Recently, an amendment to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007 was proposed by Senator Vitter (R-La). The Amendment adds section 507:

Please note that this does not mean that the funds from this Act cannot be used to seize a firearm from someone who is using it in a manner contrary to law - it specifically means that just because a state of emergency is declared, the funds cannot be used for warrantless confiscation of firearms such as we saw in New Orleans.

In the senate, there were only 16 votes against this amendment:

A vote against this amendment sends a clear message - the Constitutional rights of the people are subject to being suspended on a politician's whim. Both the 2nd and 4th Amendment were tossed aside in New Orleans, a national disgrace that must never be allowed to happen again.

Some have claimed that Hillary is not anti-gun. This vote proves the lie of that. She stands shoulder to shoulder with the rabid anti-gun crown on the hill - Schumer, Boxer, Feinstein, Kennedy and Lautenberg.

Matt

Thankfully, in June, Blanco actually did something good. She signed a bill that prohibits seizures such as we saw in New Orleans. The House had approved it 102-0 so I don't see where she had much choice.

I'm glad to see that Mary Landrieu voted for this new amendment!

__________________





"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

Kind of a misleading title, Matt. Here's a list of Ds that voted for the bill.

funny how my list is longer than yours, isnt it?


Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND
Dayton (D-MN)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

I'll save you the counting, my list has 28 people on it. Overwhelmingly, the majority of Democrats do not conform to your misleading post title.

__________________
This land was made for you and me
-Woody Guthrie

I'm starting to come around ot your way of thinking. By the time this admin and this supreme court are finished with the rest of my rights, a gun is the only constituional protection from government abuse that I will have.
I used to think gun rights were relatively unimportant (compared to other freedoms) but in the imminent absence of the other protections we are losing, gun ownership becomes more important every day.
I've always (well for 20 years) had a rifle but now I'm thinking that carrying a pistol and keeping an assault weapon at the house are not so crazy after all.

Fair enough. Still, > 1/3 of the Dems voted against the amendment, which deems to me to be a significant portion. Certain posters here claim the Dems are not anti-gun, but some notable Dems are on the "nay" list.

Matt

What is also telling is ONLY Democrats voted against it.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Silence is golden...Duct tape is silver.

If there was armed mayhem spreading throughout NO (as witnessed by some of the earlier shooting at helicopters) and police officers and aid workers were shot, then would you still feel the same way?


WEB

Absolutely. The police were going door to door, without any sort of warrant, searching for and confiscating property from law abiding citizens.

It is an outrage.

Where does the Constitution say the Bill of Rights may be suspended at any time by declaring an emergency?

Matt

So, if dozens of police, medical and other civilian workers had been killed during gun battles in NO, then you would still be in favor of not seizing weapons?


WEB

I would be in favor of seizing the weapons of the people doing the shooting - as well as seizing the people doing the shooting!

How does taking guns away from ordinary, law abiding citizens in any way prevent criminals from shooting at anyone?

Bear in mind that most of these guns were stored in a fashion that ruined them. Even if they are finally returned, which not all the guns have been, they will be ruined.

Matt

You take guns away from everyone. It's like casting a net. You pull up some tuna, but you also get some dolphins and sharks and turtles. You catch both the innocent and the bad folks. However, the bad folks don't have their weapons, so there is less violence and death.


WEB

So the Constitution goes out the window as soon as an emergency is declared? The police can come into your home at any time and just take whatever they please?

That's what happened. The police, without warrants, entered the homes of citizens against their will and took their property.

Matt

The policy is to take guns, not whatever they please. I'm just wondering if you think that the maintenance of the 2nd amendment during a national emergency is worth the losses of human life that would result in such a scenario.


WEB

It's not just the Second Amendment, WEB. What of the Fourth Amendment?

How secure are you in your house if the police can enter on a whim to search for and confiscate your property without so much as probable cause, much less a warrant?

If it's guns they can take today without warrant or cause, what next? What if they decide to take all your food and water to force you out? What if they decide to take your computers and phones to prevent word of what they are doing from getting out?

The Constitution does not fold up because of a state of emergency. God help us if that ever becomes the law.

I just double checked, and I cannot find a single place in the Bill of Rights that says "except in a declared emergency...."

Matt