Senate votes to bar emergency gun confiscation

[Baba Louie]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060714/pl_nm/congress_guns_dc
Thu Jul 13, 8:10 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Thursday voted to prohibit the confiscation of legally owned guns during an emergency like last year's Hurricane Katrina, marking another victory for the gun lobby
By a vote of 84-16, the Senate embraced an amendment by Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican. He attached his measure to a domestic security spending bill for the fiscal year starting October 1 that the Senate is expected to pass soon.

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed its version of the spending bill and negotiators will have to decide whether to keep the gun provision. The House is usually sympathetic to gun owners.

Citing the constitutional right to bear arms, Vitter said that during an emergency people should be allowed to hold onto "legally possessed firearms to defend your life, your property" at a time when telephone lines and cell phones probably are not operating and victims "can't reach out to law enforcement authorities."

Vitter said 10 states have passed similar laws. Louisiana is one of them.

Following Hurricane Katrina last August, some emergency workers expressed fears about guns being looted from stores and first-responders being threatened by gun proliferation.

Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), a Massachusetts Democrat, called the amendment "pay-back time by the National Rifle Association," a powerful lobbying group that opposes gun controls.

Sen. Richard Durbin (news, bio, voting record), an Illinois Democrat, added, "You send the National Guardsmen in ... and then snipers start shooting at them and the police make it known this is going to be a gun-free zone. We don't want any National Guardsmen killed because of this national emergency, this disaster. Is that an unreasonable thing?"

Vitter countered that the "declaration or state of emergency in and of itself does not give anyone the right to confiscate guns" and local law enforcement officials should not "trump" the Constitution.

Last month, gun lobbyists won another victory when the House voted to overturn a recently enacted law requiring safety trigger locks on all hand guns sold in the United States.

That measure, attached to a law enforcement spending bill, awaits Senate action.

 

[2TransAms]

Sen. Richard Durbin (news, bio, voting record), an Illinois Democrat, added, "You send the National Guardsmen in ... and then snipers start shooting at them and the police make it known this is going to be a gun-free zone. We don't want any National Guardsmen killed because of this national emergency, this disaster. Is that an unreasonable thing?"

That's my senator...*sigh* That makes perfect sense because,you know,those snipers will just apologize and hand their sniper rifles over. OTOH I'm glad the bill made it this far,and a big thanks to all the senators who voted yes.

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

good move. its totally idiotic to confiscate firearms owned by law abiding citizens who, in the face of the government being completely unable to restore order, are faced with protecting their lives, their families' safety, and their property.

im not aware of any federal law currently in the books that allows any govenment agency to just walk around confiscating firearms that are legal to own and possess? i thought there was some sort of open-carry law of long guns in Louisiana?

if someone can give me/us the correct information on that, that would be great. i submitted a resume to deploy to the Gulf States in the event of another hurricane...something i'd like to know so i could use that as a reason NOT to take law abiding citizens' weapons away.

 

[Husker1911]

The visual image of that elderly black woman, brutally roughed up by the JBT, in her own home, plays continuously in my mind's eye. She thought they were there to help...............

 

[MTMilitiaman]

I just checked the Brady Campaign website to see if they had anything on this not because I care what they say, but because I find ammusement in their discomfort. I couldn't find anything immediately on the home page, but they did have a rather humorous "Triangle of Death" advertisement that made me giggle. OOOO, bad NRA. Evil NRA. Triangle of Death...

Isn't that down in Bermuda somewhere?

 

[Crosshair]

The really sad thing is that they needed to pass something like this.

 

[LAK]

He attached his measure to a domestic security spending bill for the fiscal year starting October 1 that the Senate is expected to pass soon.

Now we know what they really wanted. I wonder exactly where all that money is going to go.

The passing of another "gun friendly" law sounds good; but let's remember that in a declared national state of emergency, the Federal gov - it's agencies - will walk all over them under existing executive orders. All those Senators surely can not claim not to be aware of that.

------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[RealGun]

Vitter countered that the "declaration or state of emergency in and of itself does not give anyone the right to confiscate guns" and local law enforcement officials should not "trump" the Constitution.

This is an important argument, but actually they had to employ funding leverage to impose the Second Amendment on the States. Such a restriction would definitely apply to federal officers involved, but it gets pretty sticky regarding how much jurisdiction Congress really has here. If a State were to take this issue to court, only then would the 14th Amendment actually be tested, establishing whether or not Congress had direct jurisdiction over RKBA at the State level.

 

[Baba Louie]

This is an important argument, but actually they had to employ funding leverage to impose the Second Amendment on the States. Such a restriction would definitely apply to federal officers involved, but it gets pretty sticky regarding how much jurisdiction Congress really has here. If a State were to take this issue to court, only then would the 14th Amendment actually be tested, establishing whether or not Congress had direct jurisdiction over RKBA at the State level.

BING BING BING. We have a winner!!! (potentially anyway) Should the House duplicate the Senate's action, and I think that Jindal (R-La) has introduced a similar bill, and should the White House sign it; any state that duplicates N.O.'s example might eventually find themselves in front of the SCOTUS... who will probably rule it null and void, but who SHOULD rule the original 2nd's wording to, maybe, mean something valid. Hopefully taking the individual version of the people as opposed to the collective spin.

Time will tell.

Get ready for a Democratic shift come this November in both houses (15 seats in the House, 6 seats in the Senate)... so it will need to be passed quickly or die when the winds change this fall.

 

[MrTuffPaws]

The U.S. Senate on Thursday voted to prohibit the confiscation of legally owned guns during an emergency like last year's Hurricane Katrina, marking another victory for the gun lobby

Anyone else just read this and ask, how will they know that they are legal? Uh, maybe registration????

 

[Billy_H]

The really sad thing is that they needed to pass something like this.

That's what I was thinking as well...

 

[2TransAms]

I read this again and got to thinking,this may be a devil in disguise. The right to bear arms shouldn't need to be protected by any law,so by creating one that basically says that we are allowed to keep our firearms in a disaster/emergency situation,it could later be rescinded should the whim strike our fearless leaders.Perhaps this may set the precedent for telling us when we can keep our guns?

 

[MrTuffPaws]

I read this again and got to thinking,this may be a devil in disguise. The right to bear arms shouldn't need to be protected by any law,so by creating one that basically says that we are allowed to keep our firearms in a disaster/emergency situation,it could later be rescinded should the whim strike our fearless leaders.Perhaps this may set the precedent for telling us when we can keep our guns?

Exactly what I was thinking. This is bad news. I am so freaking amazed that "shall not be infringed" can be misconstrued.

This is like saying that people cannot peacefully assemble without permit, or the press can be censored outside of a declaration of war, or that searches of private property can be done without a warrant.......Hey, what the freak?????

 

[progunner1957]

I am so freaking amazed that "shall not be infringed" can be misconstrued.

It is not being misconstrued - the antigun bigots know exactly what they are doing.

 

[1 old 0311]

I read the Bill , someplace, and it says " May not use FEDERAL funds to confiscate weapons." That word 'FEDERAL" is what bothers me. How about State funds? County funds? City funds?
It is a good step, but not the last step.

 

[RealGun]

The right to bear arms shouldn't need to be protected by any law,so by creating one that basically says that we are allowed to keep our firearms in a disaster/emergency situation,it could later be rescinded should the whim strike our fearless leaders.

Does it say anything like that, or does it simply say that guns cannot be confiscated unless possessed in violation of existing law? Is privilege mentioned anywhere except perhaps in the debate? It has direct jurisdiction over federal personnel and leverages funding with State and local personnel behavior. Barring something relatively radical and difficult to pass, it is about as far as Congress can go in addressing the wrong imposed by gun confiscation in New Orleans. Perhaps some would be happier if the measure had been defeated.

 

[Lou629]

I've always wondered...

Just what part of "shall not be infringed" don't they understand in the first place?

 

[RealGun]

Just what part of "shall not be infringed" don't they understand in the first place?

State and local officials could credibly say that the Second Amendment is irrelevant. However, some States would have to account for their own constitutional provisions.

 

[Baba Louie]

From S 2599, I snipped the following text:
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states that, `A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' and Congress has repeatedly recognized this language as protecting an individual right.

(2) In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, State and local law enforcement and public safety service organizations were overwhelmed and could not fulfill the safety needs of the citizens of the State of Louisiana.

(3) In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the safety of these citizens, and of their homes and property, was threatened by instances of criminal activity.

(4) Many of these citizens lawfully kept firearms for the safety of themselves, their loved ones, their businesses, and their property, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and used their firearms, individually or in concert with their neighbors, for protection against crime.

(5) In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, certain agencies confiscated the firearms of these citizens, in contravention of the Second Amendment, depriving these citizens of the right to keep and bear arms and rendering them helpless against criminal activity.

(6) These confiscations were carried out at gunpoint, by nonconsensual entries into private homes, by traffic checkpoints, by stoppage of boats, and otherwise by force.

(7) The citizens from whom firearms were confiscated were either in their own homes or attempting to flee the flooding and devastation by means of motor vehicle or boat, and were accosted, stopped, and arbitrarily deprived of their private property and means of protection.

(8) The means by which the confiscations were carried out, which included intrusion into the home, temporary detention of persons, and seizures of property, constituted unreasonable searches and seizures and deprived these citizens of liberty and property without due process of law in violation of fundamental rights under the Constitution of the United States.

(9) Many citizens who took temporary refuge in emergency housing were prohibited from storing firearms on the premises, and were thus treated as second-class citizens who had forfeited their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

(10) At least 1 highly-qualified search and rescue team was prevented from joining in relief efforts because the team included individuals with firearms, although these individuals had been deputized as Federal law enforcement officers.

(11) These confiscations and prohibitions, and the means by which they were carried out, deprived the citizens of Louisiana not only of their right to keep and bear arms, but also of their rights to personal security, personal liberty, and private property, all in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS DURING CERTAIN NATIONAL EMERGENCIES.

Title VII of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5201 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:


SEC. 706. FIREARMS POLICIES.

`(a) Prohibition on Confiscation of Firearms- No officer or employee of the United States (including any member of the uniformed services), person operating pursuant to or under color of Federal law, receiving Federal funds, under the control of any Federal official, or providing services to such an officer, employee, or other person, while acting in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency, may--

`(1) temporarily or permanently seize, or authorize seizure of, any firearm the possession of which is not prohibited under Federal or State law, other than for forfeiture in compliance with Federal law or as evidence in a criminal investigation;

`(2) require the registration of any firearm for which registration is not required by Federal or State law;

`(3) prohibit the possession of any firearm, or promulgate any rule, regulation, or order prohibiting the possession of any firearm, in any place or by any person where such possession is not otherwise prohibited by Federal or State law; or

`(4) prohibit the carrying of a firearm by any person otherwise authorized to carry firearms under Federal or State law, solely because such person is operating under the direction, control, or supervision of a Federal agency in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency.

`(b) Private Rights of Action-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Any individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may seek relief in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress against any person who subjects such individual, or causes such individual to be subjected, to the deprivation of any of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by this section.

`(2) REMEDIES- In addition to any existing remedy in law or equity, under any law, an individual aggrieved by the seizure or confiscation of a firearm in violation of this section may bring an action for the return of such firearm in the United States district court in the district in which that individual resides or in which such firearm may be found.

`(3) ATTORNEY FEES- In any action or proceeding to enforce this section, the court shall award the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs.'.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I am surprised anyone can see this as anything other than election year vote-pandering. The Republicans are very afraid they are about to be voted out of office in droves for their poor performance over the last six years, and are doing anything they can to get their party base to turn out and vote.

That's why they had the ban on gay marriage vote a few weeks ago. Remember that? It went down without any discussion, just a quick vote so they could tell the religious right (which I am a part of) that they had tried to do something, and those terrible liberal Democrats voted them down.

Now they are pandering to gun people.

This law does nothing. The second amendment is clear. Gun confiscations are clearly illegal already, and adding another federal law does nothing to protect our gun rights. If they are willing to violate the 2nd Amendment, then they will violate this new law also.

If I were in the Senate I would have voted against this law, not because I support gun bans, but because it is unnecessary. Laws like this are the reason the US federal code takes up volumes and volumes.

If the Senate is really so against gun bans, then why haven't they called for the arrest of Ray Nagin on grounds of civil rights violation for what happened last year in New Orleans?

 

[RealGun]

person ... receiving Federal funds,

I don't see this provision as precluding a need for State level legislation. Despite any claims in the FINDINGS, the jurisdiction is pretty weak. In any case, I hate the fact that blackmailing states with their appropriations is being used as a workaround to informing them that the 14th Amendment guarantees the RKBA at all State and local levels (and that the notion that States stand separately is ancient history) (and that the notion that major cities are somehow special exceptions is nonsense).

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Yeah, control/enforcement by purse string.

Katrina 2006:

NG Commander: "Where do you want my people deployed, Mayor Nagin?"

Mayor: "Y'all man the communications center and patrol the upscale condos where there won't be any trouble. I'll have my police force take care of everybody else ..."