Authority to seize and confiscate firearms is not allowed during declared e

[Snejdarek]

Gentlemen,

I have been reading TTAG when this caught my eyes:

Minnesota – Effective Date August 1, 2015 Authority to seize and confiscate firearms is not allowed during declared states of emergency.

Could someone please explain to me how this authority to seize and confiscate firearms during the declared states of emergency works?

Is that only on state level or is there any corresponding federal law too?

On state level - is that only in Minnesota or is that in more states?

Thank you in advance.

 

[Sunray]

Read it again. Says NOT allowed.

 

[Snejdarek]

Read it again. Says NOT allowed.

Read it again. It says it won't be allowed after August 1, 2015.

English is not my native language but it indicates to me that it is allowed as of now, and probably has been allowed for some time.

 

[JSH1]

A Federal law was passed in 2006 prohibiting law enforcement from confiscating legally owned firearms in an emergency:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_Recovery_Personal_Protection_Act_of_2006

 

[Snejdarek]

A Federal law was passed in 2006 prohibiting law enforcement from confiscating legally owned firearms in an emergency:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_Recovery_Personal_Protection_Act_of_2006

JSH,

thank you for the reply. If I read it right, this precludes only federal government from taking your guns once the SHTF, however it does not restrict the state authorities in anyway. Please correct me if I am wrong.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr5013/text

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-- ...

 

[JSH1]

I'm not sure. It says "or receiving Federal funds" What city, state, or police department hasn't taken Federal money for something? What city is going to turn down Federal help so they can seize firearms?

 

[entropy]

Snejdarek; Anyone enforcing martial law in the US will be 'operating pursuant to or under color of Federal law'; virtually every Law Enforcement Agency in the US recieves Federal funds; also anyone enforcing martial law in the US will be 'under control of any Federal official, or providing services to such an officer, employee, or other person'

Minnesota'a law is just State level reenforcement of the 2006 Federal law.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...it indicates to me that it is allowed as of now, and probably has been allowed for some time.

And that is a matter of some controversy.

The issue came to prominence in 2005 when Louisiana confiscated lawfully owned guns in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Whether or not it was allowed, they did it.

Many took the position that it was not allowed. In 2006, Louisiana enacted a law prohibiting such seizures. In 2007, the NRA sued Louisiana over the Katrina seizures, and that lawsuit was settled in a manner favorable to gun owners.

 

[Liberty1776]

And that is a matter of some controversy.

The issue came to prominence in 2005 when Louisiana confiscated lawfully owned guns in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Whether or not it was allowed, they did it.

Many took the position that it was not allowed. In 2006, Louisiana enacted a law prohibiting such seizures. In 2007, the NRA sued Louisiana over the Katrina seizures, and that lawsuit was settled in a manner favorable to gun owners.

and that was the start of things here in Minnesota...Essentially, our firearms ownership support organizations decided - "Hey - it (confiscation) never has happened here, but there is a loophole that may someday allow confiscation, so...let's move forward and seal up that loophole!" And through some great work and hard effort, they have! Thanks, all.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Um, in a true state of emergency law enforcement will do as it sees fit and be given the benefit of the doubt afterwards.
Get real.
The law is nice, but control trumps it handily. If there is ever a doubt that the state and its benefactors will lose control, the law goes out the window with the wave of a hand.

And afterwards we'll need to 'look forward, not backward,' as our current fearless leader has asserted over serious violations of the law by persons acting on behalf of the State.

 

[Snejdarek]

Um, in a true state of emergency law enforcement will do as it sees fit and be given the benefit of the doubt afterwards.

Your cops don't get prosecuted for abusing their power (or in this case, a power they don't have)?

 

[wojownik]

No, Lemmy. LE may be able to do what they see fit, but within the confines of the law. In the case of unlawful firearms confiscation (without due process), there can be serious consequences for public officials.

The permanent injunction against the City of New Orleans (a well deserved slap by the court, in the wake of much stonewalling and intransigence) is an example.

With the NOLA permanent injunction, any violation of this injunction by any representative of the city can result in the city being immediately cited for violating the injunction, opening the way for serious penalties. A complaint regarding firearms confiscation can be brought directly and instantly to the federal district court, and could place New Orleans in contempt of a federal court order—a situation taken seriously by the courts.

IMHO, the NOLA injunction is deserved because of a long pattern of firearms confiscation by NOPD (and neighboring jurisdiction).

The larger problem during Hurricane Katrina was the result of mutual aid support coming form other LEO and the National Guard - thrust into a law enforcement role, with really poor command and control. Chaos reigned and, clearly, laws were violated by local and out-of-state agencies lending support.

Hence the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006. Makes it pretty darn clear that LE can't confiscate firearms willy nilly, without due process. Again harkening back to Katrina, these outside LEAs were acting under MAC and federal funding ... there's a direct tie-in in here, but because virtually all LE agencies in the U.S. get some form of Federal support/funding, the DRPPA has pretty sweeping implications.

At the same time, passage of legislation such as Minnesota's is valuable in making this abundantly, explicitly, screamingly clear to public officials. More states should pass such supporting legislation.

In 2012, Virginia passed the Emergency Services and Disaster Law (constitutional rights of citizens to keep & bear arms). West Virginia passed a roughly similar provision. Pennsylvania passed the following language "(b) Seizure, taking and confiscation.—Except as otherwise provided under subsection (a) and notwithstanding the provisions of 35 Pa.C.S. Ch. 73 (relating to Commonwealth services) or any other provision of law to the contrary, no firearm, accessory or ammunition may be seized, taken or confiscated during an emergency unless the seizure, taking or confiscation would be authorized absent the emergency."

 

[LemmyCaution]

No, Lemmy. LE may be able to do what they see fit, but within the confines of the law. In the case of unlawful firearms confiscation (without due process), there can be serious consequences for public officials.

The operative words being 'can be.'

In practice, our society is hugely deferential to law enforcement, particularly when 'exigent circumstances' apply, and 'officer discretion' is sanctified in all but the Constitution.

In other words, I'll believe the permanent injunction as a matter of more than pretty words the first time I see anyone held to it. Which I don't expect to happen.

Note that no one suffered any meaningful consequences for wrongdoing in NOLA. They were just told sternly not to do it again. But the authorities keep doing this stuff over and over.

Because most people see the words 'permanent injunction' and think the problem is solved. And that's why permanent injunctions like this exist. People see those words, and then they go away and don't bother the people in charge of maintaining order any more.

 

[Midwest]

We passed laws against confiscation during an emergency here in Kentucky.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=11130

KRS 237.104 Rights to acquire, carry, and use deadly weapons not to be impaired during disaster or emergency -- Seizure of deadly weapons during disaster or emergency prohibited -- Application of section.

(1) No person, unit of government, or governmental organization shall, during a period of disaster or emergency as specified in KRS Chapter 39A or at any other time, have the right to revoke, suspend, limit the use of, or otherwise impair the validity of the right of any person to purchase, transfer, loan, own, possess, carry, or use a firearm, firearm part, ammunition, ammunition component, or any deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

(2) No person, unit of government, or governmental organization shall, during a period of disaster or emergency as specified in KRS Chapter 39A or at any other time, take, seize, confiscate, or impound a firearm, firearm part, ammunition, ammunition component, or any deadly weapon or dangerous instrument from any person.

(3) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the taking of an item specified in subsection (1) or (2) of this section from a person who is:
(a) Forbidden to possess a firearm pursuant to KRS 527.040;
(b) Forbidden to possess a firearm pursuant to federal law;
(c) Violating KRS 527.020;
(d) In possession of a stolen firearm;
(e) Using a firearm in the commission of a separate criminal offense**; or
(f) Using a firearm or other weapon in the commission of an offense under KRS Chapter 150.
Effective: July 12, 2006
.

 

[4thPointOfContact]

Um, in a true state of emergency law enforcement will do as it sees fit and be given the benefit of the doubt afterwards.

Your cops don't get prosecuted for abusing their power (or in this case, a power they don't have)?

Hardly ever. There are known cases of SWAT teams disfiguring babies with stun grenades that refuse to pay the medical bills they cause, Sheriff Deputies that run over bicyclists and aren't even charged, cases almost too numerous to mention of officers that have Very dubious shooting events that were only investigated by their own department who (surprise!) found the shootings to be 'in line with policy'.

My statics aren't exact but going from memory, If a government prosecutor brings charges in a grand jury against a citizen there's about a 97% chance that there will be a trial. If a government prosecutor brings charges in a grand jury against a police officer, there's a less than 1% chance that there will be a trial.

 

[wojownik]

We're veering towards a rather OT conversation about general police misconduct, rather than the main point of the thread - Minnesota joining a chorus of states (and the Federal govt) which are passing laws explicitly prohibiting the seizure and confiscation of firearms during a declared state of emergency.

Outside of the NOLA Katrina debacle of a decade ago, I'm not aware of any cases or case law involving seizure of firearms during a declared state of emergency in the 10 years that followed.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Minefield ......

And once again, I'll jump onto the minefield with a pogo stick, .

Not to grind on about LE or first responders but when my state in the early 2000s era had 4/four major declared emergencies in about 5 weeks , everyone's nerves got a tad frayed. A few chiefs(fire-rescue & LE) and county sheriffs got a bit harsh in their regular stern warnings about curfews, looting, weapons etc.
Fair or not, ethical or not, it was a rough patch.
New state statues are now in place to allow citizens to carry firearms(concealed) for personal security for up to 72hr in state declared emergencies. The state gov can by the law just passed sign extensions to the firearm time limit as required.

I think gun sales & ammunition are still by statue not allowed during declared emergencies but I might be wrong.

 

[DeepSouth]

Quote:
Um, in a true state of emergency law enforcement will do as it sees fit and be given the benefit of the doubt afterwards.

Your cops don't get prosecuted for abusing their power (or in this case, a power they don't have)?

To answer your question look no further than the New Orleans Katrina case.

Certain LEO agencies seized firearms. Later, much later, it was deemed illegal seizure. If memory serves, no one got fired, and the few people that did get their guns back got back rusted, worthless piles of steel. Essentially what was gained was a court ruling that said "yep that was illegal, don't do it again"

You could also ask Randy Weaver your question, I bet his answer would be interesting.

The fact is that many, many times "the law" IS above the law.
While at the same time they are being victims of trumped up charges themselves and having their lives destroyed when they did things 100% by the book, and moraly right for that matter.

This is not a simple issue, and I can't imagine how to solve it. What I do believe it courts will never fix it. They're always late to the scene, and seem to rarely punish individuals, in this type of case.

I wouldn't be in law enforcement right now for 500k a year.

 

[herrwalther]

My former NG unit selected volunteers to be deployed for stateside security in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in the New Orleans area. There primary duties were armed crime prevention (looting) patrols and building inspections for bodies. They were under very strict ordinance that firearms could only be confiscated if they were being used in commission of a crime ie looting, burglary etc. From there the firearms were turned over to competent law enforcement authority with proper documentation. As far as I know no firearms were confiscated by them. I think this is the best policy in the wake of a disaster. People are going to be fleeing disaster areas. Often with firearms for protection. Blanket confiscation would just make the crime issues in social breakdowns worse.

 

[old lady new shooter]

"I think gun sales & ammunition are still by statue not allowed during declared emergencies but I might be wrong."

Well, you just made the case for stockpiling some ammunition. Sheesh.

 

[akodo]

At the same time, passage of legislation such as Minnesota's is valuable in making this abundantly, explicitly, screamingly clear to public officials. More states should pass such supporting legislation.

As much as citing the 2nd amendment should make it clear that police don't have the powers to seize firearms, it just doesn't work. Similarly, citing the 1st amendment rarely gets someone out of being arrested for flipping an officer the bird. It's only days, weeks, months, or years after that these things get sorted out.

The way it should work is citizens should get to do anything that is not specifically prohibited, and gov should only get to do what is specifically granted, but in reality getting ahead of a situation and passing laws that says 'the people can do X without legal repercussions' and 'the state cannot do Y' is often the most effective way to defend a right.

IMHO phase 2 of this is to follow up by passing laws that explicitly strike down qualified immunity for officers involved in behavior X.

 

[LemmyCaution]

IMHO phase 2 of this is to follow up by passing laws that explicitly strike down qualified immunity for officers involved in behavior X.

The chances of a politician revoking or even limiting qualified immunity is nil or worse. No politician is going to survive the bad press he or she will get from the police unions the first time a single officer is killed because there was a shred of doubt that that officer might have saved himself by whatever unconstitutional action he might have wanted to take in an 'exigent' circumstance.

Witness the spanking the mayor of NYC got for even speaking slightly less than adoringly of infallible police judgement earlier this year.

You're either reflexively pro-cop, or you're out of office. That's the choice.