_____ George F. Will, 5th of OctoberLiberalism preaches confident social engineering by the regulatory state. Conservatism urges government humility in the face of society’s creative complexity
SAMI wrote:IIRC, Utah is the same as far as - a declared state of emergency will limit firearms to your property. Utah authorities would never dare pull a Katrina manuever, removing firearms from homes.. There'd be a bloodbath in the suburbs.-Jason
steelhawk wrote:I did find this in the Utah code.
63K-4-405. Prohibition of restrictions on and confiscation of a firearm or ammunition during an emergency.
(1) As used in this section:
(a) (i) "Confiscate" means for an individual in Utah to intentionally deprive another of a privately owned firearm.
(ii) "Confiscate" does not include the taking of a firearm from an individual:
(A) in self-defense;
(B) possessing a firearm while the individual is committing a felony or misdemeanor; or
(C) who may not, under state or federal law, possess the firearm.
(b) "Firearm" has the same meaning as defined in Subsection 76-10-501(9).
(2) During a declared state of emergency or local emergency under this chapter:
(a) neither the governor nor an agency of a governmental entity or political subdivision of the state may impose restrictions, which were not in force prior to the declared state of emergency, on the lawful possession, transfer, sale, transport, storage, display, or use of a firearm or ammunition; and
(b) an individual, while acting or purporting to act on behalf of the state or a political subdivision of the state, may not confiscate a privately owned firearm of another individual.
(3) A law or regulation passed during a declared state of emergency that does not relate specifically to the lawful possession or use of a firearm and that has attached criminal penalties may not be used to justify the confiscation of a firearm from an individual acting in defense of self, property, or others when on:
(a) the individual's private property; or
(b) the private property of another as an invitee.
(4) (a) An individual who has a firearm confiscated in violation of Subsection (2) may bring a civil action in a court having the appropriate jurisdiction:
(i) for damages, in the maximum amount of $10,000, against a person who violates Subsection (2);
(ii) for a civil penalty, in the amount of $5,000 per violation, against a person who violates Subsection (2); and
(iii) for return of the confiscated firearm.
(b) As used in this Subsection (4), "person" means an individual, the governmental entity on whose behalf the individual is acting or purporting to act, or both the individual and the governmental entity.
(5) (a) A law enforcement officer shall not be subject to disciplinary action for refusing to confiscate a firearm under this section if:
(i) ordered or directed to do so by a superior officer; and
(ii) by obeying the order or direction, the law enforcement officer would be committing a violation of this section.
(b) For purposes of this Subsection (5), disciplinary action might include:
(i) dismissal, suspension, or demotion;
(ii) loss of or decrease in benefits, pay, privileges or conditions of employment; and
(iii) any type of written or electronic indication, permanent or temporary, on the officer's personnel record of the officer's refusal to obey the unlawful order.
(6) (a) If a law enforcement officer commits a violation of this section, the officer's liability in an action brought under Subsection (4)(a) is limited to 5% of the damages and civil
penalty allowed under Subsection (4)(a) if the officer can show by clear and convincing evidence that the officer was obeying a direct and unlawful order from a superior officer or authority.
(b) The balance of the damages and civil penalty, the remaining 95%, shall be assessed against the superior officer or authority who ordered or directed the confiscation in violation of this section.
Cinhil wrote:So, if an officer truly wants to keep himself/herself from being charged and having to pay said penalties, what is to stop them from wearing masks (terrorists) so they cannot be identified as the perpetrators of the unlawful, unconstitutional order to strip law abiding citizens of their legal defense weapons? Just food for thought. (it happens all the time, for instance the Gonzales incident in Florida amongst hundreds of other incidents throughut the country.)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests