We all know that Boldt is under hack from the local GOP; that's the kind of thing tat can happen when you vote more like Jim Moeller and less like Tom Mielke.
A reader sent me this tidbit from Carolyn Crain, GOP candidate in the 49th against that self-same Moeller.
One comment on the county commissioners this month. I asked Marc Boldt about his voting to confiscate lawfully abiding citizen’s weapons during times of eemergency and he said he had voted for it. I responded that I had not expected that from him, a republican, it seemed unthinkable. He and the other commissioners agreed and voted to strike that language out of the ordinance the next week. Thus your second amendment right to bear arms is now restored in Clark County. At least I think it is since the feds are supposed to operate only with the co-operation of local jurisdictional authority approval.
OK, Marc claims that he was for confiscating our weapons before he was against it.
There's nothing in the record I can find to substantiate Boldt's recollection of events: The county's own ordinance list and disposition table doesn't appear to back Boldt's sequence of events:
Ord. 2005-08-17
Amends § 9.14.010(6), public disturbance noises (9.14)
Ord. 2005-10-03
Repeals Chs. 2.48 and 2.50; adds new Ch. 2.48A, emergency management (2.48A)
Ord. 2005-10-04
Amends §§ 2.51.160, 40.510.020 and 40.510.030, hearing examiner decisions (40.510)
Ord. 2005-10-14
Volunteer reserve deputy sheriff retirement and relief benefits (2.78)
Ord. 2005-12-01
Amends §§ 6.110A.010, 6.110A.020, 6.110A.030, 6.120.040 and 6.140.030, fees (6.110A, 6.120, 6.140)
(The boldface line, above, was the adoption of the ordinance in question)
Note: through December 1, there's nothing to indicate that the confiscation provision Boldt supported was repealed.The CURRENT ordinance that keeps us from carrying weapons during a declared emergency (When we would arguably need them most)
2.48A.090 Authorized emergency orders.
(1)(i) An order prohibiting the carrying or possession of firearms or any instrument which is capable of producing bodily harm and which is carried or possessed with intent to use the same to cause such harm; provided, that any such order shall not apply to peace officers or military personnel engaged in the performance of their official duties;
What this says is that the county can keep us from carrying firearms.
NOW what the ordinance in question says is that if they declare an emergency, then we can't CARRY our weapons... not that they can confiscate them... although, of course, under this ordinance if we DO carry our weapons, then, well, by golly, carrying those weapons during a declared emergency is what?
Illegal.
Which means they can do what?
Confiscate them.
Unfortunately, Candidate Crain's assertion that our "second amendment right to bear arms is now restored in Clark County" doesn't appear to be the case, as Boldt supported this unconstitutional infringement on that very Amendment.
Just sayin'.
Illegal.
Which means they can do what?
Confiscate them.
Unfortunately, Candidate Crain's assertion that our "second amendment right to bear arms is now restored in Clark County" doesn't appear to be the case, as Boldt supported this unconstitutional infringement on that very Amendment.
Just sayin'.
9 comments:
This is the operative phase, "with intent to use the same to cause such harm." You can carry weapons but police will be deciding what your intentions are. I can live with that.
Martin, you know that's not how the law works.
This ordinance provides no guidance as to how the determination concerning "intent" is to be made; authorities have not yet mastered the fine art of mind-reading.
How could anyone know WHAT I or anyone else intend to do with a weapon they're carrying, PARTICULARLY in an emergent situation?
They can't. This language at best is unconstitutionally vague... and at worst is an open invitation for authorities to error on the side of THEIR definition of caution and do what?
Confiscate our weapons... using a bogus "intent" excuse as the cause.
And as a result... you may NOT be able to "live with that."
In fact, it dramatically increases the chance, particularly out in the rural areas of the county where law enforcement is already practically non-existent...
...you may not be able to live at all.
You are spot on about mind-reading, and absolutely correct in your mistrust of vague language, and we have examples (Australia) of lies & deceit by government when it comes to guns so I'll simply offer a scenerio.
Martial law declared, food shortages, mobs at the grocery store, "occupy" militia shows up. National Guard are there too - what are their options?
Just a minor note. If you would be so KIND and bookmark this little page for your future war material.... -- Jeremy
I exist to serve.
What are who's options?
The Guard?
Their first and only option is to obey the Constitution they are sworn to uphold... period. Their next option is to bring food in before food riots become an issue and maintain order.
An emergency is declared due to, say, riots in Vancouver.
All, or most all law enforcement is tied up with dealing with the riot, meaning none is available for my area (Hockinson).
Roving bands start making the rounds. I become part of, say, a neighborhood watch-type militia to guard our area from these "bands."
I can only do that armed.
What are MY options?
The 2nd Amendment is the 2nd Amendment under any and all circumstances. The declaration of some nebulous "emergency" doesn't make it disappear.
The Constitution trumps all ordinances... including these half-assed efforts to take our guns away from us.
The language in this ordinance is unconstitutionally vague as I understand the term because it enables law enforcement to interpret a situation any way they see fit and arrest/confiscate the weapons of anyone at any time as long as the determination of "intent" is somehow magically arrived at in ways that can't be measured... at least with a straight face.
Dude, I respect your opinion and all but tone down the Constitution BS.
In a showdown between the National Guard and armed militias, I'll always be on the side of the Guard.
Dude,
You cherry pick an utterly irrelevant situation (No county ordinance... including this one we're discussing... impacts the Guard; neither the commissioners nor their ordinances have any authority over the Guard...) and I'm hamstrung by having SERVED in the Guard.
We're going to have to agree to disagree.
I took an oath.... when I joined the Army... the Army Reserve and the Guard. The Oath reigns supreme. It supersedes any "orders" or "ordinances" from local authority and "county commissioner" isn't located anywhere in it.
If the scenario gets so poor around here that people like ME would be disarmed... (Since I'm fully permitted, a former Regular Army officer and a weapons instructor... And, oh, yeah... have our weapons confiscated) then your scenario would put things long past the niceties you seem to dwell on.
The scenario playing in my head is New Orleans, post Katrina. Weapons were confiscated, people died as a result... or were rapped... and robbed... and looted... because guess what?
The bad guys ain't gonna play by the rules. Only us good guys will do that.
This IS a Constitutional issue. And in the scenario I countered with, much more likely I might add, the Guard isn't around... because the weakness of a local militia will not typically be prepared to take on the strength of a Guard unit deployed for security... or anything else.
The Constitution is our most valuable document in times of stress like the scenario you ginned up. That's when it's needed MOST, not LEAST.
And through out our history, it's been ignored when convenient (Japanese Internment, for example) and almost always to our regret and shame.
It's easy to live in our warm little cocoon.
It's not so easy when we empower government to confiscate our means of self protection under a broad-brush, undeliniated "intent" that could mean anything and be interpreted any way they choose, even when they can't protect us out here.
I lived by the Constitution and have been sworn to protect it the entirety of my life.
I am not going to stop now.
Dude, you got Constitution in the blood.
Mostly you're right which makes it tough to be on the other side of this debate.
The only point I have is so subtle that you probably don't or won't listen. It's like this... A police comes on a situation that he knows is going to turn out bad but he has no authority to do anything because he has no law to base any action on. In the scenerios I've been posing, the office could threaten to confiscate weapons if the militia (or person) won't leave the scene.
That's it - that's all I got.
Post a Comment