More on gun confiscation bans
In Arizona, a veto of such a bill was almost overridden:
The Republican-led Arizona Senate narrowly voted against overriding Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano’s veto of a bill that would have prohibited the imposition of firearms restrictions during a declared state of emergency.
“This is America. This is not a police state,” said Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City. “This is the governor by her veto trying to take her authority over the Second Amendment.”
Meanwhile, today’s asshat is Oklahoma State Representative Mike Shelton:
During states of emergency, I think police need total control. They don’t need to worry who has guns and who doesn’t. If the governor calls for Oklahomans to relinquish their guns, the public needs to do so
From their cold, dead hands.
Update: Left out an important word at first. Thanks to publicola for the heads up. The bill was not overridden.
April 28th, 2006 at 1:54 am
The police will only need to worry about my guns if they try and snatch them.
Such an easy problem to solve! Dont waste sparse manpower during a crisis by turning nervous homeowners into heavily armed criminals! Police are supposed to HELP citizens, not kick them when they are down.
April 28th, 2006 at 2:08 am
I think if another disaster strikes and there’s an attempt to forcibly remove people’s rightly-owned weapons, there are going to be some devastating results. Putting much-needed manpower to work confiscating legal possessions and consequently putting their lives at risk was as asinine a move as I’ve ever seen a State government making. One or two stand-offs or a bunch of wounded officers is (hopefully) going to cause some some bureaucrats to get their heads out of their asses and reconsider the consequences of putting people’s lives in danger versus allowing law-abiding citizens to keep and maintain their only means of protection.
April 28th, 2006 at 2:34 am
I think the Arizona was narrowly not overidden.
April 28th, 2006 at 8:18 am
http://www.channeloklahoma.com/news/9023840/detail.html
“OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma legislator said he hopes to make some changes to a new law that makes it illegal for authorities to confiscate weapons during a state of emergency.
…
House Bill 2696
…”
The dateline was Apr 26.
April 28th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
One or two stand-offs or a bunch of wounded officers is (hopefully) going to cause some some bureaucrats to get their heads out of their asses and reconsider the consequences of putting people’s lives in danger versus allowing law-abiding citizens to keep and maintain their only means of protection.
Hopefully is right. Methinks it’s much more likely that the b-crats will see any resistance as proof positive that guns need to be seized, and will result in many gun-owners shot without hesitation. Don’t forget, the people that want to do this stuff are thinking backwards… why would they change and suddenly become logical?
April 29th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
tkdkerry is right. The “authorities” who order gun confiscations do so believing that guns are threats to “law enforcement.” Any injury to “law enforcement” during confiscation efforts simply reinforces their original belief.
The best resistance would be to disable the “law enforcement” people with a hammer or a lead pipe, not a gun, but that probably is not going to be very practical