If your congress person voted "right", you might want to thank them.

[alan]

House Passes NRA-Backed "Disaster Recovery
Personal Protection Act"

Fairfax, VA-The National Rifle Association (NRA) and law-abiding gun owners won another major victory today when the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass HR 5013, the NRA-backed "Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act". HR 5013 passed with a broad bi-partisan margin of 322-99.



"Law-abiding gun owners scored a significant victory in the House of Representatives today," said Chris W. Cox, NRA's chief lobbyist. "The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina confirmed a fear long-held by American gun owners: the day government bureaucrats declare our Second Amendment null and void, leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless in the midst of chaos and lawlessness."



This is the second NRA win on this issue in less than two weeks. On July 13, 2006, Senator David Vitter's (R-LA) amendment to prohibit the use of funds appropriated under the Homeland Security appropriations bill (H.R. 5441) for the confiscation of lawfully possessed firearms during an emergency or major disaster passed the United States Senate with a final vote margin of 84-16.



H.R. 5013 amends federal emergency statute laws to prohibit federal, state and local authorities from confiscating lawfully owned firearms during times of national emergencies, as witnessed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina last year when police and military confiscated firearms from law-abiding citizens.



"No matter what the circumstances, lawful gun owners have the right to possess their firearms in their homes," continued Cox. "And if forced to evacuate, they have the right to transport their firearms to a safe place. Nobody has the right to disarm them. That's what this legislation ensures."



After witnessing the draconian confiscation of firearms from law-abiding residents in New Orleans, Alaska, Idaho, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Virginia and Louisiana passed measures that echo the spirit of HR 5013 .



"On behalf of our four million NRA members nationwide, I want to thank Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) for introducing this legislation and the House Republican leadership for seeing that the 'Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act' got a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives," concluded Cox.

 

[BrennanKG]

Oustanding!




B.

 

[ApexinM3]

Yes, a victory! I just sent thank you emails to the reps that voted FOR this bill & chastized those that voted against it, requesting why they did so. Mostly Dems that voted against, though not all. Look at CA, I feel sorry for those folks if/when an eartquake hits.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

HR 5441 is a useless bill. All this bill does is prevent using federal money obtained through the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill from being used to confiscate firearms. It does NOT actually stop confiscations. It does NOT stop federal money obtained from other sources from being used for confiscations. If this bill had been in place last year, it would not have stopped gun confiscations by the NOPD in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

HR 5013 would seem to have more teeth, but I don't know why we need it. The 2nd Amendment already forbids gun confiscation any time, emergency or not. If the government is willing to violate the 2nd Amendment, why would they not violate a mere federal law?

Its just more election year posturing by Republicans.

I would have voted against both of these bills, as they are redundant and unnecessary. The rights they are trying to protect are already guaranteed in the Constitution, and additional paperwork is going to do nothing to make our rights safer.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

`(a) Prohibition on Confiscation of Firearms- No officer or employee of the United States (including any member of the uniformed services), or person operating pursuant to or under color of Federal law, or receiving Federal funds, or under 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--

hmmm read the bold portion Lone. How many cities do you know that DON'T receive Federal funds...

Here is the bill http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c109dVQoVG::

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Its just more election year posturing by Republicans.

Go ahead Vote Demogog....

 

[Ferrari308]

The article says the house passed the bill. Did the senate also pass the identical bill?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Mongo, i just edited my previous post for clarity. I was speaking about HR 5441, and I think your quote is from 5013, but I could be wrong.

In any case, these laws are unnecessary, as the right to bear arms is already a constitutional guarantee. If they will violate the constitution they will violate a minor federal law like this.

 

[Ferrari308]

In any case, these laws are unnecessary, as the right to bear arms is already a constitutional guarantee. If they will violate the constitution they will violate a minor federal law like this.

What would you do if the local New Orleans police knocked on your door and wanted your guns? Could you point a gun at them and shoot? I doubt I could, I would probably hand the guns over even though I would hate to do it. What alternative is there? If you fight, I gaurentee you'll get the chair.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Ferrari, you are correct. If you resist, I have no doubt they will kill you.

What is your point? Do you think police who are willing to violate the constitution won't break the new laws?

 

[Ferrari308]

Ferrari, you are correct. If you resist, I have no doubt they will kill you.

What is your point? Do you think police who are willing to violate the constitution won't break the new laws?

You wrote those laws are unnecessary. I think it is better to have some laws protecting gun owners than none. To many police officers, the second amendment does not mean that we can own guns but that only militias can own guns. By having federal laws saying we can own guns, it tilts the scales a little more in our favor.

Will this law influence some police chiefs in times of emergencies? I think it will.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

To me, the Constitution is MAJOR law.

The new federal law is minor by comparison.

If one would violate a MAJOR law, why would they not violate a lesser law?

Its kind of like hate crimes laws. If murder is illegal, then murder committed in the name of hate is also illegal, and therefore passing specific anti hate laws is unnecessary.

 

[Ferrari308]

Lone_Gunman, I agree with you.

Maybe a better way of looking at this law is as punishment for police departments that don't respect the 2nd amendment. If a police department takes guns away from lawful citizens, then this law will give citizens a right to sue, and will prevent that police department from getting federal funds.

 

[FTF]

My representative didn't vote

I still wrote him a letter voicing my displeasure.

 

[ArmedAmerican]

"The Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act" (H.R. 5013)

"The Jindal bill prohibits federal and state/local police from confiscating (at any time, not just after a natural disaster) firearms which are legally owned under state and federal law. The bill likewise forbids police from requiring the registration of firearms, or prohibiting the possession of firearms in particular places, to the extent that registration or possession bans are not authorized by federal or state law. Finally, the bill forbids federal officers from banning on the otherwise-lawful carrying of firearms by persons engaged in disaster relief under federal supervision. The bill creates a right to sue for persons aggrieved by the violation of the law, and provides for the award of attorney's fee to victorious plaintiffs.

The bill's findings state:

(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution states, `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.

(4) Many of these citizens [those affected by Katrina] 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.

(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.

(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.

(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."

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_07_23-2006_07_29.shtml#1153899155

 

[xd9fan]

In any case, these laws are unnecessary, as the right to bear arms is already a constitutional guarantee. If they will violate the constitution they will violate a minor federal law like this.

+1 and this is why its just pure political grandstanding.

 

[Brian Dale]

If they will violate the constitution they will violate a minor federal law like this.

I disagree. The law is specific enough, and follows the Katrina confiscation fiasco clearly enough, that it appears likely to affect Departmental policy and the orders that police chiefs and mayors give during times of emergency. It puts them on notice that their careers are on the line, and politicians DO care about their careers.

 

[alan]

True, the enactment of laws does NOT, of and in itself, prevent or preclude any particular action(s) by any particular person(s). There are already laws prohibiting murder, bank robbery and so forth.

What the enactment of laws MIGHT do is the following. Give notice to particular persons that certain actions are not acceptable, and if the law is correctly written and ENFORCED, we just might see the cessation of certain actions, perhaps as a result of penalties enforced on violators.

It might be that the need for writen law is unfortunate, but it seems that there are some among us that simply cannot tell, on their own, the difference between right and wrong. By the way, not all individuals so disposed are described as criminals, no small number of them masquerading as PUBLIC SERVANTS, ELECTED OFFICALS and so on.