TexasCHLforum.com

The Florida legislature has introduced a bill to outlaw confiscation of firearms from lawful owners during declared emergencies. I read a thread on PDO the other day but for some reason I can not access PDO today. I can not provide any information on exact wording. Some of my brothers on this forum might know more of what I speak.

My 2A sense tells me that the 4A search and seizure clause and 5A due process clause already protect me, but the Ray Naginite mayors and imported California Highway Patrol goons during Katrina seem to not take constitutional rights seriously.

I find it somewhat frustrating that we need to pass legislation barring confiscation of property that is obviously costitutionally protected, but we must do what we must do.

Something to put on the front burner for 2007...

Any more support for this?

Other than getting more clarification on definitions, I am not much of a supporter of more legislation; however, I am with you on this issue.

That said (the article was posted here but I can't find it) a high DPS official commented that Texans had a right to and were expected to protect themselves during emergencies.

He added that firearms would only be taken from people using them illegally.

Yes to the need right now for a LAW that states it. It infuriates me also that the the laws (powers to regulate & confiscate) have trumped the constitution. If we continue to require LAWS that make it against the law to infringe on constitutional rights then the Constitution is relegated to 2nd place. If laws are required to shore up a sagging Constitution, then laws can surely tear it down. Of Coarse for a lot of antis the 2A at least has been much farther down the list than 2nd place for a long time.

txinvestigator wrote:Other than getting more clarification on definitions, I am not much of a supporter of more legislation; however, I am with you on this issue.

That said (the article was posted here but I can't find it) a high DPS official commented that Texans had a right to and were expected to protect themselves during emergencies.

He added that firearms would only be taken from people using them illegally.

Also, I don't think Texans are gonna be so dependent on the government to take care of ourselves as Urbanite New Orleanians are.

I've been through my share of devastating hurricanes in Louisiana, and nothing like this took place until a hurricane finally hit the cesspool. And those of us who grew up in other parts of Louisiana always knew that this sort of thing would happen if the big one ever hit the Big Easy.

The only things that surprised me were that they were evacuated all over the country and put up in nice hotels (which aren't so nice anymore), and that they were given debit cards to do with as they please. All on the working man's dime.

I see a lot of the new anti-confiscation laws as just more "feel good" laws to get more votes from primarily pro-gun constituents. You won't see such laws strongly supported by politicians in primarily anti-gun states.

I'm with txinvestigator in that I don't like more legislation being added to an already overstuffed legal code. However, it would seem to do no real harm to have such a prohibition against seizure and confiscations on the books.

longtooth wrote:Yes to the need right now for a LAW that states it. It infuriates me also that the the laws (powers to regulate & confiscate) have trumped the constitution. If we continue to require LAWS that make it against the law to infringe on constitutional rights then the Constitution is relegated to 2nd place. If laws are required to shore up a sagging Constitution, then laws can surely tear it down. Of Coarse for a lot of antis the 2A at least has been much farther down the list than 2nd place for a long time.

You're absolutely right, and the more laws we pass that say that we will follow the constitution on this issue, the more precedent those who don't follow it have to say, "Well, Texas has this law requiring them to obey the Bill of Rights, but we don't have such a law, so we are immune."

As much as I agree with with Longtooth said about the constitution, here's how I think the reality is (and why I support a law)

When someone in the government has an idea to do something, they might check laws to see if they can do it, and how they should. If there isn't a law saying they can or they can't, they'll do it anyway, in a rotten fashion. Look at HOW the arms confications happened. (ignoring the fact that they happened at ALL.)

It seems that the officials in New Orleans just grabbed guns and threw them in a room. They didn't do anything to keep any records of who they took from who, etc.

Texas might be gun friendly now. What if that changes? What if, in 5 years, the head of DPS is a gun grabber? Or, worse, what if the Governor is one?

If we pass a law to protect our rights, now, we're far better off.

nitrogen wrote:As much as I agree with with Longtooth said about the constitution, here's how I think the reality is (and why I support a law)

When someone in the government has an idea to do something, they might check laws to see if they can do it, and how they should. If there isn't a law saying they can or they can't, they'll do it anyway, in a rotten fashion. Look at HOW the arms confications happened. (ignoring the fact that they happened at ALL.)

It seems that the officials in New Orleans just grabbed guns and threw them in a room. They didn't do anything to keep any records of who they took from who, etc.

Texas might be gun friendly now. What if that changes? What if, in 5 years, the head of DPS is a gun grabber? Or, worse, what if the Governor is one?

If we pass a law to protect our rights, now, we're far better off.

We have a law now, its called the 4th ammendment to the US Constitution. If our leaders can't obey such a common precept as that, why think they will obey some state law. (I realize that the 2nd is NOT really a law, but you get the point)

See, you're trying to argue this with logic. That's just not fair.
It's government. State government, at that. Logic does not always apply.

Maybe i'm still paranoid from living in California for so long.

nitrogen wrote:See, you're trying to argue this with logic. That's just not fair.
It's government. State government, at that. Logic does not always apply.

Maybe i'm still paranoid from living in California for so long.

Well, there have been a lot of Californians moving here in recent years. Maybe your paranoia isn't all that misplaced.

Anygun: please pardon my ignorance, what is PDO?

45guy. PDO is Packing.org. They have for a good while been the best on other state legislation & carry laws. I quit going there quite a while ago. Many are having a hard time getting on. They may be having trouble staying on the net.

nitrogen wrote:As much as I agree with with Longtooth said about the constitution, here's how I think the reality is (and why I support a law)

When someone in the government has an idea to do something, they might check laws to see if they can do it, and how they should. If there isn't a law saying they can or they can't, they'll do it anyway, in a rotten fashion. Look at HOW the arms confications happened. (ignoring the fact that they happened at ALL.)

It seems that the officials in New Orleans just grabbed guns and threw them in a room. They didn't do anything to keep any records of who they took from who, etc.

Texas might be gun friendly now. What if that changes? What if, in 5 years, the head of DPS is a gun grabber? Or, worse, what if the Governor is one?

If we pass a law to protect our rights, now, we're far better off.

The sad part is true lifelong politicians think they are above the law. Just look at the Kennedy's, Clintons, Nagin, and I could go on and on. The laws and the constitution are for everyone except them.

Until we the people open our eyes and see what is happening, get involved, and educate the unknowing, our rights are going to continue to dwindle.

I never really got into politics until about 10 years ago when the city was trying to take over 30 homes away because they were in a "flood plain". The engineer in me kicked in, got a study of the creek involved, determained that the "flood plain" was caused by a city built bridge that was put in to access 2 homes on the other side of the creek. Come to find out both homes were owened by life long politicians. We educated not only the people that had the homes but the entire city, fought city hall and won. They tore down the bridge, bought the 2 houses and even with the heavy rains we had early last year, has not flooded since. Also, none of the lifelong politicians are serving in any form of government now. They have run for city, county, state and federal positions and have always been defeated since this issue.

This is what needs to happen except on a much larger scale to preserve our rights and freedoms. We have to educate as many people as possible.

With 80 million gun owners in this country, if everyone would take the time to educate 3 people, not only 2a rights but all of our rights, I think you would see a new breed of politician.

Jost MHO.