Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

Gun Rights Under the Stafford Emergency Act

No officer of the United States may authorize seizure of any firearm under this Act

Gun Rights Under the Stafford Emergency Act

Gun Rights Under the Stafford Emergency Act

by John Jacob Schmidt

Pay attention and know your rights during this National Emergency Trump is about to enact under the Stafford Act.


Under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act:

Sec. 706. Firearms Policies (42 U.S.C. 5207)

(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 Federal, State, or local law, other than for forfeiture in compliance with Federal law or as evidence in a criminal investigation;

(2) require registration of any firearm for which registration is not required by Federal, State, or local law;

(3) prohibit possession of any firearm, or promulgate any rule, regulation, or order prohibiting possession of any firearm, in any place or by any person where such possession is not otherwise prohibited by Federal, State, or local law; or

(4) prohibit the carrying of firearms by any person otherwise authorized to carry firearms under Federal, State, or local law, solely because such person is operating under the direction, control, or supervision of a Federal agency in support of relief from the major disaster or emergency.

(b) limitation – Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any person in subsection (a) from requiring the temporary surrender of a firearm as a condition for entry into any mode of transportation used for rescue or evacuation during a major disaster or emergency, provided that such temporarily surrendered firearm is returned at the completion of such rescue or evacuation.

 

John Jacob Schmidt is the Founder and Director of AmRRON. and Radio Free Redoubt. Founded in 2011, AmRRON was originally created as a communications network to keep communities and states within the American Redoubt connected in the event of a major disaster situation, or socio-economic collapse.

 

The views, opinions, or positions expressed by the authors and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions of Redoubt News. Social Media, including Facebook, has greatly diminished distribution of our content to our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting Main Stream Media sources. This is called ‘Shadow-banning’. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you. Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews

4 Comments on Gun Rights Under the Stafford Emergency Act

  1. “Sec. 706. Firearms Policies (42 U.S.C. 5207)”

    The real problem is that there is no position within government that has any LAWFUL / LEGAL authority over the American people and their weapons. They cannot say what type, how many, ammo, color, weight, of, etc, and our framers believed that the American people should also created their own weapons because those who serve within our governments are NOT angels and cannot be trusted.

    Richard Henry Lee (the man who proposed the initial amendment to declare independence from Great Britain, regarded as the Father of America, helped push through the Bill of Rights) also wrote a letter to the Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, to elaborate on what our founders knew to be true about the need to bear arms: “Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them;”

    George Washington: “A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

    Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 241, Color of Law: “The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.”

    Know how those that serve within our governments keep saying that things must be kept FROM the American people?
    John Adams, A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law (1765): “Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right… and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, and indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean of the characters and conduct of their rulers.”

    It is also important to know how far the feds have overstepped the delegated in writing duties…
    Here it is the U.S. Constitution, that document itself, that is the supreme law of the land. It must be observed that the only crimes assigned to the federal government in the Constitution for law enforcement purposes are Treason, Piracy, Counterfeiting, and International law violations. That’s it! All other law enforcement matters are the purview of the individual states. Think not, then go read the Tenth Amendment.

    Nor are we supposed to have professional governmental law enforcement, except for the elected Sheriff (who trains and deputizes from the Militia).
    George Washington, “Sentiments on a Peace Establishment”, letter to Alexander Hamilton; “The Writings of George Washington”: “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government…, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”

  2. We don’t need no f**king law, we’re the government. We are the law! To the citizens of the United States of America: “We have met the enemy and he is us” – Pogo

  3. Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co.,111 US 746 ” Our rights cannot, by acts of Congress, be bartered away, given away or taken away.”

    Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

    United States Supreme Court EX PARTE SIEBOLD An unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law. An offence created by it is not a crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous, but is illegal and void, [100 U.S. 371, 377] and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment.

    Marbury v. Madison if a law is found to be in conflict with the Constitution, then the law is invalid

    Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 Congress … cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose
    limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.

    HALE V HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 “the individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state of to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his door to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and property.

    Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them

    U.S. v Mersky 361 U.S. 431 a statute that regulates without constitutional authority is a nullity even though it be published in the books, recognized by the police and lowers courts, and even though it be unchallenged for decades.’

    U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is
    not a “statute, nor a law.” (paraphrased)

    United States v. Minker, 350 US 179, “Because of what appears to be an official command or lawful order on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance.” (Paraphrased)

    Hurtado v. United States, 410 US 578 (1973) “It is not every act, legislative in form, that is law. Law is something more than mere will exerted as an act of power…Arbitrary power, enforcing its edicts to the injury of the party and property of its subjects is not law.”

Comments are closed.