Rights during a State of Emergency

[Bonesinium]

You guys are arguing semantics and little more. Different perspectives...realistically vs ideology.

 

[Cero]

Ok so the Govanah has the ability to declare SOE and suspend rights. This dangerously close to Marshal Law. There is no military dictator installed but some police mindset is not far off from it.
I know that during Nemo there was the threat of up to a year in prison for violating the travel ban. Can they just impose whatever punishment they want or is that articulated anywhere? Is it a misdemeanor or felony to disregard a SOE?

 

[MisterHappy]

The real problem is that the question needs to be asked.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Bottom line is that politicians/bureaucrats/police will do whatever they want. After the SOE is over, a few years later a court will rule whether what was done was legal or not.

However, any confiscated guns will likely be LONG GONE by then, regardless if they were taken illegally. And getting compensation from a PD is much like getting blood from a stone, even with a court ruling in your favor. [In an SOE, many confiscations will almost certainly NOT be documented, so when guns disappear the proper authorities won't even have record that it happened, never mind knowing where they went! This is indeed part of what happened in NOLA and would be no different in MA.]

 

[Dangger]

ouisiana 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]

I am aware of some states passing this law after Katrina. What was mentioned in a previous post was that it was also passed at the Federal level, which I have never heard before. Which means in Mass, such things can and will happen. Correct me if I'm wrong. We all would love to know if the people of Mass are protected from such violations (However I am doubtful)

 

[Len-2A Training]

I am aware of some states passing this law after Katrina. What was mentioned in a previous post was that it was also passed at the Federal level, which I have never heard before. Which means in Mass, such things can and will happen. Correct me if I'm wrong. We all would love to know if the people of Mass are protected from such violations (However I am doubtful)

You can always sue after the fact. Nothing will prevent them from doing as they please. Any accountability (next to nil) will come years later just like NOLA.

 

[dragonballzz]

You can always sue after the fact. Nothing will prevent them from doing as they please. Any accountability (next to nil) will come years later just like NOLA.

"Obey and grieve."

 

[30Mauser]

You can always sue after the fact. Nothing will prevent them from doing as they please. Any accountability (next to nil) will come years later just like NOLA.

Folks who know me IRL know that I'm not one to advocate a violent response, but in this case I find the following coming to mind:

 

[Lank]

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

Truly orwellian.

 

[DONALDG-HOG]

If you are a higher tiered/more important citizen (i.e. a former or retired cop) can you do whatever you want?

Yes, but look on the positive, those 'rights' aren't respected anyway, so you really aren't losing out on anything more!

 

[Quiet]

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?

Sadly, I think we're both right.

 

[Horrible]

It reads as though the governor's authority when he declares a state of emergency can supercede your constitutional rights.

While this is true in practice, I don't recall a section of the Constitution that allows for its suspension temporary or otherwise.

 

[MensetFAL]

While this is true in practice, I don't recall a section of the Constitution that allows for its suspension temporary or otherwise.

Is there a section of the US Constitution that prohibits the government from doing this? The 6th Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures". The 12th grants additional powers to individual states that are not otherwise prohibited. I'm not advocating one way or another, just pointing out some key parts of what is actually in the US Constitution.

 

[NHAtHeart]

Is there a section of the US Constitution that prohibits the government from doing this? The 6th Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures". The 12th grants additional powers to individual states that are not otherwise prohibited. I'm not advocating one way or another, just pointing out some key parts of what is actually in the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Curfew violates these two bolded parts.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You could make the argument by implementing a curfew you are "seizing" all persons as they are being detained without probable cause. Just because they are detained in their own home doesn't mean they are not detained.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

People are being deprived of liberty, the freedom to move around without due process of law. An entire community is deprived of this right without being found guilty of a crime.

Those are just a few, I'm sure there are others being trampled on.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Two big dangers to freedom are "rational basis scrutiny" and "means-end testing".

 

[MensetFAL]

Curfew violates these two bolded parts.



You could make the argument by implementing a curfew you are "seizing" all persons as they are being detained without probable cause. Just because they are detained in their own home doesn't mean they are not detained.



People are being deprived of liberty, the freedom to move around without due process of law. An entire community is deprived of this right without being found guilty of a crime.

Those are just a few, I'm sure there are others being trampled on.

The SCOTUS has on multiple occasions held that those amendments do not grant unlimited rights and that the government has the need and authority to define limits of those rights. A curfew may or may not violate rights. Exactly where the line is drawn is played out in the court system after somebody's rights have been "limited".

 

[JayMcB]

Two big dangers to freedom are "rational basis scrutiny" and "means-end testing".

the excuse of 'exigency' is the third leg of that stool

 

[Bonesinium]

Two big dangers to freedom are "rational basis scrutiny" and "means-end testing".

Exactly correct. I pointed this out in this post:

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...otected-by-2?p=4075099&viewfull=1#post4075099

in which a judge used the "means-ends scrutiny" to say any firearm if the government wishes is not protected by the 2A.

 

[cekim]

Rights don't change, only infringement of them.

The US Constitution provides precious little leeway on this point for a reason.

 

[PaulR]

Snow Emergency = We get to ride quads and snowmobiles up and down the streets.

As for taking my guns? what guns? Lost them all in a fishing accident when the boat flipped over.

 

[Bonesinium]

Rights don't change, only infringement of them.

The US Constitution provides precious little leeway on this point for a reason.

Correct. I was just going to say that, just in a more cynical manner:

You have the same rights as you normally have (none), they just do a better job of making sure of it.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Your rights are whatever you don't let them take from you.... bottom line.

 

[johnny.cassidy3]

Your rights are whatever you don't let them take from you.... bottom line.

Proof of this; The Battle Of Athens, Korea Town During the L.A Riots, Bundy Ranch, and there's more I'm sure. People can't rely on the govt to protect them and the govt does not have the best interest in protecting the people (WW2 Japanese American Imprisonment, Katrina, ...) The only rights people have are the ones they're willing to protect and excersise, and a good show of force such as the recent Bundy Ranch has reassured that a govt force can be thwarted. If this was done more often stupid or unconstitutional laws wouldn't be enforced.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SilentOverlord]

Not sure if anyone posted this:

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2006/president-bush-signs-nra-backed-“disast.aspx

 

[MensetFAL]

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/n.../president-bush-signs-nra-backed-“disast.aspxNot sure if anyone posted this:

Nice find. Here's the PDF. Worth a read.

 

[wahsben]

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.

Yes, but unfortunatly govt. does not obey the laws that pertain to them.

 

[Duxprep]

Nice find. Here's the PDF. Worth a read.

Interesting. It specifically refers that federal agencies can't confiscate and that agencies and resources working on behalf of the feds should not have their firearms confiscated either. It doesn't mention anything about State laws or actions.

 

[inerlogic]

read up on 'exigency'

the SOE's exigency suspends the Constitution and the rights enumerated in it.

inalienable

 

[exo]

Interesting. It specifically refers that federal agencies can't confiscate and that agencies and resources working on behalf of the feds should not have their firearms confiscated either. It doesn't mention anything about State laws or actions.

(a) Prohibition on Confiscation of Firearms.--No officer or
employee of the United States (including any member of the uniformed
services), or person operating pursuant to or under color of Federal
law, or receiving Federal funds, or under control of any Federal
official, or providing services to such an officer, employee, or other
person, while acting in support of relief from a major disaster or
emergency, may--

So it is basically a prohibition against federal agents and I would argue national guard, but it doesn't (and likely couldn't) apply to state or local law enforcement. Note that it doesn't say "agency" but "person", so despite local and state police agencies receiving federal funds, the "person" working for those agencies does not directly receive those funds, so it still wouldn't apply to them.

That at least is my lay reading of the law.

 

[masspromo]

Your rights are whatever you don't let them take from you.... bottom line.

What would have happened to this guy if had had said get a warrant?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op3TMliqBmA