PDA

View Full Version : ANOTHER NRA VICTORY - Vitter Amendment Passes


mikehaas
07-13-2006, 8:39 AM
http://calnra.com/caspecial/vitter060712.shtml

U.S. Senate Votes to Protect Second Amendment Rights During Emergencies

Fairfax, VA - Today, the United States Senate passed the Homeland Security appropriations bill (H.R. 5441), including amendment # 4551 -- offered by Senator David Vitter, to prohibit the use of funds appropriated under this bill for the confiscation of lawfully possessed firearms during an emergency or major disaster.

NRA Chief Lobbyist, Chris Cox, asserted, "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."

Various reports indicate that military and law enforcement agencies from several states confiscated guns from law-abiding New Orleans residents. 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. Convicted felons and other "prohibited persons," are not protected under this legislation and it does not effect law enforcement operations outside of disaster relief situations.

"In passing this legislation, Congress acted to protect the self-defense rights of citizens when those rights are most vital. There was no 9-1-1 or police to rely on while looters and rapists and thugs ran rampant and honest citizens were left to their own devices to protect themselves, their families and their neighbors. I want to thank Senator Vitter for introducing this amendment and all the representatives who supported it."

Emergency powers legislation prohibiting government officials from restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners during declared states of emergency has passed this year in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, South Carolina, Virginia, Alaska, Idaho, Kentucky, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma.

-‑nra‑‑

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services.

69Mach1
07-13-2006, 8:48 AM
Thanks for the update Mike. I'm glad this leg. is on the books.

50 Freak
07-13-2006, 9:38 AM
"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."

Various reports indicate that military and law enforcement agencies from several states confiscated guns from law-abiding New Orleans residents. 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. Convicted felons and other "prohibited persons," are not protected under this legislation and it does not effect law enforcement operations outside of disaster relief situations.


If I remember correctly, the NG did not confiscate any firearms. They actually refused to do so. It was the local NO LE's and out of state LEs (most noteably, our CHPs...shame shame shame) that did the confiscation.

DrjonesUSA
07-13-2006, 10:05 AM
Cool.......

grammaton76
07-13-2006, 10:15 AM
While this is a cool amendment, how does it ensure that no siezures happen? The way it seems to be worded, if the money for the confiscations isn't coming from that appropriations bill, then they're not prohibited by the amendment.

I'm wondering if it would prohibit just SOME agencies from enacting confiscation programs, perhaps, while leaving others untouched?

xenophobe
07-13-2006, 10:51 AM
I'm glad something along these lines has been finalized. It's about time. There are no guarantees that this will stop seizures, but it is a large step in the right direction.

rkt88edmo
07-13-2006, 12:01 PM
If I remember correctly, the NG did not confiscate any firearms. They actually refused to do so. It was the local NO LE's and out of state LEs (most noteably, our CHPs...shame shame shame) that did the confiscation.

And what you quoted above basically states the same thing.

50 Freak
07-13-2006, 2:50 PM
My point is, the new law is only forbids Federally funded groups (ie...NG, Army) from seizing firearms.

The real culprits of NO were the local LE's and the army of LE volunteers that came to NO. Most would not obey the Mayor Nugget or the Police Chief's orders to seize firearms. Unfortunately our CHP were not one of them.

This law just re-enforces what was sort of already there. No Federally funded troops will be confiscating firearms in a disaster. Local LEs....nothing stopping them.

xenophobe
07-13-2006, 2:53 PM
My point is, the new law is only forbids Federally funded groups (ie...NG, Army) from seizing firearms.

The real culprits of NO were the local LE's and the army of LE volunteers that came to NO. Most would not obey the Mayor Nugget or the Police Chief's orders to seize firearms. Unfortunately our CHP were not one of them.

This law just re-enforces what was sort of already there. No Federally funded troops will be confiscating firearms in a disaster. Local LEs....nothing stopping them.

Well, if law enforcement comes from out of state, I'm pretty sure they become federal... and would not be allowed to commit such acts.

In any event, it's a step forward...

rkt88edmo
07-13-2006, 2:55 PM
and even if they don't become federal, I'll bet that the funding for them is.

6172crew
07-13-2006, 2:56 PM
Good news, even for us living behind the iron curtain!

xenophobe
07-13-2006, 2:56 PM
and even if they don't become federal, I'll bet that the funding for them is.

As soon as their payroll starts siphoning from the federal channels, that would make them federalized.

jerryg1776
07-13-2006, 3:38 PM
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.


Would that mean any FEMA operation or any operation funded in part or supported by Federal funds, even one dollar, would mandate that states cannot confiscate any weapons at all during troubled times / declared disasters?

I would like to think that since states accept Federal support and funding all the time, this should apply to any disaster at any time. Show me a state that does not receive Federal funds for law enforcement etc or services. May sound like a weak argument but I am sure that when Interstate commerce was first thrown out there by the feds, many states did not like it and thought it was weak arguement - look what where it is now.

Just a random thought.

Of course all a state has to do is pass a law which clearly states that the state has the lawful authority to temporarily confiscate civilian weapons during a declared emergeny and this federal law is powerless. They have allowed for the states to be able to cicumvent this law in a very convienent and legal manner. A state could even pass an emergency proclamation, similar to an executive order, to temporarily ban civilina possession, not ownership, of any weapon in a declared disaster. confiscations would then clearly fall under current state law and then the state could still be allowed federal funding and still temporarily confiscate weapons.

once temporarily confiscated, what are the odds of getting a weapon back - especially if itsunregisterd and you have to prove its yours. how do you do that! State could just say you proveided insufficient proof and not give iot back to you.

tcrpe
07-13-2006, 4:12 PM
. . . . and out of state LEs (most noteably, our CHPs...shame shame shame) that did the confiscation.

You bet it was. The CHP beat the crap out of an old woman and stole her. ivory-handled pistol.

Where is that pistol today?

What do you want to bet it's locked up in some CHP supervisor's home gun safe?

artherd
07-13-2006, 6:10 PM
FWIW guys, I know one of the CHP officers sent over there. He heard that NOPD *was* confiscating guns, but CHP as a matter of fact did not. CHP did enter houses if the front door was OPEN or if it was answered, to notify of an evacuation order. They did not enter locked residences unless cries for help, etc. were heard. (many were heard, and many people stuck in attics, etc. were quite greatful of rescue.) The only people whom CHP disarmed, were people they arrested for other crimes, ie looting.


This is a relatively good, but not completely effectual, law on the Federal level. It's coverage should extend to states as well.

tcrpe
07-13-2006, 6:54 PM
FWIW guys, I know one of the CHP officers sent over there. He heard that NOPD *was* confiscating guns, but CHP as a matter of fact did not.

The old woman is suing, and using the video of the CHP incident as evidence. I have posted a link to the video here before. (here's another: http://www.nraila.org/News/MMArchive.aspx# )

Ask your CHP buddy if he knows where the ivory handled pistol is . . . .

6172crew
07-13-2006, 8:29 PM
Its hard to beat the video, Ive seen it and wouldnt give s squirt for those troopers, is it me or do those guys seem worked up?

trinity9
07-13-2006, 11:11 PM
FWIW guys, I know one of the CHP officers sent over there. He heard that NOPD *was* confiscating guns, but CHP as a matter of fact did not... The only people whom CHP disarmed, were people they arrested for other crimes, ie looting.

Wow, sorry, but I watched a video that is difficult to refute-- locked or unlocked, cries for help or not.

Would the other crimes include being elderly, in your own kitchen, in a state of fear, attempting to demonstrate your willingness to defend yourself to an agent of law enforcement?

Quick-- edit your post.

Trinity9

glockk9mm
07-13-2006, 11:43 PM
FWIW guys, I know one of the CHP officers sent over there. He heard that NOPD *was* confiscating guns, but CHP as a matter of fact did not. CHP did enter houses if the front door was OPEN or if it was answered, to notify of an evacuation order. They did not enter locked residences unless cries for help, etc. were heard. (many were heard, and many people stuck in attics, etc. were quite greatful of rescue.) The only people whom CHP disarmed, were people they arrested for other crimes, ie looting.



Mabe you need to show him this video. I dont think there was a cry for help there, nor do i think she was stuck in a attic. Mabe also he might of been in another area of town where these things didn't take place.

chris
07-14-2006, 1:27 AM
not surprised our CHP confiscated firearms they wanted to get some practice before they get the order to take ours. i just hope this law prohibits this type of behavior. i have little respect for officers who think they are gods. no offense to the officers who do their jobs lawfully and morally.

50 Freak
07-14-2006, 3:16 AM
FWIW guys, I know one of the CHP officers sent over there. He heard that NOPD *was* confiscating guns, but CHP as a matter of fact did not. CHP did enter houses if the front door was OPEN or if it was answered, to notify of an evacuation order. They did not enter locked residences unless cries for help, etc. were heard. (many were heard, and many people stuck in attics, etc. were quite greatful of rescue.) The only people whom CHP disarmed, were people they arrested for other crimes, ie looting.

No offense Ben, I met your CHP buddy and although he seemed like a nice guy. I'm still convinced he and his CHP buddys broke the law and by doing so have brought down yet another lawsuit that us Tax payers are going to have to pay.

There is no denying it. The CHP were in that woman's house uninvited. Refused to leave when she told them too. Tackled her to the ground (in her own kitchen) and took her gun and knife then shipped her off to probably rot in some area. Not to mention I believe they broke/dislocated her arm/shoulder.

No matter how many different ways I look at it. It looked like a gun confiscation to me. And I don't see that she was looter or some criminal to warrant them taking her gun. And she wasn't arrested so that confirms my assumption of her innocence.

SHAME SHAME SHAME ON THEM....I will always remember this video when it comes to voting for more funding for the CHP or when I get a call asking for money for some CHP function. NO WAY IN HELL....

tankerman
07-14-2006, 5:03 AM
The order to confiscate came from the superintendant of police and from that SCUM Ray Nagen(mayor). The only way I believe that no local LE were involved was because most of them walked off the job.

tenpercentfirearms
07-14-2006, 8:22 AM
First, the important thing about this bill is that it sends a clear message to all law enforcement agencies, whether federal or not, that the United States Government will not tolerate the illegal confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens. It is not so much the exact wording of the bill that makes it good, it is the message. You can bet the next time an agency deploys to one of these areas they are going to surely tell their supervisors to tell their officers NOT TO TAKE ANYONE'S GUNS...in front of a camera crew. :p

Two, six CHP officers overstep their bounds and suddenly the entire CHP is at fault? LOL. Sort of like when one gun owner goes crazy and shoots up a school yard or shoots a judge in his office. They are all wack jobs and we should take all the guns away because none of them can be trusted right? Why are some people such knee jerk reactionaries? Those CHP officers and their immediate supervisors should be held accountable for their actions. Not the entire agency unless it was an agency issued order. In that case the commissioner should also be held accountable. Cutting CHP funding for the protection of our state because of the acts of a few would be about the stupidest, knee jerk idea I have ever heard of and would do nothing but decrease the effectiveness of our law enforcement agency in this state.

50 Freak
07-14-2006, 9:10 AM
Two, six CHP officers overstep their bounds and suddenly the entire CHP is at fault? LOL. Sort of like when one gun owner goes crazy and shoots up a school yard or shoots a judge in his office. They are all wack jobs and we should take all the guns away because none of them can be trusted right? Why are some people such knee jerk reactionaries? Those CHP officers and their immediate supervisors should be held accountable for their actions. Not the entire agency unless it was an agency issued order. In that case the commissioner should also be held accountable. Cutting CHP funding for the protection of our state because of the acts of a few would be about the stupidest, knee jerk idea I have ever heard of and would do nothing but decrease the effectiveness of our law enforcement agency in this state.

Talk to the CHP officer that was involved. No remorse whatso ever. I attribute that to the training and mentality that the CHP is instilling in their officers. This guy was a gun nut like ourselves, yet nothing in the back of his head screamed "2nd amendment....gun confiscation....maybe I should re-think this". Worse yet, among those 6 officers, not one of them said "hey guys, maybe this isn't such a great idea....".

Hell yeah, I'm not supporting the CHP as long as they are so quick to kick in door and seize weapons from little old ladies.

Knee jerk reaction...I don't think so... I didn't mention this but my position also has to do with the fact a year ago my wife and sister were stuck along side of the very dark fast moving freeway (280 near San Mateo) at 2am. To make a long story short. They were on a call box calling for help. They told me they waited for over an hour and watched 3 CHPers pass by without even stopping to help. :mad:

First, the important thing about this bill is that it sends a clear message to all law enforcement agencies, whether federal or not, that the United States Government will not tolerate the illegal confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens. It is not so much the exact wording of the bill that makes it good, it is the message. You can bet the next time an agency deploys to one of these areas they are going to surely tell their supervisors to tell their officers NOT TO TAKE ANYONE'S GUNS...in front of a camera crew.

Totally agree, hope you are right Wes. What I can't believe is that numbskull of a "chocolate city" Mayor won re-election....why isn't he in some unemployment line right now???

jerryg1776
07-14-2006, 2:06 PM
Totally agree, hope you are right Wes. What I can't believe is that numbskull of a "chocolate city" Mayor won re-election....why isn't he in some unemployment line right now???


Can you say Marion Barry. Tell me how he could have served 4 terms as DC mayor. Of course 3 of those were prior to the conviction and the FBI video tape of him using / buying Cocaine. After his "misdemeanor" prison term was served, he then had to just run and win a city council seat to bide time until he ran for and won his fourth mayoral term. Then he retired from politics in 1998.

However, in 2004 he ran for a council member seat in Ward 8 and won by a 96% landslide.

And you wonder how Nagin was re-elected as mayor of NO.

tcrpe
07-14-2006, 2:26 PM
Talk to the CHP officer that was involved. . . .

Ask him where the ivory handled pistol is.

That's the question they will not address.

dw1784
07-15-2006, 12:24 AM
here's the text (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r109:1:./temp/~r109e8rNDy:e23271:) to the hearing if any1 interested:

"DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007 -- (Senate - July 13, 2006)

SEC. 540. PROHIBITION ON CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS.

...It would prohibit law enforcement officers from confiscating firearms from those who are in lawful possession of them just because it is a disaster situation. It would not prevent funding for law enforcement officers who confiscate firearms because someone is in violation of Federal, State, or local law. It simply says, law enforcement cannot, under their powers because it is an emergency situation, start confiscating firearms which are completely legal, which have been obtained completely lawfully, by law-abiding citizens...."

as others have suggested, if your local LE is not supported/funded by the feds, they can and may argue against compliance. Then again, DHS's "National Asset Database" (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/washington/12assets.html) includes an Amish popcorn company, a kangaroo conservancy, a groundhog zoo...heavily laden with loads of pork barrel. If your town didn't get a piece of this pie, there's something wrong with your local gov't.

DrjonesUSA
07-18-2006, 12:43 PM
What part of the state are those gun-grabbing CHPs from??

50 Freak
07-18-2006, 1:41 PM
I believe they are N. Cal (bay area).

could be wrong....

phish
07-18-2006, 2:05 PM
I think this is a step in the right direction, since money is what makes the world go 'round. :D

Will it stop it outright? Maybe not. But at least Vitter is trying to help us out.

trinity9
07-18-2006, 3:27 PM
Two, six CHP officers overstep their bounds and suddenly the entire CHP is at fault?

6 out of how many that were sent? I believe that it's indicative of the mentality and training.

You have to admit it's a bit ironic that it was CHP officers. It could have been officers from any other agency in the country on the video, but it turned out that they were from Kalifornia.

What are the odds? Apparently the odds are pretty good...

trinity9

tenpercentfirearms
07-18-2006, 9:29 PM
6 out of how many that were sent? I believe that it's indicative of the mentality and training.LOL. According to a quick Google search I just did, back in the late 90's there were 6,700 sworn CHP personnel. You are telling me that .089% of the force "indicative"? LOL. Great use of odds and reasoning. Oh, wait. You said 6 out of the number of guys who went was indicative right? Oh I am sorry. I did another Google search and it said 113 CHP officers went to New Orleans. So that makes it 5.3% of those who went assaulted that old woman. I guess that is pretty indicative too right? LOL.

Hold those responsible accountable for their actions. When one gun owner shoots someone in cold blood, that does not make all gun owners wrong. Well unless you use your math. 1 out of 80 million! I guess that is pretty indicative of how evil and volatile gun owners are! :rolleyes:

50 Freak
07-18-2006, 11:07 PM
I did another Google search and it said 113 CHP officers went to New Orleans.

I'd like to know if all those 113 CHiPers also participated in the gun confiscation. When I spoke to that CHiPer, he said they were told by thier Commander to go ahead and confiscate guns. Now this comes from second hand conversation. But that is what I picked up in the conversation with the CHiPer that was there.

Ben, ask your buddy to tell us the whole story. He's welcome to post on here or maybe you can post his story for us to read. I'd love to hear what he's got to say about this. I know he was one of the CHiPers in that video. Let's hear his side of the story.....I want to be wrong in this matter.

chris
07-18-2006, 11:20 PM
is anyone surprised that our two useless senators voted against it. as for the CHP why not blame the whole force. the other side uses the same mentallity. as for taking the high ground in this i think not. we gun owners are blamed for dam near every act of violence with a firearm and i for one is sick and tired of being blamed for the actions of 000.1% of people who have firearms.

we all know that criminals are responsible for these acts. i'm not surprised that the officers that did confiscate firearms were from Kalifornia.

end of rant.

the best thing is that this bill passed the senate and hopefully congress passes it also.