A few weeks ago I was at a conference where NRA president Wayne LaPierre spoke about the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision regarding the Washington, DC, gun ban. During the speech LaPierre showed a video of what had taken place in New Orleans during the Katrina aftermath. Law-abiding citizens’ only means of protection was taken away when Mayor Ray Nagin ordered the confiscation of every privately-owned gun in the city.
The video is chilling—it’s something you’d expect in a dictatorial regime, not in the United States of America. LaPierre used the unconstitutional events in New Orleans to explain how important it is that the Supreme Court uphold the individual right to bear arms, just as the Founding Fathers intended in the Second Amendment.
Viewing the frightening New Orleans video brought to mind a bill passed in our own legislature last session. Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa (a fellow FR blogger and champion of our individual freedoms) authored AB 1645, legislation that prevents the governor from pulling a Mayor Nagin power grab during an emergency here in California. The bill simply stated that the governor’s emergency powers “do not authorize the seizure or confiscation of any firearm or ammunition from any individual who is lawfully carrying or possessing the firearm or ammunition…” In light of the New Orleans debacle, every law-abiding citizen should be thankful that we now have the right (under state law) to defend ourselves during an emergency.
But even with LaMalfa’s AB 1645 now law, I started wondering whether some Californians live in areas where there could be such an abrogation of our Second Amendment rights by local authorities. It’s not hard to imagine Gavin Newsom or Antonio Villaraigosa following in the steps of Ray Nagin if California experienced a devastating natural disaster.
Although it looks like the Supreme Court will protect our Second Amendment rights, it would be wise for Californians to start passing AB 1645-like laws in our local communities. The middle of a disaster is not the time to have the gun ownership debate—it should be decided in favor of citizens’ safety well in advance.
"Be not afraid of any man, no matter what his size. When danger threatens, call on me and I will equalize." Rifle Inscription
March 21st, 2008 at 12:00 am
The interesting thing about the debate is the interpretive language of the left in attepting to cipher or parse what of the law they can live with, and dispense with what it actually means.
Artice 1 is clear in its meaning, and left no ambiguity. A\One of the most basic rights of a human being is to protect one’s own life. Armament does not pertain to just firearms, but anything you can use… the left is employing a shameless dispensational approach to this, and [frankly] needs to be looked at as weird as the tactics and tools they employ to undermind the plain meaning of the Constitution.
That Darn Republican
http://www.conservarant.townhall.com