Leland NC Tries to Circumvent the 2nd Amendment

It would seem that the town of Leland tried to circumvent the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, until the Firearms Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation sent out a demand letter, on 9/12, to the Town, regarding the municipality’s order banning some lawful and constitutionally protected firearm-related conduct in advance of Hurricane Florence.

“Effective at 9:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 12, 2018, the transportation or possession, or the sale or purchase of any dangerous weapon or substance, while off one’s own premises, is prohibited.” The letter stated.

Luckily the The Gun Feed and the THE DIGUISEPPE LAW FIRM, P.C. reacted quickly and sent follow up letters of their own.

Disasters and potential disasters are prima facia reasons to protect the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes, including self-defense and hunting; they are not political opportunities to restrict these crucial constitutional rights.

This was clearly an overstep by the Firearms Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation.
Why would anyone want to strip these rights when they have the potential of being needed the most?
Quad

GRRRRRRRRR....can't edit the typo in the title...

Maybe they wanted to prevent people from using their weapons to rob other people or something along those lines?

Just a thought.

originally posted by: kimish
Maybe they wanted to prevent people from using their weapons to rob other people or something along those lines?

Just a thought.

And an ignorant one at that...

a reply to: kimish


I don't know what the left doesn't understand about the words INALIENABLE RIGHTS.. Means given to all humans by god and can not be taken away by man. But on the flip side of that if my rights are truly inalienable then how can they be taken away when one gets arrested and serves their time.

a reply to: kimish


I think this is the main problem with Anti-2nd amendment people (not that you are), they think by taking everyone's rights away it will help with gun violence.
This couldn't be further from the truth. The only people something like this would help are the criminals.
They are called "criminals" for a reason.....they break laws. This would only hurt law abiding citizens, not criminals.
Quad

originally posted by: kimish
Maybe they wanted to prevent people from using their weapons to rob other people or something along those lines?

Just a thought.

Law abiding Gun owners don't use their weapons to "rob" people and commit felony crimes.

Perhaps you were thinking of Chicago gangs and thugs who just shoot at each other night and day for various trivial reason?

a reply to: Quadrivium


YUP! I always tell people to think of it this way,, if these people are willing to break the law and murder someone , what makes you think they are going to abide by a gun law? And if you ,hypothetically, you take all the guns, then they will kill with knives, take all the knives they will kill with bats. As long as humans have been around we have been killing each other.

never mind.

a reply to: BestinShow

Well ,Jesus Christ dude. A hurricane is coming and they're telling people not to leave their property with guns. My first thought was some aholes with guns going to neighbors houses and sticking them up for supplies. We all know how Katrina panned out, amirite? So, what was soo ignorant about my comment?

I'm all for the second btw and i didnt state where i stood on all of this. Your comment was unnecessary, out of line, rude and dickish.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I understand all that.

I don't articulate my thoughts into words well due to having ADD so i apologize for any misunderstandings. I stand firmly by the 2nd as a gun owner myself.

Eta: thank you for replying to me like a decent human being. Much appreciated 😊

a reply to: Quadrivium
Never mind. I think I read it wrong.

originally posted by: wylekat
a reply to: Quadrivium
Why would anyone want to strip these rights when they have the potential of being needed the most?

Because the town was going to have some police sponsored looting, and didn't want to get shot at?

You know, that actually crossed my mind. If you wanted to gather up (or steal) firearms, what better opportunity would you have?

a reply to: Quadrivium

SO I might have read it right after all?

It sounds damn shady.

originally posted by: wylekat
a reply to: Quadrivium

SO I might have read it right after all?

It sounds damn shady.

Yeap, they were pretty much saying:
You can't take em with you.
You can't have em on you.
You can't sell em.
Just leave em there.

And what if you wanted to take your multi thousand dollar collection out of the path of the storm?

Firearms are subject to a lot of regulation. That makes them expensive- They're also subject to the insanity of being regulated more every year.. that makes them more valuable EVERY year.

They wanted to prevent transportation of these valuable items right before a storm, during an evacuation?

I've got a finger for them.

originally posted by: kimish
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I understand all that.

I don't articulate my thoughts into words well due to having ADD so i apologize for any misunderstandings. I stand firmly by the 2nd as a gun owner myself.

Eta: thank you for replying to me like a decent human being. Much appreciated 😊

The real danger though is allowing government in any form or capacity to suspend the constitution because they simply think you "might" become criminally active because of a hurricane.
The actual police tried to do this and confiscate guns during Hurricane Katrina, and they did take guns from people, but there were many others who refused to allow these police to take their guns, and they told the police they were trespassing, (which was true), and that if they tried to take the guns by force they would be killed.

Guess what happened? The police folded up and left the premises. The news never reported on those cases though.

All they need is an excuse you give them to take your guns like a big storm or emergency. But saying "I think you might begin looting or shooting your neighbors because of this hurricane" simply isn't valid, nor is it legal.

Bush Junior and especially with Obama, America saw their rights erode greatly with things like this, and they made up all kinds of excuses to erode liberties and rights. Never give authoritarians an inch because when we do we find ourselves with fewer freedoms than China.

China today actually has some freedoms that we do not have in America today, because of the unchecked momentum of authoritarian politicians which includes many politicians from both major political parties.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: wylekat
a reply to: Quadrivium
Why would anyone want to strip these rights when they have the potential of being needed the most?

Because the town was going to have some police sponsored looting, and didn't want to get shot at?

You know, that actually crossed my mind. If you wanted to gather up (or steal) firearms, what better opportunity would you have?

"Never let a crisis go to waste" - various leftists in the US

With me , in a case like this I would follow Urdnot Wrex from Mass Effect

" How would you like it for us to take your guns"
" I would like to see you try"

(The original question by Security at the Citadel was "How would you like for us to arrest you ?"

a reply to: kimish

That sounds more like the lack of thinking.