North Carolina declared 'gun free zone' in anticipation of Hurricane Earl

[tv1217]

Did you forget to use purple font?

If you have to check on family, evacuate yourself, house burns or whatever you still need to protect yourself.

I feel sorry for the poor S.O.B. whose house burns down during a hurrican

Think of the children. It's for their safety. (You have no idea how hard it is to type that with a straight face )

You type with your face?

 

[Bill of Rights]

That's the summary/digest/synopsis. The actual code reads:

I would LOVE to be wrong about this, but Sec 1(a) makes it pretty clear that that statute applies to "units", which are defined in 36-1-2-23. First person to show me the text of the statute that shows I'm mistaken about this gets a rep (which is close to 300 points at this writing.)

Blessings,
Bill

34-28-7 deals with firearms in vehicles.

The code reference you are looking for is IC 10-14-3-33.5

Same text as what you posted though. I think that under the proposed Senate Bill 0025, the text would have been in the section you cited, but HB 1065 which eventually became law created a new section, which I've cited above.

We have a winner. Rep in the amount of 290 points has been added. Thanks for a diligent search!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[PatriotPride]

You type with your face?

Sometimes I am tempted to after reading some of the posts here.

 

[tskin]

Although this is ridiculous........concealed still means concealed

Dang right!

 

[indykid]

This whole thing is idiotic, and un-constitutional. I will now put NC on my list with Illinois, Kalifornia, Wisconsin, New York. I can say that if a group of thugs, uniformed or not, come to my door during a SHTF situation, I will most likely die, or go to prison for a long time.

Once again, for effect. Read the statement carefully. They are not coming to your home to take your weapons. They are just asking that you do not take them out of your home.

 

[Woodrow]

Once again, for effect. Read the statement carefully. They are not coming to your home to take your weapons. They are just asking that you do not take them out of your home.

Not to sound cliche, but isn't that a bit of a slippery slope? And I don't mean to nitpick, but a declaration of martial law isn't exactly "asking."

 

[beararms1776]

They didn't need this on top of the economical disasters we have going on. I feel for the residents there. There will most likely be a lot of destruction.

 

[beararms1776]

Anyone who chooses to leave their guns behind, man it just isn't right saying that. Nevermind!

 

[Bill of Rights]

This whole thing is idiotic, and un-constitutional. I will now put NC on my list with Illinois, Kalifornia, Wisconsin, New York. I can say that if a group of thugs, uniformed or not, come to my door during a SHTF situation, I will most likely die, or go to prison for a long time.

FYI: This is pushing the limits here. I just closed another thread that "hypothetically" was discussing the commission of capital murder. My concern is that this could be considered conspiracy to commit, and that's not somewhere INGO is going to go.

The discussion here is about the governor making the declaration that guns may not be carried in public places (i.e. outside homes) in that state because of the impending arrival of the storm. Let's not make it something it's not, please.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[BloodEclipse]

Katrina set the precedence this is the norm now, you guys didn't know that. Looks like our good ol boys in uniform will be tested again. My guess is they will follow orders.

I hope that many of these are fellow Oath Keepers. Oath Keepers Oath Keepers – Guardians of the Republic

 

[IndySSD]

FYI: This is pushing the limits here. I just closed another thread that "hypothetically" was discussing the commission of capital murder. My concern is that this could be considered conspiracy to commit, and that's not somewhere INGO is going to go.

The discussion here is about the governor making the declaration that guns may not be carried in public places (i.e. outside homes) in that state because of the impending arrival of the storm. Let's not make it something it's not, please.

Blessings,
Bill

WoW... Bill, I always look forward to your posts and just now realized when you posted about closing a thread that you're actually a Mod...

Right on!!

Oh and I agree, let's not blow NC's Gov. poor decision out of proportion, I think it was poor judgement but at least it stipulates that people still have the right to defend their homes. Now, should you have to leave your home...... that's another story.

 

[Eddie]

Once again, for effect. Read the statement carefully. They are not coming to your home to take your weapons. They are just asking that you do not take them out of your home.

Hmmmmm...

"Sir, you can't bring your weapons outside your home."

"Sir, I'm sorry, but we are evacuating this area. You'll need to come with us."

"Don't worry, I'm with the government. I'm here to help."

 

[Bill of Rights]

WoW... Bill, I always look forward to your posts and just now realized when you posted about closing a thread that you're actually a Mod...

Shh! You'll blow my cover! (I've only been a mod for... well, just under a year now.)

Right on!!

Oh and I agree, let's not blow NC's Gov. poor decision out of proportion, I think it was poor judgement but at least it stipulates that people still have the right to defend their homes. Now, should you have to leave your home...... that's another story.

It's a bad decision all around. Once again, the good people are restricted while the criminals are not. The effective result of this is not to stop looting or reduce crime in the aftermath of the storm, it is that all those houses where people are gun owners and are evacuated (or are out helping others) will now be good places to go where a criminal will now have an uninterrupted however-many-hours to search around, find valuables, break into safes, and otherwise take whatever weapons they choose, and if the homeowner does happen to come home and surprise the BG, it's a guarantee that they are not armed.

Carjackers? Open season!

Muggers? Free pass!

Good people just trying to help their neighbors and be all-around productive citizens? So sorry, you can call 911 and in a few days when the local police aren't positively swamped with calls about trees down and cars stuck and business and home alarm systems going off because a tree branch broke a third-story window, eventually they'll get to you.

Leave it to a politician to make an absolutely stupid decision that only hurts her constituents.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Stschil]

UHHH, Sorry NC Governer. I have work to do in that state starting next weekend. I for one, will not be leaving my travel piece at home in the safe in Indiana.

 

[Woodrow]

FYI: This is pushing the limits here. I just closed another thread that "hypothetically" was discussing the commission of capital murder. My concern is that this could be considered conspiracy to commit, and that's not somewhere INGO is going to go.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill,

You are the one who keeps identifying these discussions "conspiracy to commit," and I don't appreciate the label. You are right to want to defend the integrity of INGO, but conspiracy to commit murder is not the same as a discussion on protection of rights anymore than the colonists were guilty of conspiracy to commit murder for resisting the British. Now, I don't liken myself to the early patriots who fought for autonomy, but I do realize the importance of understanding our rights and the recent trend in government to use crises to usurp those rights.

You are too intelligent an individual to be labeling such discussion as criminal. Shame on you sir for intentionally misunderstanding the point, and for having such little faith in the members of this site.

You may assign infractions as you see fit.

 

[Boilers]

I am sure the ACLU's lawsuit is imminent.

(LOL)

 

[4sarge]

I don't know if the SCOTUS did or not, but Indiana passed a piece of legislation (HB1065) forbidding the confiscation of legal firearms during an emergency/disaster.

Does anyone have a link to this bill once it was codified as an IC Code. This would be a handy piece of legislation to have a copy of

duh.... should have read the entire thread IC 10-14-3-33.5

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bill,

You are the one who keeps identifying these discussions "conspiracy to commit," and I don't appreciate the label. You are right to want to defend the integrity of INGO, but conspiracy to commit murder is not the same as a discussion on protection of rights anymore than the colonists were guilty of conspiracy to commit murder for resisting the British. Now, I don't liken myself to the early patriots who fought for autonomy, but I do realize the importance of understanding our rights and the recent trend in government to use crises to usurp those rights.

You are too intelligent an individual to be labeling such discussion as criminal. Shame on you sir for intentionally misunderstanding the point, and for having such little faith in the members of this site.

You may assign infractions as you see fit.

Woodrow,

It's interesting that you make the comparison to the colonists. Our Founders were, in the eyes of their government, traitors, guilty of no less than treason against the Crown, and if caught, if they were lucky, they could count on being loaded onto a ship for however long the crossing took, in chains, to be tried before a kangaroo court. That of course is if the soldier who caught them didn't either shoot, bayonet, or just hang them from the nearest tree, without any possibility of a trial, let alone an appeal. In addition, his home would be burned and if the soldiers were feeling generous, they might allow the family to leave before they lit the fire.

It is not only the integrity of INGO that I'm defending but the freedom of it's owner, the mod team, and the poster who makes a comment discussing the shooting of a police officer, which, whether you like it or not, is discussing the committing of a capital crime. In addition, while I've not researched federal law on this point, I would imagine it to be substantially similar to Indiana law:

IC 35-41-5-2
Conspiracy
Sec. 2. (a) A person conspires to commit a felony when, with intent to commit the felony, he agrees with another person to commit the felony. A conspiracy to commit a felony is a felony of the same class as the underlying felony. However, a conspiracy to commit murder is a Class A felony.
(b) The state must allege and prove that either the person or the person with whom he agreed performed an overt act in furtherance of the agreement.
(c) It is no defense that the person with whom the accused person is alleged to have conspired:
(1) has not been prosecuted;
(2) has not been convicted;
(3) has been acquitted;
(4) has been convicted of a different crime;
(5) cannot be prosecuted for any reason; or
(6) lacked the capacity to commit the crime.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.23.

Now... At least two people in the other thread had overtly stated that they would, in fact, perform the act in question.
It is fair to presume, considering the name and nature of this board, that most if not all people here own firearms and ammunition. If it can be shown that either of those people have practiced shooting at man-shaped targets, such as the classic one of the guy pointing a firearm at the shooter, it would not be an enormous stretch to call that an overt act in furtherance of the crime.

Now, as I've said repeatedly, I'm no attorney, but if *I* can put together a case like that with no more than the evidence written in a post on INGO, think what a marginally competent prosecutor could do with it.

I appreciate your compliment of my intelligence, thank you. You may attempt to shame me for doing my job here, but you will be unsuccessful in that endeavor.

I have assigned infractions as I saw (and see) fit. None have been issued on this subject at this point in time by me. I do not believe that there was intent to violate rules and certainly not to commit the crime. I do, however, see that the possibility of that accusation is there. Maybe you can afford time off from work while you sit in a jail cell. Maybe you can afford six- or seven-digit bail. Maybe you can afford some high-priced lawyer to defend you. I can't. In a court system such as we have, where you start out with the deck stacked against you, I consider it unwise to tempt fate, and if you wish to do so, you may do so wherever you wish.... So long as your browser address window does not contain the text "ingunowners.com".

If you wish to appeal my decision, that option is open to you. When I hear from Fenway that this discussion is acceptable, I will raise no further objections.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Hawkeye]

Hmm. So I guess no hunting or range time anywhere in NC for the duration of teh "crisis"? Seems somewhat overbroad to me.

 

[Woodrow]

It seems to me that intent is the key factor in determining the conspiracy of a crime. Indeed without intent, there can be no conspiracy.

That being said, I certainly hope that is is your intent to protect your rights, just as I hope it is not the intent of any governing body to deny us of said rights. If any group conspires to deny me my rights, I fully intend to prevent such and I feel that it was the intent of the Founders that we do so.