Federal court strikes down NC emergency gun ban [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Federal court strikes down NC emergency gun ban


Professor Zero
03-29-2012, 15:20
http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=397

BELLEVUE, WA - A federal district court judge in North Carolina has just
struck down that state's emergency power to impose a ban on firearms and
ammunition outside the home during a declared emergency, ruling that the
provision violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The case, Bateman v. Purdue, was brought by the Second Amendment
Foundation, Grass Roots North Carolina FFE and three individual
plaintiffs. Defendants in the case were Gov. Beverly Purdue and Reuben
F. Young, secretary of the state's Department of Crime Control and
Public Safety, in their official capacities.

In his opinion, Judge Malcolm J. Howard, senior United States district
judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina, wrote, "the court
finds that the statutes at issue here are subject to strict
scrutiny...While the bans imposed pursuant to these statutes may be
limited in duration, it cannot be overlooked that the statutes strip
peaceable, law abiding citizens of the right to arm themselves in
defense of hearth and home, striking at the very core of the Second
Amendment."

"When SAF attorney Alan Gura won the Heller case at the Supreme Court,"
noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, "the gun ban crowd
said that we were a one-trick-pony' and that we would never knock out
another gun law. Well, SAF has now knocked out gun laws in Maryland,
Illinois and North Carolina.

"We filed this lawsuit on the day we won the McDonald case against
Chicago," he added, "extending the Second Amendment to all 50 states.
This was part of our strategy of winning firearms freedoms one lawsuit
at a time."

Gottlieb pointed to language in Judge Howard's ruling that solidifies
the Second Amendment's reach outside the home. The judge noted that the
Supreme Court in Heller noted that the right to keep and bear arms "was
valued not only for preserving the militia, but 'more important(ly) for
self-defense and hunting."

"Therefore," Judge Malcolm wrote, "the Second Amendment right to keep
and bear arms 'is not strictly limited to the home environment but
extends in some form to wherever those activities or needs occur."

"Under the laws at issue here, citizens are prohibited from engaging,
outside their home, in any activities secured by the Second Amendment,"
Judge Malcolm wrote. They may not carry defensive weapons outside the
home, hunt or engage in firearm related sporting activities.
Additionally, although the statutes do not directly regulate the
possession of firearms within the home, they effectively prohibit law
abiding citizens from purchasing and transporting to their homes
firearms and ammunition needed for self-defense. As such, these laws
burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment."

Elitematch
03-29-2012, 15:40
Its about time..

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

kirgi08
03-29-2012, 16:26
:woohoo:

Navitimer
03-29-2012, 17:15
That's great to hear! In the past there have been "states of emergency" declared for things such as hurricanes, etc., so it will be good to know that carry during those times cannot be prohibited. Thanks for posting this!

Warp
03-29-2012, 17:17
Good deal.

Gunnut 45/454
03-29-2012, 17:31
Well it's good to here that the courts actually read the true meaning of the 2nd! That every American can and should be able to defend themselves EVERYWHERE at anytime and place!:supergrin:

TSAX
03-29-2012, 17:34
Well it's good to here that the courts actually read the true meaning of the 2nd! That every American can and should be able to defend themselves EVERYWHERE at anytime and place!:supergrin:

It would be nice if more states were like this.







:50cal:

RenegadeGlocker
03-29-2012, 17:42
Expect more if filed by competent attorneys like these.

Just as Roe took down a lot of anti-abortion laws, Heller/ McDonald is going to take down a lot of anti-gun laws.

unit1069
03-30-2012, 05:07
During the Hurricane Katrina disaster the people of Louisiana learned how Democrat/"progressive" governments will use emergency powers to seize lawfully-owned weapons.

I'm surprised North Carolina would attempt the same State power grab. There must be a Democrat/"progressive" equation in operation here.

bear62
03-30-2012, 06:02
Well ........ we needed some good news!!!!!!!!!

LoadToadBoss
03-30-2012, 07:08
During the Hurricane Katrina disaster the people of Louisiana learned how Democrat/"progressive" governments will use emergency powers to seize lawfully-owned weapons.

I'm surprised North Carolina would attempt the same State power grab. There must be a Democrat/"progressive" equation in operation here.
I said it before and I'll say it again. In an emergency situation, it doesn't matter what the law says the authorities can or cannot do. They will do what they think they need to do and then let the lawyers hash it out when things settle down. All a LEO needs to do is claim "officer safety" and you're handing your firearm over, especially when possessing the firearm in public during a declared emergency. After years of litigation, the government gets its hand slapped and Joe Private Citizen is out thousands in attorney's fees.

redbaron007
03-30-2012, 07:51
I wonder if they will appeal it.

Good for North Carolina!! CONGRATS!!! :thumbsup:


:wavey:

red

kirgi08
03-30-2012, 15:11
During the Hurricane Katrina disaster the people of Louisiana learned how Democrat/"progressive" governments will use emergency powers to seize lawfully-owned weapons.


I'm surprised North Carolina would attempt the same State power grab. There must be a Democrat/"progressive" equation in operation here.

East of Charlotte is pretty much "left",west of Charlotte is "right". Asheville being as far left as DC is.:upeyes:

I wonder if they will appeal it.

Good for North Carolina!! CONGRATS!!! :thumbsup:


:wavey:

red

:whistling: :supergrin:

Arc Angel
03-30-2012, 15:24
Good! Even though I don't live there I was aware of this law, and thought it a patent violation of peoples' Second Amendment rights.

toshbar
03-30-2012, 19:16
Here is the court doc.


http://ia700501.us.archive.org/7/items/gov.uscourts.nced.107258/gov.uscourts.nced.107258.87.0.pdf

ArmoryDoc
03-30-2012, 19:22
Why are we so brainwashed to believe it takes a Federal Court to affirm our rights to keep and bear arms. It's already written in the Constitution. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

kirgi08
03-30-2012, 21:02
If'n they don't,whom will? .'08.

Arc Angel
03-31-2012, 05:41
Why are we so brainwashed to believe it takes a Federal Court to affirm our rights to keep and bear arms. It's already written in the Constitution. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

Try explaining this to the state legislatures of: New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, Delaware, and California. All of whom are flagrant violators of the people's rights to keep AND bear arms. ;)

ArmoryDoc
03-31-2012, 07:49
I know. And we not only keep turning our backs when these politicians do this stuff but we keep electing these violators of our rights. Until the "people" get tired of it, it will continue. Sad.

redbaron007
03-31-2012, 15:03
Why are we so brainwashed to believe it takes a Federal Court to affirm our rights to keep and bear arms. It's already written in the Constitution. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

Theoretically speaking...you are correct.

However, reality speaking....it ain't that easy, unfortunately! :crying:

:wavey:

red

jpa
03-31-2012, 20:40
We already got this covered....

NRS 414.155 Limitations on emergency powers relating to firearms. Pursuant to Amendment II of the Constitution of the United States and Section 11 of Article 1 of the Constitution of the State of Nevada, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, the emergency powers conferred upon the Governor and upon the executive heads or governing bodies of the political subdivisions of this State must not be construed to allow:

1. The confiscation of a firearm from a person unless the person is:
(a) In unlawful possession of the firearm; or
(b) Unlawfully carrying the firearm; or

2. The imposition of additional restrictions as to the lawful possession, transfer, sale, carrying, storage, display or use of:
(a) Firearms;
(b) Ammunition; or
(c) Components of firearms or ammunition.
(Added to NRS by 2007, 358)

I forgot to add this section....

NRS 41.0395 Person from whom firearm is unlawfully confiscated may commence action against State or political subdivision responsible for confiscation; court in which action may be commenced; court shall award attorney’s fees and costs.

1. A person from whom a firearm is confiscated in violation of NRS 414.155 may seek relief in a suit, action or other proceeding at law or in equity, including, without limitation, an action for the return of the firearm, against:
(a) The State of Nevada or a political subdivision thereof; and
(b) The officer or employee of the State or a political subdivision thereof or worker who confiscated or authorized the confiscation of the firearm.

2. The proceeding may be commenced in a court of competent jurisdiction in the county in which:
(a) The person bringing the proceeding resides; or
(b) The firearm may be found.

3. If a person who brings a proceeding pursuant to this section prevails, the court shall award the person, in addition to any other remedy provided by law, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

4. As used in this section:
(a) “Firearm” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 414.0355.
(b) “Worker” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 414.110.
(Added to NRS by 2007, 359)