by The Greensboro Daily News ran an editorial yesterday regarding the emergency powers gun ban that is being challenged by Alan Gura, the Second Amendment Foundation, and Grass Roots NC. They strongly suggested that the state change the law so that it didn’t get to the Supreme Court like the McDonald case.
The unsigned editorial noted that:
Surely, legislators had something else in mind other than banning guns in cold weather when they wrote this measure decades ago. And it certainly would not be worth enforcing this law, except when someone is using the gun to commit a crime — stealing firewood, maybe.
From my research of the time period when this bill was first passed, I think the General Assembly intended to keep firearms out of the hands of demonstrators and civil rights protesters in the late 1960s.
The Daily News concluded:
There should be a compelling reason why someone who is the legal owner of a firearm should be barred from carrying it from his home to a shooting range, even if the governor has declared a state of emergency because of cold weather. That might make sense in some kinds of emergencies — a breakdown of civic order, for example — but the law should make distinctions. The blanket prohibition doesn’t seem justified, and the state should stipulate that it is not enforceable as it’s written.
This case isn’t one that should go all the way to the Supreme Court for resolution.
They are most certainly correct that this is a case in which the State of North Carolina should fold and fold quickly.
Yes, probably a Jim Crow law. But the editor has a sport shooting mentality. If one 'needs' to carry a firearm from home, a most likely time would be during a breakdown of civic order.
Liston
http://goodhillpress.blogspot.com/
Liston
I think you hit the nail on the head with that observation.
BTW I've added you to my list of gun bloggers.
John