City Proposes Disarming Citizens In The Event Of A Disaster

The city of Guntersville, Alabama is considering disarming residents in the event of a weather-related or manmade disaster, like a terrorist attack. Mayor Leigh Dollar said that they’re not trying to take away anyone’s Constitutional rights; they’re just trying to “protect” people:

 “The ordinance states officers could disarm individuals, if necessary. Dollar says the proposal is just way to give officers more authority to protect themselves. ‘We are not trying to infringe upon anyone constitutional rights whatsoever. It's just to protect the workers working out there in a disaster,’ Dollar said.”

 Just what people need in the event of a disaster. Police officers with more authority to protect themselves. Don’t they already have enough as it is, and this city wants to give them the power to revoke citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights?

A situation like a disaster, and especially the social breakdown that follows, is exactly the kind of situation where the 2nd Amendment is vitally important. In fact, it’s that kind of situation where semi-automatic rifles come in handy. That’s not the time to be taking people’s guns away. It’s a time to be making sure people are armed and prepared.

This happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Law enforcement officers at different levels went door-to-door, searching people’s homes without warrant or consent and confiscating their firearms. They acted like people had no 2nd or 4th Amendment rights, and the excuse was that it was a natural disaster.

During times of disaster, governments would like us to believe that we have no Constitutional rights. That our Constitutional rights are actually more like privileges during times of social order. And that when disaster strikes, our “privileges” then become suspended, at which point we just need to comply with the authorities for our own protection.

And at that point, it wouldn’t even be about our protection, but theirs. They act like gun owners are a threat to their safety, and that disarming us is the only sure way for them to be protected.

This gun confiscation proposal will be on the agenda at the next Guntersville city council meeting on March 4th. I hope gun owners pack the place out to voice their outrage over this proposition such that the council is forced to withdraw the proposition.



408 thoughts on “City Proposes Disarming Citizens In The Event Of A Disaster

  1. Lousiana confiscated firearms during Katrina. I think that order was issued by the Governor at the time, Lambleu (spelling??). I am sure if she did it was with the agreement of Mayor Nagin. Both are Democrats. Both rejected at least 14 calls from Bush & "Brownie" (of FEMA fame), when they called "before" the storm hit, to push for evacuations. They also rejected allowing the National Guard to pre-place materials & equipment & manpower, prior to the storm hitting. That way, even if there were no helicopters or airplanes or roads (bridges into the city were destroyed), or other travel impediments, (and there were multiple travel impediments for days thereafter), the Nat. Guard could still respond at some level. Point is, the Guard was used not for what we thought they'd be used for, (rescue, feeding, etc.), but their first pripority was to be used to work with N.O. Police to disarm the public. Never mind the looters. Never mind those assaulting &/or killing people. Good liberals decided to take away legal gun owners ability to defend themselves & their property, because they might shoot, a criminal. (What a concept!) Point is... the Lousiana legislature was confronted by citizens after things settled down & it is my understanding that they passed a law prohibiting any such actions ever again, should another crisis take place. Seems we have a "right' (the Second Amendment), but some 'liberal' politicians feel they should be able to suspend them, if "they" feel its appropriate & lets be real folks, they "always" feel its appropriate. The problem I have lately with liberals is that they really do believe our rights are only available to us, "if" THEY say so. So good fer Lousiana legislators. They done good!

  2. Telling Alabama citizens in Guntersville that they need to have their guns confiscated in case of an emergency proves they're~Stuck on Stupid~~ and need a refresher course on the 2nd amendment~~People have the right to self defense~~These morons will be victims of marauding looters~~and illegal criminals the Sham Wow Obama administration is turning loose~~

  3. [email protected] says:

    dONT you know that the real reason they wanto do that little thing ?if they ever disarm the citizens for any reason that will be the last time you see your guns, THEY ARE TRYING TO PASS A BUNCH OF LAWS WHICH THE CONSTITUTION SAYS ARE ILLEGAL IF THEY GO AGAINST THE WRITTEN CONSTITUTION --THEY ARE CALLED EXPOST-FACTO LAWS (THAT WHICH IS LEGAL TODAY BUT (SINCE i THINK I AM god ) IT IS NO LONGER LEGAL

  4. boccagalupe says:

    Does this mayor think that people left their brains at the city border when they moved in to that place.The biggest disaster the place will have was electing her.

  5. Alabama passed a Law/Policy AGAINST Agenda 21 last year. The ONLY STATE in the US to do this- taking ACTION AGAINST 'The UN AGENDA 21 PLAN". What happen to that? This is a AGENDA 21 ACT.... so I can't see how this can pass on behalf of Mayor Leigh Dollar (useful idiot) pushing such an UNCONSTITUTIONAL Move.

  6. "City Proposes Disarming Citizens In The Event Of A Disaster"
    A win win for the criminals.

  7. You lying-ass Mayor. You can't protect anyone by making them defenseless. Did you learn nothing from the Katrina disaster in New Orleans? The only ones armed were the thugs, military, and what cops did not run away. They went house to house and unlawfully took people's weapons at the time they needed them most. When you violate a person's Constitutional rights, that is illegal. Period. I dare say that you had not better try that trick in Alabama, not unless those attempting the disarming are willing to die to do so. My money says the citizens are willing to die to keep their arms.

  8. wildeagleone says:

    These stupid Arce holes will wish they and a citizen that is armed when they are faced with a criminal that is armed and threatening them with bodily harm or worse

  9. wildeagleone says:

    They really ought to think twice as chaos at this stage of the economy as they may well be the target and need the citizens to assist in keeping the peace

  10. Pure BS. All one has to do is look at what happened in Australia, Great Britian and France when guns were confiscated---in every instance the violent crime increased 2 to 4-fold, and in some more populated areas it was even more. When the criminals know that they will not be oppossed with guns, they go on a rampage. Taking guns in event of a natural disaster, will have exactly the same results. Will the city fathers stand up and take personal responsibilty for the mayhem?----I doubt it. A disaster will be just like the situation in a bad snow storm, people will have hours delay in getting a police response, if at all. Bottom line. The proposal is so clearly faulty that it is equally obvious that those proposing it, have ulterior motives in mind; either that or they have no business being in the governmental business, at any level. Their proposal defies logic, deductive reason and plain common sense.

  11. Should be interesting to see if they reelect Dollar.

  12. JeromefromLayton says:

    I wouldn't have been surprised if this hare brained proposal was hatched in Davis, CA or Golden, CO. How on earth did this happen in ALABAMA? So, when do the city mothers and fathers come up for reelection? Is a Recall Election possible in that state? Definitely time for a change.