Does Westminster mayor have authority to confiscate guns in an emergency?

[HRDWRK]

Please welcome the Mayor of Westminster MD.

 

[rbird7282]

They did it in New Orleans after Katrina happened.

And amazingly people gave up their stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Occam]

And amazingly people gave up their stuff.

Most people are good hearted, conduct themselves in good faith, and don't want to get in a shoot-out with police. Not amazing, really. I mean, amazing that the cops were ordered to DO that, but not amazing that most people didn't want to FAFO.

 

[CrueChief]

Yeah my guess is the officials know who isn't going to play along with this and passed by their place and went to the elderly folks next door to get their firearm.

 

[RFBfromDE]

Please welcome the Mayor of Westminster MD.

If she gets the trash picked up and the snow out of the street while not infecting the school with garbage, she actually looks like a qualified candidate.

I'd prefer a business background myself....

 

[Docster]

And that led to the Federal anti-confiscation law being passed.

Laws and Constitutional requirements are meaningless to those that don't recognize them

 

[teratos]

Laws and Constitutional requirements are meaningless to those that don't recognize them

Goes both ways.

 

[Sirex]

I know the Chief of Police in Sykesville. Gonna have a chat with him about this.

Let us know what he says

 

[Sirex]

I wonder when that was written? I think it originally said 1972-1990? That said, in 2013 when after Sandyhook happened and the MGA moved to restrict firearms, I recall Carroll County declared itself a 2A sanctuary. Not sure if it has changed, but I don't believe the mayor of Westminster has any right, or authority over the Constitution to take property, or restrict rights, even during a state of emergency. It has been seen time and time again, when there is a state of emergency, the government will NOT protect you, so it makes no sense to give up your means of protecting yourself. You either die at their hands, and perhaps take a few of their commie minions with you, or die defenseless as your wife and daughter get raped and butchered. I have no doubt that comrade Joe Dominick would have pulled this, but I am only 75% sure Becker would. My kids had her as a teacher and didn't particularly care for her, but didn't say she was radical. Of course, I don't trust her. Chances are, if they come for our guns, I will be taken by surprise, or it'll happen while I am out. My wife and kids will be used as leverage. I have planned accordingly, and have back ups elsewhere. Oddly, I live within Westminster city limits, literally within walking distance of the Pub Dog meets, which is halfway to New Windsor. So, how am I about 4 miles physically out of town, and still within city limits? It was explained to me long ago, when Wakefield Valley was here, Westminster city annexed the area for tax purposes and water rights from the golf course. But, if I walk to the other side of 31, over towards Stone Chapel/Old New Windsor Pike, not city limits. Even after the golf course closed, our taxes didn't go down. But, either way, if the SHTF, I'm taking steps to block access to my house. And we have the early warning, bark at everything dog.

 

[K31]

Here is the Mayor of Westminster

From her bio......"Dr. Mona Becker has been a resident of downtown Westminster, along with her wife, since moving to the city in 2003" I guess she and her wife will be coming for your guns!
I fear this liberal being elected Mayor of Westminster is the beginning of the end for the Conservative stronghold of Carroll County.

Does everyone in Westminster have chocolate guns?

 

[eruby]

Does everyone in Westminster have chocolate guns?

I have Reese's Pieces near my guns (that I have in my dreams, because guns are icky)

 

[MaxVO2]

And amazingly people gave up their stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

*****Not amazing. Most people are taught to respect authority figures especially the police. Police have uniforms, guns, badges and are official representatives of the state who have the power to arrest and detain those who break the law. They also have state authorized permission to use a variety of compliance methods up to and including force if it is warranted. Sometimes that force is lethal force.

Most people (historically speaking) will not resist the state and will generally comply, or at least reconsider their chances of resisting when the state bears down on a family or individual or group of individuals with overwhelming force. A family or person might get a lone representative of the state to go away, but the state has resources and the force of law on their side that can be brought in to force compliance if necessary - and they have done so repeatedly to people that were recalcitrant and not being compliant.

In a disaster situation where you are in a flood zone, have no power, and are sitting on your roof with your family baking in the hot sun because the water level is up to the second floor - the cops come by to take your guns, you have a tough choice to make and I'm pretty sure most will gladly give them up in the hopes "help" will arrive, etc.. It's a terrible situation, but it did happen here in the USA back in August of 2005.

 

[Phoenix_1295]

Not to derail my own thread, but Sykesville seems to ban concealed carry with no mention of permits. That will be interesting come 1 Oct.

View attachment 428169
If found guilty it is a misdemeanor and $1000 fine.

Town of Sykesville, MD: Carrying concealed weapons.

§ 84-3 The devices, firearms, weapons and explosives listed in § 84-1 of this chapter shall be considered deadly or dangerous weapons, and it shall be unlawful for any person to carry them concealed on his body.

ecode360.com

I think it would behoove everyone to become familiar with MSI's site.

Maryland State and Local Weapons Laws

...

www.marylandshallissue.org

A while back I stopped in the Sykesville police station and asked them about this law. The officer at the desk advised it is only enforced against persons WITHOUT a permit, as he advised was the intent of the law.

(It would be nice, however, to have the answer/opinion directly from the chief.)

IANAL and not a Sykesville LEO, so you still need to do as you deem appropriate.

 

[Boondock Saint]

"Bigger army diplomacy" comes to mind.

In an actual emergency, first responders are going to have their hands full with a molten hot mess and won't be worried about whether or not someone has a firearm somewhere, maybe.

If they are concerned about that, there's not really an emergency in the sense that things are bad enough that they aren't otherwise occupied with the emergency.

It's quite clear that the overwhelming majority of firearm owners aren't the problem. Tens of millions of firearms in the hands of peaceable (read: not harmless) men and women who, by and large, just want to be left alone.

Confiscation is not legal. It certainly is not moral. I quite sincerely think it won't come to pass, but should it ever... that's exactly why ordinary folks should have them in the first place.

Regardless:

Don't start none, won't be none.
Fvck around and find out.
Stack up, or fvck off.
Molon labe.

 

[rbird7282]

*****Not amazing. Most people are taught to respect authority figures especially the police. Police have uniforms, guns, badges and are official representatives of the state who have the power to arrest and detain those who break the law. They also have state authorized permission to use a variety of compliance methods up to and including force if it is warranted. Sometimes that force is lethal force.

Most people (historically speaking) will not resist the state and will generally comply, or at least reconsider their chances of resisting when the state bears down on a family or individual or group of individuals with overwhelming force. A family or person might get a lone representative of the state to go away, but the state has resources and the force of law on their side that can be brought in to force compliance if necessary - and they have done so repeatedly to people that were recalcitrant and not being compliant.

In a disaster situation where you are in a flood zone, have no power, and are sitting on your roof with your family baking in the hot sun because the water level is up to the second floor - the cops come by to take your guns, you have a tough choice to make and I'm pretty sure most will gladly give them up in the hopes "help" will arrive, etc.. It's a terrible situation, but it did happen here in the USA back in August of 2005.

Oh I’m aware and if there were a disaster like that coming I wouldn’t be taking all of my guns with me……..however I’m not opening my door and just giving it all to the police either. Totally unconstitutional.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[babalou]

Oh I’m aware and if there were a disaster like that coming I wouldn’t be taking all of my guns with me……..however I’m not opening my door and just giving it all to the police either. Totally unconstitutional.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bingo

 

[Doctor_M]

"Oh I’m aware and if there were a disaster like that coming I wouldn’t be taking all of my guns with me…….."

AKA... We're gonna need a bigger boat.

 

[eruby]

"Oh I’m aware and if there were a disaster like that coming I wouldn’t be taking all of my guns with me…….."

AKA... We're gonna need a bigger boat.

Approves

 

[Occam]

In an actual emergency, first responders are going to have their hands full with a molten hot mess and won't be worried about whether or not someone has a firearm somewhere, maybe.

One of the things that set off some of that confiscation behavior in NOLA was the fact that some morons were literally shooting at rescue helicopters trying to evacuate, deliver water, etc. All those flight crews could report was a large crowd, or people on roofs, and getting shot at. Definitely not constructive, and all the excuse some law enforcement or local political authority would think they needed for tossing the 2A out the window.

 

[Afrikeber]

****I have a good friend who is a judge and he tells me there are SO many laws on the books that somewhat conflict, or outright conflict with how things are enforced and adjudicated in practice. The US Constitution is a remarkable document in how much it covers given how short the document itself is, and how long ago it was written. So much has changed in 250 years, but that document - written by some of the finest minds of their day has remained relevant to this day.

One of the principal reasons the United States has become so remarkably successful and powerful is due to the Bill of Rights, the enforcement of property rights, and having three co-equal branches of government that act as a bullwark against tyranny as seen in many many other parts of the world.

We have our problems for sure, but having been to many many countries throughout the world - the one thing I consistently see in successful countries vs poor countries is the adoption of free market principals and capitalism. Imperfect as it may be - our system of government is the reason companies like Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Google, and thousands of others were founded here and allowed to prosper.

Our Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights is NOT about what the government can do for you, but what they *can't* do and overstep their authority to trample on certain inalienable rights we have.

Carrol County, like other counties, townships, etc.. have all manner of laws that came about for perhaps mostly arcane reasons now - but higher level laws and pre-emption keeps much of the silliness at bay in the long run even if these laws do have to be challenged at some point by someone or group with standing.

Having seen how other countries handle things, and treat their populace - I'd rather be here.

View attachment 428203 View attachment 428204

Agree with everything you say here but my issue is how this country allows these people in local, state, federal government to apply laws, rules or actions despite knowing the Bill of Rights tells them what they cannot do and they do it anyway knowing they have implied immunity. It’s incumbent on the average citizen to risk everything they have in legal costs to stand their ground. This creates a situation where those without the means are powerless against the powerful under the guise of Freedom and Liberty for all while those who have the means can deploy legal counsel to fight the legality of political/legal bullying.

Immunity needs to be addressed to create equilibrium. Policymakers need to be held accountable. Blatant affronts to the Bill of Rights need to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.