No Gun Rights in King, North Carolina
The small city of King, North Carolina declared a state of emergency due to the winter storm that hammered the mid Atlantic region of the country a few days ago. As part of this state of emergency declaration, the city empowered itself to severely infringed upon residents Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. The city enacted many restrictions including a curfew, restrictions on alcohol, and a ban on selling or purchasing firearms and ammunition or the possession of any weapon off of one’s own property. According to a local news agency,
Effective Sunday afternoon, alcohol restrictions and a curfew were lifted. All other remaining restrictions would continue until Monday, said Paula May, King police chief.
Other restrictions include a ban on the sale or purchase of any type of firearm, ammunition, explosive or any possession of such items off a person’s own premises.
It was so nice of the city on Sunday to give residents back the right to leave their house or buy a beer, but they still denied residents the right to bear arms off of their own property for another day. The Constitution of the United States ensures that we the people have the right to keep and bear arms. In addition to this, Article 1 Sec. 30 of the Constitution of North Carolina ensures that the right of the people of the state to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. How is it that residents of King, N.C. had a right that is guaranteed to them by their state and federal governments taken away by city officials?
If it can happen in this city, can it happen in yours? The right to keep and bear arms is needed most in times of emergencies. Criminals know when the police are incapable of effectively doing their jobs or responding to 911 calls, and they will use that opportunity to commit crimes. Imagine if you lived in King, N.C. and your power goes out because of the blizzard. You then grab your family and walk a couple of blocks to a friend’s house because he has a nice wood stove that can keep your family warm. If you bring a gun with you for protection, you would be breaking the law. By keeping a bearing and arm off of your own property, you would be considered a criminal. This is wrong.
The right to keep in bear arms is an integral part of being an American. In the Heller case, the Supreme Court stressed the importance of this right. It is not something that can be temporarily written off because a city official says so. According to the SCOTUS blog on the Heller case,
Although times have changed since 1791, Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority, “it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.” Examining the words of the Amendment, the Court concluded “we find they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” — in other words, for self-defense. “The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,” it added.
The individual right interpretation, the Court said, “is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment,” going back to 17th Century England, as well as by gun rights laws in the states before and immediately after the Amendment was put into the U.S. Constitution.
What Congress did in drafting the Amendment, the Court said, was “to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one.” (emphasis added)
There is still a legal question as to whether the 2nd amendment applies to local and state governments, but according to the Supreme Court, the right to carry a weapon for self defense predates the Constitution. It was a pre-existing right, which means it exists even if there is no law officially saying it exists. Because of this, it is wrong for a city (or any government) to infringe on the right of residents to keep and bear arms, especially in a time of emergency when the ability to defend yourself is needed most. Doing so violates an inherent right.
What is happening to our country? It is becoming less recognizable every day.
Related posts:
- Legislating Away our Rights and The Meaning of the Second Amendment
- If You Have a Gun, You Must be a Criminal
Comments (6)
Matt
February 8th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
I can’t help but think that these things are little test cases to establish that this crap can be done. Just give one good crisis, and it will be exploited!
LD Jackson
February 8th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Why is it that the right to keep and bear arms is always one of the first rights the authorities want to restrict or remove?
theLibertyPen
February 8th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
I agree with Matt 100%. Little by little they are chipping away at the second amendment. I wonder if the Police Chief is elected or appointed?
Liberty
February 8th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
If the right to bear arms can be restricted in an emergency, what about freedom of speech? Or maybe they could suspend the need to obtain a warrant to search someone’s house or tap their phone?
John Carey
February 8th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
It does not matter, emergency or no emergency the Constitution is still the law of the land. And unless they suspend it, which they can’t without suspending themselves they are breaking the law.
Dean
February 9th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Liberty, aside from the Constitutionality of these restrictions, the timing is most curious.
They choose to levy these restrictions when a man most needs his guns and liquor. Precisely, what sort of behavior were they attempting to prohibit by otherwise law abiding citizens?
The timing suggests ulterior motives as Matt alludes to.
Leave a reply