"Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act" Passe

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by USMC - Retired, Oct 3, 2006.

  1. USMC - Retired

    USMC - Retired Active Member

    5,215
    0
    36
    Fairfax, VA- The National Rifle Association (NRA) and law-abiding gun owners scored a significant victory yesterday when the United States Congress acted to prohibit the confiscation of legal firearms from law-abiding citizens during states of emergency, barring practices conducted by officials in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. This action was included in the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill that passed both chambers of Congress. This bill now heads to President Bush for his expected signature.

    "Following the chaos and civil disorder in New Orleans when the city effectively suspended the Second Amendment, NRA vowed to make sure we never again witnessed this kind of desecration on our rights," declared Chris W. Cox. "As promised, NRA set out to pass legislation at both the federal and state levels to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens."

    H.R. 5013, the "Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act," was introduced in the House by Congressman Bobby Jindal (LA - 1) passed the House on July 25, 2006 with a broad bi-partisan margin of 322-99. Senator David Vitter (R-La) introduced the Senate version of the bill, which passed the United States Senate by 84-16, the largest margin of victory for a NRA-backed measure.

    "The essence of the 'Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act' was so compelling that it received strong bipartisan support in Congress," continued Cox. "When 911 is non-existent and law enforcement personnel are busy with search and rescue missions and other duties, law abiding Americans want to defend their families and loved ones in times of emergency. Your NRA helped guarantee their freedom to do just that."

    "On behalf of all NRA members nationwide, I want to thank Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) and Sen. Vitter for their leadership in introducing this legislation and seeing these fundamental bills through to passage," concluded Cox.
     

  2. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    Georgia could not get this feel good legislation passed.

    Though to be honest, if the law is passed in GA and god forbid a disaster strikes in GA, anybody trying to take guns are themselves breaking the law and are no better than looters.
     
  3. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,351
    385
    83
    Georgia's was much more than a feel good effort. Here is last year's effort, for those who might want to watch this year. http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=462

    Louisiana passed one. Florida passed one unanimously - that means not even one anti-gun Democrat or Republican voted against it. This sort of bill is a slam dunk if we can get people to apply pressure. The only people testifying at the committee hearings last year were law enforcement officers who said "This just doesn't make sense."

    The federal law, while a step in the right direction, does not, I think solve the problem. It cuts off funds.

    Yeah, like they are going to cut off funds in the middle of another Katrina . . .

    Georgia's proposed bill made it felony. Then the committee downgraded it to a misdemeanor, then downgraded it to a civil penalty, before killing the bill altogether.

    How about this year?
     
  4. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    I would think this would be our year. We could essentially shame the legislature into passing the bill based on these others and the national bill. "You don't want to be weaker than the pansy fed law do you?" Can we find a sponsor for the bill?
     
  5. johnpeace

    johnpeace New Member

    96
    0
    0
    Why do we need a new law to make it a crime to break existing law?

    It's already against the law for police to take my legally posessed firearm away from me, unless I am committing a crime. Do we really need another law to reiterate that?

    Thank God all these congressmen waste their time on silly stuff like this instead of *really* changing things. We'd be in trouble if they actually got anything done!
     
  6. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,351
    385
    83
    I am not sure that is so. If it was, I would be satisfied. Really, how are you going to show, in the middle of a disaster area, that the firearm you carry is really yours, legal and owned prior to the declaration of emergency or disaster or thereafter acquired in compliance with all applicable laws of Georgia and the United States?

    Code Section 38-3-51 (d)(8) Governor's Emergency Powers, among which is the power to:
    Suspend or limit the sale, dispensing, or transportation of alcoholic beverages, firearms, . . . provided, however, that any limitation on firearms under this Code section shall not include an individual firearm owned by a private citizen which was legal and owned by that citizen prior to the declaration of state of emergency or disaster or thereafter acquired in compliance with all applicable laws of this state and the United States;
     
  7. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    johnpeace, follow the link above to the thread on last year's bill. In GA the governor has the power to take firearms in a state of emergency. We'd like that off the books, and the act of doing so made a crime.
     
  8. johnpeace

    johnpeace New Member

    96
    0
    0
    Posession and the fact that nobody has reported it stolen and that there is absolutely zero probable cause.

    YIKES!!

    I didn't see that! OMG...and people are resisting this!?
     
  9. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    I think we have a new convert for HB1439. :D Know any good sponsors?
     
  10. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    I watched the debates in the GA committee as they were talking about it.

    The dems could not understand why we train and trust LEO's to enforce laws and then punish them if they make the wrong choice. The bill said something like if you take a legally owned firearm from a citizen, you will be charged with a felony. The Dems could not understand why you would want to punish a trained LEO for making a wrong decision.

    Short answer...
    So the LEO knows that it really is a wrong decision to make.

    They watered the punishment down so much that it was worthless.
     
  11. ICP_Juggalo

    ICP_Juggalo Professional Troll

    1,926
    3
    38
    Our legislature is a damn joke and has been for the past 135 years! I just got a copy of the annotated criminal code from lexis nexis and looking through that at some of the statutes that have been around since the 1800's really starts to make one think what planet our legislature is from. Maybe Uranus? :x Over 1100 pages of jack-booted, knee-jerked, commie vomitus :puke:
     
  12. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    I get the feeling you don't like Georgia's laws. :-k
     
  13. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,351
    385
    83

    :D

    Tell us how you really feel!

    "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws...you create a nation of law-breakers and then you cash in on guilt."

    Ayn Rand
     
  14. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,351
    385
    83

    I urge all who were not around this site last year to click on the quoted link and read all three pages to see how this bill progressed. Best to go in with your eyes open this year.
     
  15. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    24,299
    110
    63
    Congress Power to Regulate

    Regarding H.R. 5013, now the law of the land: Does anyone know what authority Congress cited as the basis of their power for passing such a law? Is discretionary spending really all they could come up with? How about an announcement that they're passing this law under the Second Amendment-- although the 2A doesn't expressly say that "Congress has the power to enforce this Article by appropriate legislation" that is implied, isn't it? Can't Congress pass laws to give force and effect to any part of the Bill of Rights?