Illegal gun confiscation news, good news.

Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
7,311
Likes
569
Location
Ma.
Feedback: 12 / 0 / 0
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsa...424134_RTRUKOC_0_US-CONGRESS-GUNS.xml&src=rss

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, 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, 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.
 
The usual suspects that voted against the amendment...

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)


(Kerry actually voted in favor of it![shocked])
 
Oh... If something like that happens here, I'll give them my guns, but not before giving them EVERY round of ammo I have first! [devil]
 
MrTwigg said:
It still has to get through the house.


I hope so. This seems like a no brainer, except to the idiots playing politics as usual, that's right Ted, I'm talking about you.

Stealing people's means of defense when they need it the most is pretty low.
 
MrTwigg said:
It still has to get through the house.

The original House stand alone bill (H.R.5013), has 142 cosponsors. With that kind of support, passage in the House shouldn't be a problem.
 
The House is much more conservative than the Senate right now. Look at the illegal immigration bills from both the Senate and the House. The house cracked down and the Senate just cracked.

Surprised by Kerry. Sickened by the rest of them that voted against this!! The Constitution is out the door if the Democrats get the House and Senate in Nov. Can you imagine a worse scenarion than a Hillary Clinton presidency, Feinstein or Kennedy as majority leaders in the Senate and Pelosi as speaker of the house?

It would be Bizzarro World!

Hello defacto president Kofi Annan (or his replacement).
 
mAss Backwards said:
Download my newest, um, "ballot" here.

(for entertainment purposes only, of course)
That looks quite uh... entertaining. Yeah, that's the word.

Think I'll go entertain myself at the range on Sunday with a scoped .22. [smile]
 
I'm not sure I could afford the ammo!! Besides... for the 25 or the 50 yard range, a scoped .22 shooting at an 8.5x11 sheet of paper is just about right.
 
mAss Backwards said:
Download my newest, um, "ballot" here.

(for entertainment purposes only, of course)
Hey... Y'know, I've been thinking of sponsoring a turkey shoot for my Lodge... and that would be the perfect target. [devil]
 
No thanks. If I want to make big holes, I've got the .45 and the M1. I think a .22 is just right, though. Little holes for little minds (the ones on the ballot, that is).
 
Hmm, guess ya do have a point there. Hey that reminds me, I'm thinking about making papier mache targets...only question is what to fill em with...
 
JRyan said:
...
Sen. Richard Durbin, 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?"
....

Please tell me this didn't happen. Can't they just call in a tank or an air strike? Sheesh.
 
This amendment is very important to self protection of love ones and property when there is no other means. After Katrina there was NO police to protect anyone from bands of looters,rapist and possible murders. And these 16 fools vote against this are just UNAMERICAN, They are more of a threat to very law abiding American anti gun or not. They put all citizens at risk during a national emerency while they hide for cover in there well protected bomb shelters.I hope Americans everywhere remenbers these 16 unamericans come election time.
 
kendall-op said:
I hope Americans everywhere remenbers these 16 unamericans come election time.

Unfortunatly, those 16 have such a solid base of supporters that they'll never be elected out of office.
 
The bill contains wording about "not prohibited by state or federal law", so there is still room for states (or cities in non pre-emption states) to authorize emergency confiscation with a specific statute.
 
AFAIK, the amendment only prohibits the expenditure of federal funds for the purpose of confiscating firearms. It doesn't do a thing to stop state or local forces, including non-federalized National Guard troops from doing so. If they had really wanted to stomp down on the practice, they could have prohibited "any entity receiving federal funds" from confiscating them, which would had stopped damn near everybody on the planet.

Ken
 
Back
Top Bottom