Senate debating ban of gun confiscation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Defund?

So, this Senate bill "defunds" seizure of weapons.

Excuse me, but, um, was Congress appropriating money toward the seizure of weapons during times of emergency previously?

If no money was so allocated, then what possible effect would this legislation have?

:confused:
 
UnintendedConsequences said:
Those who violate rather than uphold the Constitution commit treason. There is a very clear penalty for treason though I should not need to state what it is.

Suffice it to say, those who commit treason have earned the summary response they receive from soverign citizens upon whom they wish to commit the treasonous acts.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. It is our duty to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The moment a police officer tries to take away a gun from a lawful citizen, that is the moment the officer becomes a traitor.

I watched video on television as gangs of police went door to door in new orleans, kicking in doors, stealing guns, and forcing people off their land. If it was me in a simular situation, I would not let the police within 100 feet of the house.
 
Senate Votes To Prohibit Gun Confiscation!
-- Thank you for all your activism yesterday

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org


"They obviously got your message loud and clear. It was the most
lopsided gun vote I have ever seen." -- As told by a Senate office to
GOA after the overwhelming vote yesterday


Friday, July 14, 2006

Good news! The Senate voted yesterday 84-16 to pass the pro-gun
Vitter amendment.

The language, offered by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) as an amendment to
the Homeland Security appropriations bill (HR 5441), will make it
illegal for federal agents to confiscate firearms during an emergency
or major disaster. The provision must now survive a conference
committee -- where House and Senate negotiators will iron out
differences between the spending bills passed in both chambers.

If the Vitter language makes it to the President's desk, it will
perfectly complement what has been happening in the states. This
year, one of GOA's highest priorities has been to address the
problems with so-called "emergency powers" across the country.

GOA-supported bills have made it absolutely certain that no
government official could disarm the citizenry during an emergency,
and several states -- ten in all -- have already enacted their bills
into law.

Sen. Vitter, who less than a month ago was presented with the
Legislator of the Year award by Gun Owners of America, made special
mention of this groundswell of support that has been rising around
the country. It was especially significant that his own state of
Louisiana recently enacted a ban on confiscating firearms -- an
action taken to correct the gun thefts which occurred there in the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

GOA spent a lot of time in Louisiana, getting gun owners in the state
to lobby their own legislators this spring. The results were
astounding.

The sponsor of the Emergency Protection legislation in the state,
Rep. Steve Scalise, told GOA that, "I've had a number of
[Representatives] come up to me asking to co-author my bill because
they heard from members of Gun Owners of America in their districts
in support of my bill," Scalise said. In the end, 80% of the House
cosponsored his bill.

If you have ever wondered if your activism makes a difference, then
wonder no more.

One U.S. Senate office told GOA after yesterday's vote, "They
obviously got your message loud and clear. It was the most lopsided
gun vote I have ever seen. There was some serious hand wringing on
the democratic side."

Why was there "serious hand wringing"? Because your efforts made it
VERY difficult for anti-gun Democrats to vote against the Vitter
language.

Again, there were only 16 Senators who voted wrong. If you look at
GOA's Senate rating -- at http://www.gunowners.org/109srat.htm --
you'll see a lot more than just 16 F's in that chamber.

So who were the Senators who were arrogant enough to stand by their
anti-gun convictions and vote against this common-sense legislation?
They were:

Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)

Basically, these senators said that when your life is in danger, you
don't have the right to defend yourself. You are just supposed to
pick up the phone and dial 9-1-1. Your guns are part of the problem
because they could be stolen by bad guys. And you don't need guns
anyway because the police are there to protect you.

These are actually the talking points from the anti-gun side of the
aisle yesterday. They told the Senate -- and the country -- that
YOUR guns were the problem. Your duty is simply to call the police
when you're in danger.

Of course, calling 9-1-1 doesn't work very well when the neighborhood
is flooded, the phones aren't working and chaos is in full bloom.
Sen. Vitter made this point very eloquently, and he should be
commended for his efforts in defense of our gun rights.
 
If no money was so allocated, then what possible effect would this legislation have?
Click to expand...

Certainly one thing would be that no federal personnel involved could participate in confiscating guns.
 
Malum Prohibitum said:
Excuse me, but, um, was Congress appropriating money toward the seizure of weapons during times of emergency previously?
Click to expand...
Yes. The out-of-state NG troops and police officers who were "lent" to Louisiana were paid for using Federal disaster relief monies. Which means that we helped pay that CHiPs officer who put the hit on the old women in the video. So this amendment means that if any state wants to assign mercenaries to body slam nonegenarians, they can't use Fderal money to pay for it.
 
Hawkmoon

Their sole purpose was not to seize guns, so they were funded anyway, right? I mean, there was no funding for guns. They could jhust as easily been "restoring order" or "Looking for people in need of help" or the like.

My point is that no money is needed for weapon seizure, esp. since this bill will not affect funding for "other law enforcement activities."
 
It is bogus. The second Amendment already outlawed gun confiscation.

If you read the entire act itself, all rights are null and void should certain government employees decide to declare them null and void, and over rides all other laws, (supposedly including the U.S. Constitution also) so this stupid law saying "we will not appropriate special federal funds to continue to assist States or municipalities to violate the 2nd Amendment" is ridiculous.
The law should specifically cite the 2nd, and only provide a mandatory prison term for any LEO or military member, who chooses to follow an unconstitutional order to participate in any manner with a wholesale gun confiscation.

It doesn't.

When they do that, then we will not have any worries.
 
Their sole purpose was not to seize guns, so they were funded anyway, right? I mean, there was no funding for guns. They could jhust as easily been "restoring order" or "Looking for people in need of help" or the like.

My point is that no money is needed for weapon seizure, esp. since this bill will not affect funding for "other law enforcement activities."
Click to expand...

I believe your interpretation of the grammar of the bill is incorrect. Reread the part about jurisdiction via funding.
 
It is bogus. The second Amendment already outlawed gun confiscation.
Click to expand...

In theory but not in practice. As far as lawyers are concerned, the 2A is irrelevant, despite any verbiage in the FINDINGS. If the 2A controlled the States here, it would be the first time.
 
Realgun:

Just because today's version of what passes as a "lawyer" almost to a man or woman, says the originally agreed upon contract signed and ratified during the founding of our nation, is now suddenly "irrelevant" does not mean that it is irrelevant. It means we have the wrong lawyers in positions of power.

The problem is we have allowed the wrong "lawyers" to become elected to public offices, and appointed to judicial posts.

The Constitution states that any lifetime apointee to Federal office must maintain "good conduct" in his post. That description includes Federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices.

Violating the oath of office cannot in anyones definition, be classified as maintaining "good conduct" in that post.

So therefore, Judges who cannot read a simple twenty seven word sentence and understand the meaning of it, or a Legislator who votes to pass an unconstitutional law, cannot possibly be fulfilling his role in "good conduct". They can be impeached for it, however, our political heros will tell you "there is nothing we can do after they are appointed." That is not true. They can be impeached, as the Constitution allows it.

Lawyers will even sit an argue about what good conduct is. They will even argue with you in a sworn deposition, about the meaning of the word "is" itself. A five year old can tell you what is right or wrong. A lawyer will argue it.

It doesn't change the fact that the words "shall not infringe" can be read and understood by a sixth grader. Anyone above that level of education who believes "shall not infringe" means something other than "shall not infringe" needs to be impeached in my humble opinion.

But the fact that we have lawyers who tell you the Bill of Rights is irrelevant if they say it is, is our fault entireley. Because we continue to elect people to positions of power, who will appoint or confirm, a Judge/Lawyer to a judicial post that affects us all, who steadfastly refuses to answer a simple question, such as if they understand the meaning of the term "shall not infringe".
 
Just because today's version of what passes as a "lawyer" almost to a man or woman, says the originally agreed upon contract signed and ratified during the founding of our nation, is now suddenly "irrelevant" does not mean that it is irrelevant. It means we have the wrong lawyers in positions of power.
Click to expand...

The Second Amendment never applied to the States. Despite the fact and clear intent that the 14th Amendment would apply the Second Amendment to the States, the powers that be have disallowed that meaning until directly tested and carefully considered. In other words, the Courts find it inconvenient to acknowledge that RKBA exists. Another way of saying it is that the Country is ruled by an imperial court.
 
Quote:
"The Second Amendment never applied to the States. Despite the fact and clear intent that the 14th Amendment would apply the Second Amendment to the States, the powers that be have disallowed that meaning until directly tested and carefully considered."

Realgun:

The second did apply to the "people" in the States, and the fourteenth clarified a "person" as a member of the "people" of the United States, and therefore allowed both political and civil rights equally.

Your sentence that states "the powers that be have disallowed that meaning until directly tested and carefully considered."

The reason the Supreme Court has not accepted any case thus far, is set forth clearly in the same sentence in your message - "....Despite the fact and clear intent that the 14th would apply the Second Amendment to the States.."

That is my whole point. You are more than correct, that "it is clear." The Legislative intent is unquestionable.

There is no need for the "careful consideration" of something that specifically states a right cannot be taken away. You read the 2nd, and the 14th, and a kid can figure it out.
 
You read the 2nd, and the 14th, and a kid can figure it out.
Click to expand...
BUT! Has the SCOTUS yet ruled on the 2nd such that it in fact, says what it means and means what it says? Unfortunately, until that time, in this wonderful day of litigatious unction, while the words exist and are plain to see, read and interpret by the lower unwashed masses who KNOW they were included for a reason... a very GOOD reason based on historical FACT, they will remain unacknowledged until such time as a case comes before the SCOTUS that they CANNOT ignore due to some "Political" reasoning only their crystal 8-ball knows.
The '82 Senate and the 2004 DOJ said it meant something. Close, but no cigar. Congress HAS infringed (to my way of thinking) on the 2nd at least 4 times ('34, '68, '86 and '94), each signed into law by the White House, each enforced by Treasury/DOJ.

I thought the debate was over on this one in the Senate. What happens in the House is yet to be determined. Summer break is coming up. Elections to follow. Contact your Reps and/or their staff and ask about the status in the House telling them that while the shift in the polls favoring the Dems might be real, they'd probably be assured of your vote (and others so like minded) once they saw this through to completion NOW.
 
For some perspective: In 1968, the Senate Bill would have been in the other direction: Pro-confiscation.

We've come a long way back. This Bill (I'm guessing) would not have even been considered during the 1990s.

It takes horror-shows to get LARGE masses of pro-individual-rights support. Waco, Ruby Ridge, Katrina. Public hearings strike fear into the hearts of most upper-echelon career bureaucrats. The Congress responds to outcries from large numbers of voters, even if they don't really care about the issue.

Less philosophizing about the Second Amendment, and more politicking on your neighbors about getting government intrusions off their backs as well as yours.

Art
 
Art:

Nobody I know (other than lawyers and anti-gun leftists) are "philosophizing" about the 2nd. Amendment.

I am pointing out the amendment is clear, and it says exactly what it says and needs no "philosophizing" nor "interpretation" by nine lawyers who may, or may not, act in "good conduct" while on the court.

And I try to point out that the only way to change what is says, is to "philosophize" it until you can "interpret" it into saying something it doesn't say, or for Congress to pass an amendment to change it.

Nine lawyers on the SCOTUS simply passing a ruling that says the 2nd Amendment does not mean what it says, does not mean the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it says. It is simply the opinion of the LAWYERS on that court. Most of the lawyers I have ever spoken with, will tell you just about anything that will meet their goals, either financially or politically, regardless of it being factual. A lawyer who lands a job as a judge is no different.

But I am trying ask folks to remember when they are "politicking" their reps, they can point out to them that WE know a Federal Judge can be removed by impeachment if they fail to act in "good conduct" while in office, and to ask that rep they are politicking with, if they themselves realize it.

You would be surprised at how many Congressmen and Senators have no earthly idea they have the power to impeach and remove from office upon conviction, a Supreme Court Justice for not holding to their oath of office to act in "good conduct" while in office. (Not inventing law)

That is the check and balance granted to the People to give the legislative branch the power to keep the judiciary in line. (Not inventing law)

But the SCOTUS continues to invent laws from the bench and our reps do nothing but shrug and say "But they are appointed for life".

It is stupid of us to sit and "hope" the SCOTUS crew that is on the court at the time of a 2nd Amendment appeal coming before it will be able to read that sentence without the predudice of political views. The only thing that will keep them in line is the threat of removal from office for legislating from the bench.

It is the exact tool enplaced by the founders to make certain the entire United States, is not ruled by nine lawyers alone.
 
SCOTUS should not be appointed for life.

They stay there until the grow old, senile and die in robes.
 
SCOTUS should not be appointed for life.
Click to expand...

Changing that would be a workaround to the fact that neither the Executive nor the Congress seriously challenge the Court. The other aspect is that the Constitution is so hard to change that there are actually few attempts. The Court is filling that gap by making stuff up to suit the needs of the times, case by case, having to value their own precedents more than any actual legislation or any constitutional provision remotely explicit. When they get to the point that enshrined words don't mean what they say, the system is broken or indeed corrupted. These high-falutin' lawyers are so caught up in their own nonsense that they get separated from common sense and interpretation of straightforward grammar.

The first thing I would change is to require the Court to provide a substantial explanatory statement when denying certiorari. They need to both be accountable and to put some cards on the table. It must also be ensured that Justices actually see these cases, at least sign off on them and be accountable, rather than have the cases filtered out by ultra-liberal law clerks. They are down to only 8 cases a year, and that's ridiculous.
 
Realgun:

Another good thing would be to try and get our House of Representatives, and our Senators to do, is to fully read all of Article III, Section I of the Constitution, along with Article II, Section IV.

Then we need to point out to them that Article III, Section I follows directly behing Article II, Section IV, for a specific reason.

Section IV of Article II says that ""...all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".

Interesting to me is that Section I of Articel III, which follows Article II directly states " ...The judges both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour".

I believe it is rather obvious that the Founders meant for Supreme Court Justices to uphold their oath to "PRESERVE" the Constitution of the United States, and not to CHANGE it by issuing rulings that attempt to establish a law. The Legislative establishes law, because we elect those Representatives directly. The Judiciary is to maintain, not attempt to manufacture law.

That is why I say the House should impeach, and the Senate should convict, any Supreme Court Justice for manufacturing a law from the bench, since they are 1: Not acting in good behavior according to their promised oath or affirmation, and 2: Committing a high crime by breaking their promise to "preserve" the constitution, since they are attempting to change it.

We just need some Reps and Senators with the guts to impeach Justices who support outrageous rulings, such as claiming a taking of property from one private individual and granting it to another private concern in order to increase revenue via taxes is "common good". It is obvious the only benefit is to the taxing authority and not the general public.

Same as Federal Judges who make up law. They should be impeached for bad conduct on the bench also, and the judges of fact and punishment, are to be the Senators who vote to either remove them or not to remove them. We would have far fewer silly bizzare rulings.

At least that is the way I read it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Baba Louie
  • Locked
Senate votes to bar emergency gun confiscation
Replies
21
Views
1K
Aguila Blanca
A
D
  • Locked
U.S. Senate Bids to Ban Emergency Gun Confiscation
Replies
14
Views
608
Geno
G
C
  • Locked
Ah, Something Good This Way (Maybe) Comes
Replies
14
Views
774
Mike_in_OC
M
D
  • Locked
U.S. gun rights at issue in UN effort
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
Bartholomew Roberts
B
D
  • Locked
Senate rejects Levin effort to expose reckless gun dealers to lawsuits
Replies
8
Views
571
bakert
B
Back
Top