared of the power of grassroots gun rights activists.

    North Carolina law, though, shouldn't even allow a governor to strip citizens of their God-given right to self defense.
    There is still much work to be done in states all across this country.

    Several state legislatures continue to give the governor of their state the authority to strip Second Amendment rights during a "state of emergency."

    That is unacceptable.

    Together, you and I can send a message to state legislators -- pass laws to protect gun owners during a "state of emergency."

    Just as soon as you can, get on the phone with your state elected officials. Demand that they actively call for and push for legislation that would protect gun owners during a "state of emergency."

    A "state of emergency" could be declared at any time. Take action today.

    For Freedom,


    Dudley Brown
    Executive Director
    Last edited by since9; 08-31-2011 at 04:29 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    Some states were paying attention after Katrina and passed laws to prevent that type of gun-grab:


    Shotgun News, October 1, 2006
    Emergency Gun Confiscations

    You may recall that last year, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, police attempting to restore order confiscated firearms from law-abiding residents. They did not make this decision on their own; Mayor Nagin, who failed at almost everything else that he attempted with respect to saving lives and restoring order, came up with this directive.

    Under the best of conditions, disarming law-abiding residents of New Orleans would be both unconstitutional and incredibly stupid. New Orleans, to put it mildly, has a violent crime problem. But in the aftermath of a hurricane that knocked out all phone service, in which large numbers of police officers deserted their posts? This was beyond stupid.

    <fix-it snip>

    Clayton E. Cramer is a software engineer and historian. His last book was Concealed Weapon Laws of the Early Republic: Dueling, Southern Violence, and Moral Reform (Praeger Press, 1999). His web site is http://www.claytoncramer.com.
    Last edited by okboomer; 09-03-2011 at 05:42 PM.
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Any thought of simply posting a link and quoting the relevant points in accordance with rule (11) RESPECT COPYRIGHT HOLDERS: We often share news stories with one another. Please remember that these stories are copyrighted material and only post a fair-use excerpt along with a link where the rest of the story may be read.

    Thanks.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  4. #4
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by since9
    Do you think it would have been better to confer authority to regulate arms to the federal government AND prevent them from infringement? Or do you think it was written the way it was because if it'd attempted to pull that power from the states it never would have passed?
    Actually, It was written as is to stop the feds from infringing on the RKBA. 2A was never meant to be applied to the states. When the morons on Mt. Olympus decided that the feds could regulate the firearms industry through the commerce clause, congress should have impeached each one that ruled in favor of it. The 14th was never intended to incorporate the BOR to the states. Another impeachable ruling.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    Actually, It was written as is to stop the feds from infringing on the RKBA. 2A was never meant to be applied to the states. When the morons on Mt. Olympus decided that the feds could regulate the firearms industry through the commerce clause, congress should have impeached each one that ruled in favor of it. The 14th was never intended to incorporate the BOR to the states. Another impeachable ruling.
    I'm curious - how would you suggest that the states be prevented from infringing on, among others, the pre-existing rights enumerated in the BOR?

    Or does your view of The United States go back to where/when there was no union but a confederation of independently soverign States? In which case, how would you suggest State A ensure that the rights of its citizens are respected while they are sojourning in State B? (And, just for kicks - do the citizens of State A and State B have the identically same rights both within their respective States and when they are sojourning in other States?)

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  6. #6
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    Actually, It was written as is to stop the feds from infringing on the RKBA. 2A was never meant to be applied to the states. When the morons on Mt. Olympus decided that the feds could regulate the firearms industry through the commerce clause, congress should have impeached each one that ruled in favor of it. The 14th was never intended to incorporate the BOR to the states. Another impeachable ruling.
    Seriously? Do you have cites to any documentation that supports your claim that the Bill of Rights was never intended to create limits on what State governments can do, i.e., that the 14th Amendment "was never intended to incorporate the BOR to the states?"

    Do not all American citizens have the 1st Amendment Rights of free speech or the 5th Amendment Right against self-incrimination? Does the BOR, in your opinion, prevent only the Federal government from abridging those God-given, Constitutionally-protected rights, that State governments don't have to abide by them? Help me understand your opinion on this.

  7. #7
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    Seriously? Do you have cites to any documentation that supports your claim that the Bill of Rights was never intended to create limits on what State governments can do, i.e., that the 14th Amendment "was never intended to incorporate the BOR to the states?"

    Do not all American citizens have the 1st Amendment Rights of free speech or the 5th Amendment Right against self-incrimination? Does the BOR, in your opinion, prevent only the Federal government from abridging those God-given, Constitutionally-protected rights, that State governments don't have to abide by them? Help me understand your opinion on this.
    Start with the congressional debates about the 14th amendment. Then take a look at the ratification debates of the state legislatures. All you need is there.

    The way the 14th was ratified was dubious at best anyway. After the War of Northern Aggression the states ratified the 13th. Only one refused to ratify it. No problem. When they refused to ratify the 14th and 15th (only one ratified), congress passed the Reconstruction Act putting the southern states under marshall law. One condition they had to meet to eliminate marshall law was that they had to ratify the 14th and 15th. It seems awfully suspect that it was fine for them to ratify the 13th of their own will, but were forced to ratify the 14th and 15th. Like I said, dubious at best.

    The 14th was meant to say that the freedmen (former slaves) were American citizens and had all rights afforded. That the United States of America was not responsible for the debt of the Confederate States of America. That states could not make one set of laws for one group of people and another for the rest. The freedmen were being denied access to courts and were being denied their RKBA among other things. This is why some states' Constitutions say that the legislature can regulate the wearing of arms. They banned open carry in Texas for all people but (at the time) was only enforcing it against freedmen. They later came to enforce it on all people.

    That was when the Republic was lost and the Constitution was effectively put on life support. It has long since died.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    I'm sorry, but polemics will not suffice as an acceptable citation.

    Much of what you note is historically accurate. However, the end result is the end result and all case law since then has been based on that end result. Even SCOTUS was forced to accept that as fact when they decided MacDonald - else they would need to continue an untenable fiction that only parts of the Constitution applied to the individual States while other parts did not. Kind of "You are all equal in some ways but not in all ways" just could not be supported any more.

    I admire your effort, but would prefer that you base your response in reality.

    Oh, by the way - I'm sorry your side lost the Civil War. (Winners get to name it in the history books, no matter how much that pisses off the losers.)

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  9. #9
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    [snip=skidmark;1604297]

    Oh, by the way - I'm sorry your side lost the Civil War. (Winners get to name it in the history books, no matter how much that pisses off the losers.)

    stay safe.[/snip]

    Whose side lost the War of Northern Aggression? And you put your location in Virginia? Shame on you!

    On a more serious note, what I fear even more than clueless governors and mayors is the possibility that, during an emergency, whether caused by natural disaster or manmade, a majority of police officers would go "rogue". Should that happen, how would we know who the "good" officers are and who the "rogue" officers are? I think we saw a little of that in New Orleans after Katrina.

    The upcoming event that I am going to closely watch are the 2012 elections. Should be interesting.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    I'm surprised that you think that it will take a declared disaster for certain police officers to "go rogue". There is more than ample evidence that many officers are already "rogue", and that it is our duty to attempt to reign them in either by advocating with their superious or by lawsuit against them when such advocacy fails.

    In the meantime, several states have had the good fortune to have a sufficient number of legislators agree to pass laws limiting the ability of the executive to limit such "rogue" behavior both by official and by unofficial action. I would encourage those in states where such legislation has not yet been enacted to remind their Legislature (and those who constitute the membership thereof) that doing so has not resulted in the outbreak of anarchy or open rebellion, but rather worked to prevent the same as well as preventing general criminal predation.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    Actually, It was written as is to stop the feds from infringing on the RKBA. 2A was never meant to be applied to the states. When the morons on Mt. Olympus decided that the feds could regulate the firearms industry through the commerce clause, congress should have impeached each one that ruled in favor of it. The 14th was never intended to incorporate the BOR to the states. Another impeachable ruling.
    You need to actually read the language of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The language used in the Constitution and Bill of Rights was very specific as in "Congress shall make no law..." (Amendment I). No such restrictive language is included in Amendment II, meaning that it applies to everyone. The guarantees of rights declared in the Bill of Rights are to secure certain rights for every citizen regardless of which state they may reside.

    The language of Amendment XIV very precisely reaffirms the application of the Bill of Rights to the States, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

  12. #12
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by rpyne View Post
    You need to actually read the language of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The language used in the Constitution and Bill of Rights was very specific as in "Congress shall make no law..." (Amendment I). No such restrictive language is included in Amendment II, meaning that it applies to everyone. The guarantees of rights declared in the Bill of Rights are to secure certain rights for every citizen regardless of which state they may reside.

    The language of Amendment XIV very precisely reaffirms the application of the Bill of Rights to the States, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
    You need to actually read the Federalists Papers, also the notes taken during the debates while framing the Constitution, also the ratification debates of the several states, also the debates in congress when the 14th was being drafted, also the ratification debates in the several states on the 14th, also the dubious manner in which the southern states were forced to ratify the 14th and 15th. You will find that SCOTUS has been wrong in a lot of the cases it has ruled on in the past.

    Don't take what SCOTUS or these "Constitutional academics" say as the truth. What the universities teach on the Constitution these days is, not what the Constitution actually says and means, but what SCOTUS says that it says or means. The problem with that is, SCOTUS has no power to interpret the Constitution, only the power to find if laws are in line with the Constitution. If you can find the power for SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution in the Constitution, let me know where it is, I can't find it.

    You do that, then come back to the discussion.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    rpyne -

    Since the Constitution only deals with how the federal government is to operate, any thought that it places a restriction on, or commands a duty by, any entity that is not the federal government is not just plain wrong but - Oh, someone help me out here! I'm looking for a word/phrase that is not inherently impolite and insulting. Because one Amendment in the BOR begins with the phrase "Congress shall ..." and another does not in no way means that only the former directs the behavior of Congress and the latter does not.

    I think that we here all pretty much agree that there are "natural rights" which we would enjoy even if the Constitution had never been written. But the point of writing it was to impose order on how the federal government was to operate, and not to tell anybody else what they could or could not do. The Founding Fathers were quite content with the thought that there were many things the individual States could do that the federal government was enjoined from doing, as those things were in their minds the natural functioning of the State. The few things in the Constitution that directly effect the States are there to prevent one State's actions from imposing on the rights of citizens of another State.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    492

    Well said

    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    I'm surprised that you think that it will take a declared disaster for certain police officers to "go rogue". There is more than ample evidence that many officers are already "rogue", and that it is our duty to attempt to reign them in either by advocating with their superious or by lawsuit against them when such advocacy fails.

    In the meantime, several states have had the good fortune to have a sufficient number of legislators agree to pass laws limiting the ability of the executive to limit such "rogue" behavior both by official and by unofficial action. I would encourage those in states where such legislation has not yet been enacted to remind their Legislature (and those who constitute the membership thereof) that doing so has not resulted in the outbreak of anarchy or open rebellion, but rather worked to prevent the same as well as preventing general criminal predation.

    stay safe.
    I agree

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    492

    Reading this thread

    brings to my mind the argument/debate about the so-called National Carry law. Many oppose it, as in their minds it is an infringement of state's rights. The argument is something along the lines of: there is no constitutional provision for the feds to dictate to the states the shall and shall not of carrying a firearm, etc.

    Now, I know that I am not the brightest bulb on the marquee, BUT, to me, the National Carry law would not be a case of the feds telling the states what they HAVE TO DO, but rather telling states (or a particular state) what that state is NOT free to do: ie; violate the constitutionally enumerated rights of citizens in that state.

    For the federal government to take action to prevent the several states from violating the BOR is not the same thing as formulating a new mandate to which the states must adhere.

    If for example, a state passed a law along the lines of something like no warrant is needed for a search of a private residence, or, an accused person may not enjoy the benefits of legal council in criminal court, etc. then there would be a chorus of demands that the federal government step in and stop the violation of the BOR by that state. Why is it then acceptable for a state to make a law (or laws) along the lines of there is no right to keep and bear arms?

    roN

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    nc
    Posts
    15
    PROCLAMATION OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY

    BY THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA



    Pursuant to the authority vested in me as Governor by the Constitution and the laws of the State of North Carolina:



    Section 1.

    I declare that a state of emergency exists in the following counties in North Carolina due to the approach of Hurricane Irene:

    Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chowan, Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Currituck, Dare, Duplin, Edgecombe, Gates, Greene, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford, Hyde, Johnston, Jones, Lenoir, Martin, Nash, New Hanover, Northampton, Onslow, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Pitt, Robeson, Sampson, Tyrrell, Washington, Wayne, Wilson

    Section 2.

    I order all state and local government entities and agencies to cooperate in the implementation of the provisions of this proclamation and the provisions of the North Carolina Emergency Operations Plan.

    Section 3.

    I delegate to Reuben F. Young, Secretary of Crime Control and Public Safety, or his designee, all power and authority granted to me and required of me by Article 1 of Chapter 166A of the General Statutes for the purpose of implementing the State’s Emergency Operations Plan and to take such further action as is necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the populace in North Carolina.

    Section 4.

    Further, Secretary Young, as chief coordinating officer for the State of North Carolina, shall exercise the powers prescribed in G. S.§ 143B-476.

    Section 5.

    I further direct Secretary Young to seek assistance from any and all agencies of the United States Government as may be needed to meet the emergency and seek reimbursement for costs incurred by the State in responding to this emergency.

    Section 6.

    I hereby order this proclamation: (a) to be distributed to the news media and other organizations calculated to bring its contents to the attention of the general public; (b) unless the circumstances of the state of emergency prevent or impede, to be promptly filed with the Secretary of Crime Control and Public Safety, the Secretary of State, and the clerks of superior court in the counties to which it applies; and (c) to be distributed to others as necessary to assure proper implementation of this proclamation.

    Section 7.

    This order is adopted pursuant to my powers under Article 1 of Chapter 166A of the General Statutes and 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.

    Section 8.

    This Executive Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect for thirty (30) days or the duration of the emergency, whichever is less.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed my name and affixed the Great Seal of the State of North Carolina at the Capitol in the City of Raleigh, this 24th day of August in the year of our Lord two thousand and eleven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-sixth.

    __________________________________________

    Beverly Eaves Perdue

    Governor

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    nc
    Posts
    15
    It would not look good to do that when the 2nd A Foundation is suing for just such action....so toss in a little disclaimer.
    cw

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by 6L6GC View Post
    For the federal government to take action to prevent the several states from violating the BOR is not the same thing as formulating a new mandate to which the states must adhere.
    Well said.

    Why is it then acceptable for a state to make a law (or laws) along the lines of there is no right to keep and bear arms?
    The courts are the ones who've enforced other Amendments while whittling away at the Second.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Actually, Governor Bev is a liar, and so is her AG...

    She's been declaring SoE's under 166A since the Second Amendment Foundation filed their suit against her about the NCGS §14-288-7 scandal last winter. She claims that 166A (which is part of the ADMINISTRATIVE code of NC, and is designed to define the way emergency powers are delegated and how they may be implemented by State, County, and local governments) DOES NOT automatically evoke the ban on transport posession or sales of firearms that NCGS §14-288-7 doe, but she is lying. If you read the ENTIRETY of 166A, it actually says near the end of the code that it DOES invoke the provisions of NCGS §14-288-7 automatically.

    Since 166A is "administrative code", Bev DOES have the authority under NC to selectively enforce or ignore parts of it.

    However, NCGS §14-288-7 is part of the CRIMINAL CODE, and by it's wording is automatically put into force ANY TIME an SoE is declared--whether it's declared by Executive Order, by order of a local government or even on the federal level--ANY SoE.

    And the Criminal Code is NOT subject to the whim of the executive. Criminal codes are either ALWAYS in force (like laws against murder or assault or the like) or they go into effect under specific circumstances (like a declared SoE, or during a riot).

    So Bev is lying. And so is her AG. There is simply NO WAY to declare an SoE under NC law that does NOT automatically effect this transport and carry ban.

    And Bev telling NC LEAs to NOT enforce NCGS §14-288-7 at her whim is simply NOT legal, because selective enforcement of the Criminal Code is not within the powers of the Executive under the NC Constitution.

    Bev is lying. And so is her AG. Shame on them. They are ONLY doing this to try to do an "end run" around the SAF lawsuit, by attempting to establish that the citizens of NC (and SAF) have no "standing" because nobody has been prosecuted under this law, and there for they can show no "injury". They are using this tactic to try and game the courts.

    The funny thing is that the Press (and SAF and GRNC) are not making this fact public. Why they are NOT making a big deal about the fact that Bev and her AG are liars, and are declaring Executive Order SoEs with illegal provisions (directing LEAs to selectively enforce the Criminal Code) is beyond me.

    Frankly, I think Bev should be impeached, and Roy Cooper should be disbarred. The "carry ban" law is really secondary in this case when you understand what is REALLY going on. The Governor and AG of NC are acting FAR outside the bounds of the Rule of Law, and are acting in a manner that is in direct violation to their Oaths of Office, and the NC Constitution, which is, at the very least, impeachable, if not outright seditious and treasonous...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •