O’Reilly on guns – disarm citizens during states of emergency – UPDATE – O’Reilly to left of Obama

Last night on O’Reilly during an interview with Oathkeepers founder Stewart Rhodes, Bill made a fool of himself suggesting it was “extreme” for Rhodes to think it was unconstitutional to disarm law-abiding citizens during a state of emergency.

Of course, O’Reilly is completely and totally wrong here. We know a good portion of the stories coming from the Katrina hurricane were false, I wrote about that back in December of 2007, and Popular Mechanics debunked plenty of the myths in their March 2006 issue.

In these exact situations you must have the ability to defend yourself and your property. If there are murderous mobs and looters roaming the street, you want the lights on, your alarm on, the windows and doors locked, and the dog barking. Of course, since the power is out and emergency services are thinly stretched, you best be able to defend yourself and your family on your own.

Are these situations rare? You bet, but when you have seconds, the cops are only an hour or so away.

It’s not the cops fault mind you – not at all – it’s simple reality. They can not be everywhere.

Bill O’Reilly thinks it’s perfectly acceptable for cities to confiscate weapons during times of emergency … exactly when you need them most. Maybe he’s got enough money and a big salary to hire a couple of body guards the cops will not hassle. I don’t Bill, nor would I expect others to take care of me or my family during these situations. Be prepared ya know?

Note: I’m note talking about membership in Oathkeepers, I’m specifically commenting on O’Reilly’s comments. Hat tip to Gateway Pundit.

UPDATE (Jim): Via Instapundit: It’s not Mr. Rhodes who’s view is extreme, it’s actually Mr. O’Reilly’s, not to mention unconstituitonal. The New Orleans settled with the NRA  gun confiscation case in 2008.

Fairfax, VA-After a three-year legal battle over the unconstitutional confiscation of lawfully owned firearms, the City of New Orleans has agreed to settle a law suit by the National Rifle Association (NRA). A permanent injunction has been issued against the city, Mayor Ray Nagin and current Police Chief Warren Riley. The Second Amendment Foundation assisted NRA in the legal battle against Mayor Ray Nagin and the City of New Orleans.

Glen also points out Federal law in this matter:

SEC. 706. <> FIREARMS POLICIES.

“(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–

“(1) temporarily or permanently seize, or authorize seizure
of, any firearm the possession of which is not prohibited under

[[Page 120 STAT. 1392]]

Finally in 2006 even Obama voted in favor of the Gun confiscation statute. Imagine, O’Reilly to the left of Obama.

6 replies
  1. Plainvillian
    Plainvillian says:

    Let' see, the police have lost control, so surrender your means of protecting yourself and your property.  Could it be that Mr. O’Reilly failed logic 101?

  2. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Excellent points.  Why is it that law abiding gun owners are considered guilty before proven innocent?  The seizure of the guns is a de facto presumption to this effect by the government, and is unacceptable as well as unconstitutional.

     

    To wit:

    "[The Second Amendment's] central purpose is to arm "We the People" so that ordinary citizens can participate in the collective defense of their community and their state. But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes–not a right to hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons–a right that directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may well, in addition, be among the privileges or immunities of United States citizens protected by § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment against state or local government action."

    (Laurence H. Tribe, 1 American Constitutional Law 902 n.221 [3d ed. 2000]

  3. PatRiot
    PatRiot says:

    One would think that during an emergency, the authorities would welcome the fact that the law abiding gun owners outnumber the law breaking folks ( there's always a few that ruin it for the rest of any group).  And that they might acutally be able to be deputized.

    Protecting yourself is like free speech, it comes with your birth and is with you 24/7/365, sea to shining sea.  It is not a thing to be legislated or denied.  Like self sufficiency, it is to be encouraged.

  4. donh
    donh says:

    I thought O'Rielly was particularly rude to his guest in trying by hook or crook to slap the "extremist" label on the oath keeper spokesman. The extremist position to me is the idea extreme weather conditions entitle the government to revoke my constitutional liberties. The right to bear arms comes especially into need  when police cannot perform their duties, and mobs of looters roam the streets looking for easy targets to victimize.

  5. Law-AbidingCitizen
    Law-AbidingCitizen says:

    O'Rielly first off should be renamed, O'Really! Wow, he is unquestionably sooooo wrong!!

    Did he EVER study AMERICAN history? Does he know anything about our founding documents and the people who put them together? Obviously NOT!

    I suggest that he begin by reading our founding documents and maybe some of the law!

    Them he should read Thomas Jefferson's autobiography. Them graduate to the Federalist.

    Err, he can read, can't he?

    How can someone be sooooo wrong? It's embarrassing that this person is on television. He needs an education, past sixth grade, minimum, not just a TV persona and a glib lip!

    To paraphrase President Reagan: "Oh my God!"

Comments are closed.