Senate Votes To Address U.N. Gun Ban Crusade


PDA






camacho
September 8, 2007, 07:25 AM
Senate Votes To Address U.N. Gun Ban Crusade

Friday, September 07, 2007


With the United Nations continuing its efforts to enact draconian, transnational gun control laws in countries around the world, yesterday the U.S. Senate passed the Foreign Operations appropriations bill, which included an amendment by Senator David Vitter (R-LA) that seeks to address the U.N.’s ongoing international gun ban efforts.
By an overwhelming 81-10 vote, the Senate passed Sen. Vitter’s amendment to prevent any funding to foreign organizations that infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of lawful American citizens. Any organization that adopts a policy anathema to the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment would no longer be eligible for U.S. financial assistance—including the U.N.

The gun ban issue in the U.N. has been percolating for more than a decade, and while NRA has been successful to date in precluding the U.N. from enacting its anti-freedom agenda, the bureaucrats at Turtle Bay remain committed in their zeal to push for additional restrictions on the rights of free gun owners in the United States and around the globe.
Global registration and tracking of firearms would inevitably lead to the global disarmament of free citizens everywhere; something that we cannot and will not let happen. NRA will remain vigilant in monitoring the U.N.’s anti-gun actions and speaking out in the international community in support of Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

Find this item at: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3228

If you enjoyed reading about "Senate Votes To Address U.N. Gun Ban Crusade" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
fletcher
September 8, 2007, 07:52 AM
I'm amazed. 81-10? Great news for us :)

stevek
September 8, 2007, 08:12 AM
Great, but...will the House pass it, and will the President sign it? If not, then all we have is a gesture by the Senate that doesn't really amount to much. If I were even more cynical :evil:, I might think that the Senate passed the bill knowing it didn't have much chance in the House. I hope and pray that it indeed does pass, if for no other reason than it will finally get our money out of the U.N., because I really can't see them giving up their gun grabbing ways.

jerkface11
September 8, 2007, 08:41 AM
Of course the president will sign it. He's only vetoed 2 things in 6 1/2 years. The odds are with him signing anything that crosses his desk.

kermit315
September 8, 2007, 12:22 PM
that and he has already told the UN to (basically) shove it , so i would say he will take at least one last chance to do that while being backed by congress on doing it.

hrgrisso
September 8, 2007, 12:36 PM
I'm afraid of the house but a BIG +1 jerkface

Of course the president will sign it. He's only vetoed 2 things in 6 1/2 years. The odds are with him signing anything that crosses his desk.

Could it be were finally seeing the benefits of the Blue Dog Democrats from the last election? Wasn't it Wade and his ilk?

uneasy_rider
September 8, 2007, 12:50 PM
The House will approve this also. The House is generally more pro-gun than the Senate.

I'd also like to point out that the Democrats have a majority in the Senate, and still passed a pro-gun bill? Whats up with that?

ilcylic
September 8, 2007, 12:56 PM
It was tied to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.

I'd be more impressed if they had voted for this all on its own. As is, once the rider was attached, there wasn't much chance of the whole thing's not passing.

Still, does mean that the House is likely to pass it, too.

Edit: My mistake, the 81 - 10 vote was on the addition of the amendment to the bill. I'm not sure if the bill has passed yet, still researching on Thomas.

Edit 2: Final vote has taken place in neither the House nor Senate. Last action listed as "9/6/2007 Resolving differences -- Senate actions. Status: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Leahy; Inouye; Harkin; Mikulski; Durbin; Johnson; Landrieu; Reed; Byrd; Gregg; McConnell; Specter; Bennett; Bond; Brownback; Alexander; Cochran."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR02764:

edit 3: Text of amendment

On page 410, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:

RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

Sec. 699B. None of the funds made available under this Act may be made available to any international organization, agency, or entity (including the United Nations) that requires the registration of, or taxes a gun owned by a citizen of the United States.

(Sidenote: Page 410! Page 410! Yow.)

I do think that none of these things ever go far enough. The UN continually seeks to raise the price of firearms for U.S. citizens by funding the destruction of guns and ammunition. I would be much happier if the Vitter Amendment addressed that. I'm offended enough that the UN does these horrible, wasteful things; I'm appalled that I have to help fund it.

JLelli
September 8, 2007, 12:57 PM
Does anybody know the ten Senators who voted against the amendment? I'll bet half of them are Democratic presidential candidates.

Blackbeard
September 8, 2007, 12:58 PM
Wonder who the 10 were? You can probably guess:

Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Menendez (D-FL)
Schumer (D-NY)
Reed (D-RI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)

Not voting were:

Biden (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Obama (D-IL)
McCain (R-AZ)

hrgrisso
September 8, 2007, 01:00 PM
Sorry to jump in again but I just reread the article. This passed 81-10...

Where the :cuss::cuss::cuss: were the other 9 senators!?!?!

Isn't this their job? Somebody needs a pink slip!

eric.cartman
September 8, 2007, 11:16 PM
Not voting were:

Biden (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Obama (D-IL)
McCain (R-AZ)

Is it just me? Or is this NOT coincidental?

DMK
September 8, 2007, 11:24 PM
Not voting were:

Biden (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Obama (D-IL)
McCain (R-AZ)Not wanting to tip their hand just yet...

Sec. 699B. None of the funds made available under this Act may be made available to any international organization, agency, or entity (including the United Nations) that requires the registration of, or taxes a gun owned by a citizen of the United States.Hmm, nothing there mentioning destruction or confiscation though.

Or am I just cynical?

Hoppy590
September 8, 2007, 11:28 PM
oh its so on purpose. that way they cant be accused of supporting gun rights by democrats. and they cane be accused of wanting to hurt gun rights by gun owners

Regolith
September 9, 2007, 01:25 AM
Or they could have been busy campaigning. Instead of, you know, doing what we pay them for.

PPGMD
September 9, 2007, 01:39 AM
Or they could have been busy campaigning. Instead of, you know, doing what we pay them for.


Exactly my thoughts, they should resign their posts when they run for President.

eliphalet
September 9, 2007, 01:44 AM
Usual suspects, did we really expect different?

Voting against or not voting at all.

Guitargod1985
September 9, 2007, 02:08 AM
By an overwhelming 81-10 vote, the Senate passed Sen. Vitter’s amendment to prevent any funding to foreign organizations that infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of lawful American citizens.

That's great, but even IF it is signed into law, it won't hold water if Heller v. DC goes the wrong way. If SCotUS rules that 2A is not an individual right, then it really won't matter. You'll hear something like this: "Well, because the 2nd Amendment only protects the rights of the States to organize their militias, we can continue to fund the UN's [insert latest gun-grabbing scheme here] with money from the American taxpayers."

God forbid.

Dick1911
September 9, 2007, 08:26 AM
By an overwhelming 81-10 vote, the Senate passed Sen. Vitter’s amendment to prevent any funding to foreign organizations that infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of lawful American citizens.

Grandstanding or not, there IS still hope.

Or they could have been busy campaigning. Instead of, you know, doing what we pay them for.

Just be glad you don't get all the government you pay for. If we did our health care would be run like the the Post Office and DMV :D

CB900F
September 9, 2007, 10:17 AM
Fella's;

No coincidence that McCain's on the did not vote list. He may be nominally a Republican, but he's not on our side, ie. pro RKBA.

900F

outerlimit
September 9, 2007, 10:20 AM
Global registration and tracking of firearms would inevitably lead to the global disarmament of free citizens everywhere;

This has basically already happened everywhere except here.

Blackbeard
September 9, 2007, 10:41 AM
No coincidence that McCain's on the did not vote list. He may be nominally a Republican, but he's not on our side, ie. pro RKBA.

I think it's just that he's a presidential candidate and A) didn't have time, or B) didn't want to go on record, like all the other presidential candidates. A lot of anti senators voted for the measure, namely:

Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Mikulski (D-MD)

1911Tuner
September 9, 2007, 12:03 PM
Let us hope. Without US money, the UN will fold like a cheap accordian.

Creature
September 9, 2007, 12:22 PM
Let us hope. Without US money, the UN will fold like a cheap accordion.

+1

I wonder how many anti-senator actually took the time to thoroughly read the bill before voting for the bill! :rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "Senate Votes To Address U.N. Gun Ban Crusade" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!