RealGun
Member
The Vitter amendment has the Dems in a tizzy. Durbin is about to blow a cork. He wants to make it about the pesky NRA.
Thursday, 7/13, 4:45 EDST. Check CSPAN.
Thursday, 7/13, 4:45 EDST. Check CSPAN.
Senate debating ban of gun confiscation
- Thread starter RealGun
- Start date
- Status
Knucklehead2
Member
Kennedy screed is over.:banghead:
Now its Lautenbergs turn:banghead:
Now its Lautenbergs turn:banghead:
Chipperman
Member
Any update on this?
Knucklehead2
Member
Voting is going on now 5:55est. Your usual suspects voting no, but it is passing easily.
84 yes
16 no
84 yes
16 no
Flintlock Tom
Member
Are there any links to the wording of the measure being voted on?
porterdog
Member
.....and/or predictive commentary?
NRA-ILA email:
U.S. Senate Votes to Protect
Second Amendment Rights During Emergencies
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Fairfax, VA - On July 13, the United States Senate overwhelmingly passed (84-16) an amendment (#4615) to the Homeland Security appropriations bill (H.R. 5441). This amendment -- sponsored by Senator David Vitter (R-LA) -- prohibits the use of funds appropriated under HR 5441 for the confiscation of lawfully possessed firearms during an emergency or major disaster.
Commenting on the passage of the amendment, NRA-ILA Executive Director and chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox said, "After Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans Police Superintendent issued orders to confiscate firearms from all citizens, allegedly under a state emergency powers law. With that one order, he stripped the one means of self-protection innocent citizens had during a time of widespread civil disorder. This legislation guarantees that will never happen again."
... The Vitter Amendment prohibits the use of federal funds to seize firearms or restrict firearms possession, except in the circumstances allowed by current federal or state law. ...and it does not effect law enforcement operations outside of disaster relief situations...
... emergency powers legislation prohibiting government officials from restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners during declared states of emergency passed in 10 states during the 2006 legislative session, including Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, South Carolina, Virginia, Alaska, Idaho, Kentucky, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma.
While the passage of the Vitter Amendment in the U.S. Senate represents an important victory for America’s law-abiding gun owners, the job is not yet finished. It is vital that this provision be included in the final version of the bill that emerges from the House and Senate conference committee later this year. "
Well, yay. But this seems to me that it only prevents $$ form THIS bill, they can and will still do whatever they want. And it is still not the final version of the bill. SO who cares, this is a nothingburger!
C-
U.S. Senate Votes to Protect
Second Amendment Rights During Emergencies
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Fairfax, VA - On July 13, the United States Senate overwhelmingly passed (84-16) an amendment (#4615) to the Homeland Security appropriations bill (H.R. 5441). This amendment -- sponsored by Senator David Vitter (R-LA) -- prohibits the use of funds appropriated under HR 5441 for the confiscation of lawfully possessed firearms during an emergency or major disaster.
Commenting on the passage of the amendment, NRA-ILA Executive Director and chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox said, "After Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans Police Superintendent issued orders to confiscate firearms from all citizens, allegedly under a state emergency powers law. With that one order, he stripped the one means of self-protection innocent citizens had during a time of widespread civil disorder. This legislation guarantees that will never happen again."
... The Vitter Amendment prohibits the use of federal funds to seize firearms or restrict firearms possession, except in the circumstances allowed by current federal or state law. ...and it does not effect law enforcement operations outside of disaster relief situations...
... emergency powers legislation prohibiting government officials from restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners during declared states of emergency passed in 10 states during the 2006 legislative session, including Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, South Carolina, Virginia, Alaska, Idaho, Kentucky, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma.
While the passage of the Vitter Amendment in the U.S. Senate represents an important victory for America’s law-abiding gun owners, the job is not yet finished. It is vital that this provision be included in the final version of the bill that emerges from the House and Senate conference committee later this year. "
Well, yay. But this seems to me that it only prevents $$ form THIS bill, they can and will still do whatever they want. And it is still not the final version of the bill. SO who cares, this is a nothingburger!
C-
Chipperman
Member
Yeah it sounds like the amendment has no teeth, but at least it's a poke in the eye to the Anti crowd.
Hopefully this will help pave the way for real pro-gun-rights legislation.
Hopefully this will help pave the way for real pro-gun-rights legislation.
1 old 0311
member
" prohibits the use of FEDERAL FUNDS to seize firearms........" This looks like it has a whole lot of BAD wiggle room in it. State funds? City funds? County funds? Right direction but I would prefer it had more teeth.
Where to begin...........
It passed the Senate. I guarantee you the House will accept it. I am shocked it even passed the Senate-
This is good.
The Federal Govt can only restrict Federal funds and what can be done with those funds.
This got Lautenberg in a real tizzy-
Quit bitching.
David Vitter supports our keeping guns in emergencies. There is only so much he can do w/o trampling on state and local laws.
And this can only restrict funds- real legislation should not be part of an appropriations bill.
If you don't like the provision lobby the House to strip it out.
It passed the Senate. I guarantee you the House will accept it. I am shocked it even passed the Senate-
This is good.
The Federal Govt can only restrict Federal funds and what can be done with those funds.
This got Lautenberg in a real tizzy-
Quit bitching.
David Vitter supports our keeping guns in emergencies. There is only so much he can do w/o trampling on state and local laws.
And this can only restrict funds- real legislation should not be part of an appropriations bill.
If you don't like the provision lobby the House to strip it out.
darthlung
Member
this doesn't mean it won't happen . so they use state or city funds .
UnintendedConsequences
Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2003
- Messages
- 105
Violations of the Constitution are treason
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.
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.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
What this bill does:
No money appropriated for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2007 can be used to confiscate firearms during an emergency.
The Feds are not entitled to tell the states, cities or counties how they may appropriate their own money. Federalism isn't quite that dead yet. However, in 10 states, such confiscation is now prohibited by law. More states will be joining them in 2007...
No money appropriated for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2007 can be used to confiscate firearms during an emergency.
Kevin Quinlan said:
The Feds are not entitled to tell the states, cities or counties how they may appropriate their own money. Federalism isn't quite that dead yet. However, in 10 states, such confiscation is now prohibited by law. More states will be joining them in 2007...
OP
OP
RealGun
Member
Congress should strongly reiterate its intent in passing the 14th Amendment. It shouldn't wait for the Supreme Court to tell them what they meant. Waiting for State laws to replace the intent of the 14A is nonsense. The rights guaranteed to a US citizen apply to all States, period. If one doesn't find that in the Constitution, it is only because the person would find it inconvenient or would disallow supporting documents confirming intent.
These are important, realistic, strategic steps, but the issue should not rest until the Second Amendment is imposed upon the States via the 14th Amendment.
These are important, realistic, strategic steps, but the issue should not rest until the Second Amendment is imposed upon the States via the 14th Amendment.
molonlabe
Member
"Hey you can't take my firearm, It"s a violation of my Constitutional rights".
"I don't care what the Constitution says. Drop the gun or we open up with these MP5's" "BTW your under arrest".
See how it works.
"I don't care what the Constitution says. Drop the gun or we open up with these MP5's" "BTW your under arrest".
See how it works.
Lone_Gunman
Member
This Senate bill is totally stupid.
It is simply election year politics in my opinion. Senate Republicans know they are in trouble and are trying to throw conservatives a bone.
We already have the Second Amendment. This guarantees that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "Shall not be infringed" would obviously include bans on gun confiscation, which would be the most extreme infringement!
If the government isn't going to follow the laws in the Constitution, they certainly are not going to follow this new law either.
Remember the gay marriage ban that Republicans pushed so hard for in 2004? They were not so much concerned with bannig gay marriage as just getting conservatives to go to the polls and vote. Bush in particular hasn't mentioned gay marriage since then.
Republicans are just trying to manipulate conservatives.
It is simply election year politics in my opinion. Senate Republicans know they are in trouble and are trying to throw conservatives a bone.
We already have the Second Amendment. This guarantees that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "Shall not be infringed" would obviously include bans on gun confiscation, which would be the most extreme infringement!
If the government isn't going to follow the laws in the Constitution, they certainly are not going to follow this new law either.
Remember the gay marriage ban that Republicans pushed so hard for in 2004? They were not so much concerned with bannig gay marriage as just getting conservatives to go to the polls and vote. Bush in particular hasn't mentioned gay marriage since then.
Republicans are just trying to manipulate conservatives.
rbernie
Contributing Member
And what happens when some Gov'nr mobilizes his NGs and they take Granny Goodhearts antique S&W away? Is there some identified penalty for breaking this law?
darthlung
Member
yes there is . two in the chest one in the head . there is always talk about what the 2a means . well if you have to hide your guns from the government to keep them . then on that day the talk stops . let them try .
OP
OP
RealGun
Member
In theory, I believe it would be forfeiture of all federal aid. Police departments are very dependent upon those appropriations. All this talk about helping "first responders" is in reference to the police and fire departments.
xd9fan
Member
+1 big time
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
rbernie, there are many reasons for you to get involved in state politics. One is to get such "no steal" laws passed at the state level.
It's easier, of course, to be active on one's keyboard.
Art
It's easier, of course, to be active on one's keyboard.
Art
---quote-------
Republicans are just trying to manipulate conservatives.
----------------
Lots of laws that get proposed and/or passed are more about making a point than actually making a substantive policy change. This is true for both parties, and has been for a long time.
I am happier with the Republicans in power, passing "make a point" legislation in favor of gun rights, than having Democrats in power passing non-substantive - and often substantive - legislation against gun rights.
Republicans are just trying to manipulate conservatives.
----------------
Lots of laws that get proposed and/or passed are more about making a point than actually making a substantive policy change. This is true for both parties, and has been for a long time.
I am happier with the Republicans in power, passing "make a point" legislation in favor of gun rights, than having Democrats in power passing non-substantive - and often substantive - legislation against gun rights.
Camp David
member
Chipperman said:
Actually it's a slap aimed directly at Mayor Nagin and his Chocolate City gun grabs during Katrina...
While it may not be exactly the bill we want, no sense criticizing a gift horse...
Legion1776
Member
What states are these? Anybody know what states have similar pending legislation?
Malum Prohibitum
Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2006
- Messages
- 572
Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, South Carolina, Virginia, Alaska, Idaho, Kentucky, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma
- Status
