“The new rule would allow authorities to confiscate guns of “unruly” people during an extreme weather event such as the April 2011 tornadoes or any other emergency.”
“The new rule would allow authorities to confiscate guns of “unruly” people during an extreme weather event such as the April 2011 tornadoes or any other emergency.”
I don’t find any justification in the New Oreleans National Guard “precedent,” a city can’t pull it off, it seeks to give a city the power to disarm citizens at a time that self-defense is critical, it’s unnecessary,and it would be ruled unconstitutional even by today’s liberal court. It completely removes the Second Amendment by giving the government the ability to remove arms from all citizens because they *might* be dangerous. Guns can be dangerous. Kind of the whole point, isn’t it? And, as we find out everyday from the EPA, there is no end to the ability to find danger in any substance or activity.
After all the majority of the population that wasn’t dirty poor or hiding out in their hidey-holes had evacuated to Houston. You are talking a very different situation from normal, one step below martial law. Normal rules do not apply. I hesitate to say no, but I also hesitate to give anyone that power.
There’s a legitimate public safety dilemma here.
The militia concept includes protecting ourselves and our neighbors during disruptions of public service. At the same time, a lot of armed people arguing over the same fuel pump or groceries can be dangerous too.
Not an answer, just a note that this may have some reason behind it other than nannyism.
It was done in New Orleans.
And just how are they going to do this without causing a revolt?