Alabama Considers Ordinance to Confiscate Guns From “Unruly” People

George Washington said: “The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments.” As a people, we have a tendency to let life slowly pass us by; complaining about the present, but never fighting against that present once it becomes the near past. We have a tendency to tire out rather quickly; eventually just letting things go. We often don’t realize just how far we’ve fallen down the rabbit hole, until we look up, and can’t see the sky. This idea is a central theme of the gun control debate. Those on the Left know that after a while, Americans will just stop complaining.

According to infowars.com, in Guntersville, Alabama,

“Mayor Leigh Dollar is working with city officials to pass an ordinance that would give police the power to ‘disarm individuals’ during a disaster…The new rule would allow authorities to confiscate guns of ‘unruly’ people during an extreme weather event such as the April 2011 tornadoes or any other emergency.”

This legislation stands on clay feet for several reasons; and has me very concerned:

1. The wording of the ordinance is extraordinarily vague; allowing for the disarmament of someone for being simply “unruly.” First, I would like to know what defines “unruly” in this piece of legislation. Will it be left to the judgment of the individual officers? Will it be more clearly defined in the ordinance? Most of all, will the term “unruly” be malleable; subject to change based on the situation?

2. Does “unruly” behavior—when so vaguely defined—really allow for the confiscation of guns?

3. Is it a violation of the 2nd Amendment to take guns out of the hands of citizens who have not acted criminally—only “unruly,” as defined by the ordinance?

4. Finally, it is claimed that the legislation is designed to prevent violence and looting in the aftermath of a disaster. If that is indeed the case, the police would have to know before-hand who was going to act criminally in order to confiscate guns to prevent violence. Without prior knowledge of potential crimes, this ordinance would accomplish nothing in terms of saving lives and property. Unless this is Minority Report, confiscating guns in order to prevent future crimes is unjustifiable. So, we’re right back to questioning the definition of “unruly,” and when that so called unruly behavior is believed to have taken place.

This ordinance is merely a side-step around the 2nd Amendment. It seems to be deliberately vague, so that it can be shaped into whatever form is needed following its passage.

Many will complain about this ordinance, but give up the fight after a few days or weeks. Our country has become complacent in its oppression. We cannot fall into this miserable pattern. This ordinance—and others like it—are dangerous in their vagaries. If we give up the ghost after just a short time, we will have only ourselves to blame for increasing government control.