Rights during a State of Emergency

They did pass a law after that specifically so that would not happen again. GOAL has been trying to get a similar one passed here.


I thought Bush already signed that at the Federal level in 2008. Several states passed laws like the one in Louisiana, and he followed afterwards. So, does it matter if we have one in MA or not if it's already Federal law that they're not allowed to do it?
 
I thought Bush already signed that at the Federal level in 2008. Several states passed laws like the one in Louisiana, and he followed afterwards. So, does it matter if we have one in MA or not if it's already Federal law that they're not allowed to do it?

I'm unamware of said law (Federal i mean) Any links, info? Or what should we search for? Can anyone else confirm this?
 
If Katrina was any evidence, theres no such thing as rights during a state of emergency. Your rights extend to however far you can shoot.
 
We have no rights. We have privileges.

If a right can be taken away, it is no right at all. It's a privilege.

Sadly, we do not have a right to anything in this country. Not even the right to live and breathe the air for free. You must buy Robamacare or be fined and eventually jailed for not paying the fine.

Your response is sarcastic, but let's be clear:

We have rights. They are provided by the Creator and were declared in 1776. Those rights, however, are not always or fully enforced. You can declare yourself to be a Doctor, but it doesn't mean jack unless you can back it up.

The ability to exercise your rights from day-to-day is normally enforced by the government as set down in the Constitution. However, exercising them during (for example) a state of emergency or even in a state which restricts them means enforcing them yourself against the desire of the government.
 
Last edited:
I look at Gov. Dewey Erkel's mindset as vacillating somewhere between an obsession with children's building blocks crashing down and a fascination with looking at himself in the mirror every chance available and my response is: NO DECLARATION from ANYONE, removes or suspends MY Constitutional Rights. I will be polite and appropriate in ANY SOE, I'm part of that system, EMS Professional. As a previous poster said, the response will be appropriate to meet any measures brought against me.
More like, the response will be so deliberate and crushing and decisive that none will venture again, or, further in, abridging my rights.
 
They did pass a law after that specifically so that would not happen again. GOAL has been trying to get a similar one passed here.

I don't expect that we'll ever succeed in getting that sort of law passed in MA. MCOPA wields too much power and accountability by police is NOT something that they ever want to happen. See comment below.

If Katrina was any evidence, theres no such thing as rights during a state of emergency. Your rights extend to however far you can shoot.

Sadly I agree with this.

Whether there is a law or not, the bureaucrats/politicians/police will do WHATEVER THEY WANT and let the courts sort it out later. TTBOMK, most of the people wronged in NOLA never got those guns back. IIRC they DEMANDED proof of ownership and since most lost all their papers in the disaster they had no proof, so the police kept the guns even after being under orders to return them. Boston, Bacon Hill and most/many communities would be no different in MA. MA gov't holds the Constitution in contempt on a good day, do you honestly think they would do different in a "state of emergency"?
 
Is there a provision for imprisonment in the constitution? That's one example of rights being taken away.

Is there a legal line drawn between free speech and making threats? Ie getting arrested for threatening to kill the president?

I guess the question is, are the instances where we know rights get taken away provided for in the constitution or is it all big gov bs?
 
I don't expect that we'll ever succeed in getting that sort of law passed in MA. MCOPA wields too much power and accountability by police is NOT something that they ever want to happen. See comment below.
It was a "done deal" and approved at the point that is generally a fait accompli. The chiefs killed it because it imposed a penalty on PDs that violated the law. Unfortunately, GOAL was not able to tell us which reps/senators spiked it (it might have been a back room deal that GOAL is not privvy to)
 
Your response is sarcastic, but let's be clear:

We have rights. They are provided by the Creator and were declared in 1776. Those rights, however, are not always or fully enforced. You can declare yourself to be a Doctor, but it doesn't mean jack unless you can back it up.

The ability to exercise your rights from day-to-day is normally enforced by the government as set down in the Constitution. However, exercising them during (for example) a state of emergency or even in a state which restricts them means enforcing them yourself against the desire of the government.

You think you have rights? You're delusional. You don't have anything. You do what you're allowed to do.
 
An irony is that during Winter Storm Nemo in 2013, when the Governor banned travel on the Roads of the Commonwealth after 4PM, he left travel open to essential personnel and members of the media.

The Courts have ruled that in this day and age, when nearly every individual has a phone capable of recording video or taking pictures, we are all members of "The Press" as defined in the First Amendment. That being said, I am sure that here in the People's Commonwealth, anyone trying to use this defense if they were caught driving would have been tossed into the gulag faster than you can blink.

Having media credentials does not make someone a member of "The Press" (and this has been stated by courts across the country time and time again) nor does possession of credentials confer any special privileges that anyone without credentials does not have.

IANAL, Just using my lay reading of multiple cases where these facts have been stated by judges at the trial and appellate level in both state and federal courts.
 
If you think you had no rights during a state of emergency then you've never read the Bill that was passed in 2009 during the swine flu.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st00pdf/st00018.pdf

Some highlights:


(1) to require the owner or occupier of premises to permit entry into and investigation of the premises;
(2) to close, direct, and compel the evacuation of, or to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated any building or facility, and to allow the reopening of the building or facility when the danger has ended;
(3) to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated, or to destroy any material; (this one is interesting as the bill further states that if the state destroys say , your house and they are mistaken in doing so (i.e. no infection) you have no recourse whatsoever)
(4) to restrict or prohibit assemblages of persons;
(5) to require a health care facility to provide services or the use of its facility, or to transfer the management and supervision of the health care facility to the department or to a local public health authority;
(6) to control ingress to and egress from any stricken or threatened public area, and the movement of persons and materials within the area;
(7) to adopt and enforce measures to provide for the safe disposal of infectious waste and human remains, provided that religious, cultural, family, and individual beliefs of the deceased person shall be followed to the extent possible when disposing of human remains, whenever that may be done without endangering the public health;
(8) to procure, take immediate possession from any source, store, or distribute any anti-toxins, serums, vaccines, immunizing agents, antibiotics, and other pharmaceutical agents or medical supplies located within the commonwealth as may be necessary to respond to the emergency;
(9) to require in-state health care providers to assist in the performance of vaccination, treatment, examination, or testing of any individual as a condition of licensure, authorization, or the ability to continue to function as a health care provider in the commonwealth" - Bill 122460
 
Take a look at the health emergency bill they passed a while back. It talks about quarantines but doesn't say if they will take you from your house and leave it vulnerable to looters. It talks about taking supplies to use for the emergency. It talks about sanitizing property. It never mentions anything resembling compensation or lost wages.

I don't think it passed because Chapter 111, Sections 94 through 96 (the sections that threw 4A out the window), still require wage compensation for those quarantined, police still need a warrant to enter a home and remove the sick, no mention of authority to just arrest anyone not cooperating, etc.
 
I don't think it passed because Chapter 111, Sections 94 through 96 (the sections that threw 4A out the window), still require wage compensation for those quarantined, police still need a warrant to enter a home and remove the sick, no mention of authority to just arrest anyone not cooperating, etc.

Senate Bill S2028
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/186/Senate/S2028


4/28/2009 Senate Passed to be engrossed 36 YEAS to 0 NAYS (See Senate Roll Call, No. 32
 
nor does possession of credentials confer any special privileges that anyone without credentials does not have.
In practice, it makes a difference. This is also why the Boston PD has its own credentialing program - only Boston PD issued press passes are recognized by the BPD.

There are all sorts of mail order press passes which may work if you are covering some high school football game, but are unlikely to work in any "real situation" like getting close to a crime scene.
 
We have no rights. We have privileges.

If a right can be taken away, it is no right at all. It's a privilege.

Sadly, we do not have a right to anything in this country. Not even the right to live and breathe the air for free. You must buy Robamacare or be fined and eventually jailed for not paying the fine.

You always have rights. Whether or not criminals attempt to infringe upon them does not mean they cease to exist. The only thing that stops them from existing is you not exercising them.

That and being dragged to jail and confined.

Or shot.

Your response is sarcastic, but let's be clear:

We have rights. They are provided by the Creator and were declared in 1776. Those rights, however, are not always or fully enforced. You can declare yourself to be a Doctor, but it doesn't mean jack unless you can back it up.

The ability to exercise your rights from day-to-day is normally enforced by the government as set down in the Constitution. However, exercising them during (for example) a state of emergency or even in a state which restricts them means enforcing them yourself against the desire of the government.
I wasn't being sarcastic.

You have no rights in the eyes of the government. The Constitution says you have rights from your creator, but your government begs to differ.

You can pretend otherwise, and that you have self-determination and can exercise your rights, you do so at your peril when they conflict with your government's opinion on the matter.

Perhaps someday you will be vindicated in your rights and they'll give you some money for your time spent in prison or plaster the ruling on your tombstone.

The only solution is to change the people who are running the government.
 
In practice, it makes a difference. This is also why the Boston PD has its own credentialing program - only Boston PD issued press passes are recognized by the BPD.

There are all sorts of mail order press passes which may work if you are covering some high school football game, but are unlikely to work in any "real situation" like getting close to a crime scene.

No Doubt, however, it is not up to the Police or any other Governmental Body to determine who is, and who is not "Press"


"It is important to realize that you do not need a press "credential" to take pictures or cover events in public places (streets, parks, sidewalks that are not closed off to public access). You do not need government approval to work as a journalist, although it may be beneficial to obtain a “Press ID” or an official government-issued press credential for other reasons"

From https://nppa.org/page/5137
 
You think you have rights? You're delusional. You don't have anything. You do what you're allowed to do.

Again, a cynical, sarcastic response. We're all bitter about the turn towards madness the nation is taking. But the fact of the matter is, you DO have rights as explained by Locke and as declared in the Declaration of Independence. Don't ever forget it and don't ever deny it.

Understanding and then declaring those rights, and securing the framework which allows their practice are two different things entirely.
 
Last edited:
Again, a cynical, sarcastic response. We're all bitter about the turn towards madness the nation is taking. But the fact of the matter is, you DO have rights as explained by Locke and as declared in the Declaration of Independence. Don't ever forget it and don't ever deny it.

Understanding and then declaring those rights, and securing the framework which allows their practice are two different things entirely.

That's they key. I'm sure we (and most every other person reading this site) agree that we have the rights we think we have.

The problem is that our government doesn't think we have the rights we think we have. Our government doesn't even think we have the rights that our Constitution enumerates to tell/remind them we have.
 
The concept of "rights" is an academic discussion. As a matter of practicality, the issue is one of force and power - who will use it and who will prevail. Just ask a North Korean.
 
Again, a cynical, sarcastic response. We're all bitter about the turn towards madness the nation is taking. But the fact of the matter is, you DO have rights as explained by Locke and as declared in the Declaration of Independence. Don't ever forget it and don't ever deny it.

Understanding and then declaring those rights, and securing the framework which allows their practice are two different things entirely.

If you can't exercise them, you don't have them. You're fooling yourself.
 
That's they key. I'm sure we (and most every other person reading this site) agree that we have the rights we think we have.

The problem is that our government doesn't think we have the rights we think we have. Our government doesn't even think we have the rights that our Constitution enumerates to tell/remind them we have.

Close, but no cigar.

Most people don't think that we have the rights that we think we have (if that makes sense). The vast majority of people will go along with the herd; the herd is led/directed by people in uniforms; they are directed from above.

It's like swimming against the current - it's easy to be overwhelmed, and when you become exhausted, you drown, or are plucked from the river by a lifeguard, to whom you now own thanks.

Everyone agreed that the Governor was right to close the roads when it snowed - because the decision of "Do I stay in, and eat Beefaroni, or go and get some stuff at the store" is taken away from them. For most, the thought of having to say, "It's too nasty to drive," is just too much thinking....too much responsibility.

I'll bet if we did a random traffic roadblock, and checked vehicles for jumper cables, we'd get an <10% hit rate. And you expect people to think about having to take care of themselves or assert their rights in a real emergency? [rofl][sad]
 
I'm unamware of said law (Federal i mean) Any links, info? Or what should we search for? Can anyone else confirm this?

Surprisingly it's on wikipedia
Confiscation of civilian firearms

Controversy arose over a September 8 city-wide order by New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass to local police, U.S. Army National Guard soldiers, and Deputy U.S. Marshals to confiscate all civilian-held firearms. "No one will be able to be armed," Compass said. "Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns." Seizures were carried out without warrant, and in some cases with excessive force; one instance captured on film involved 58 year old New Orleans resident Patricia Konie. Konie stayed behind, in her well provisioned home, and had an old revolver for protection. A group of police entered the house, and when she refused to surrender her revolver, she was tackled and it was removed by force. Konie's shoulder was fractured, and she was taken into police custody for failing to surrender her firearm.[85][86]

Angered citizens, backed by the National Rifle Association and other organizations, filed protests over the constitutionality of such an order and the difficulty in tracking seizures, as paperwork was rarely filed during the searches. Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association, defended the right of affected citizens to retain firearms, saying that, "What we’ve seen in Louisiana - the breakdown of law and order in the aftermath of disaster - is exactly the kind of situation where the Second Amendment was intended to allow citizens to protect themselves." The searches received little news coverage, though reaction from groups such as the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, and Gun Owners of America was immediate and heated, and a lawsuit was filed September 22 by the NRA and SAF on behalf of two firearm owners whose firearms were seized. On September 23, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana issued a restraining order to bar further firearms confiscations.[85]

After refusing to admit that it had any seized firearms, the city revealed in mid-March that it did have a cache of some 1000 firearms seized after the hurricane; this disclosure came after the NRA filed a motion in court to hold the city in contempt for failure to comply with the U.S. District Court's earlier order to return all seized firearms. On April 14, 2006, it was announced that the city will begin to return seized firearms, however as of early 2008, many firearms were still in police possession, and the matter was still in court.[85] The matter was finally settled in favor of the NRA in October 2008. Per the agreement, the city was required to relax the strict proof of ownership requirements previously used, and was to release firearms to their owners with an affidavit claiming ownership and a background check to verify that the owner is legally able to possess a firearm.[87]

Louisiana legislator Steve Scalise introduced Louisiana House Bill 760, which would prohibit confiscation of firearms in a state of emergency, unless the seizure is pursuant to the investigation of a crime, or if the seizure is necessary to prevent immediate harm to the officer or another individual. On June 8, 2006, HB 760 was signed into law.[88] 21 other states joined Louisiana in enacting similar laws. A federal law prohibiting seizure of lawfully held firearms during an emergency, the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006, passed in the House with a vote of 322 to 99, and in the Senate by 84-16. The bill was signed into law by President Bush on October 9, 2006.[89]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina

eta: Wolfenkraft beat me to it and had a direct link to the law.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom