Prohibition on confiscating guns during an emergency passes overwhelmingly
"To prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law."
Here is the list of Senators who voted against the amendment:
NAYs ---16 (All Democrats)
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)
Note of the Democratic Presidential contenders Bayh and Kerry voted for the amendment while Clinton and Dodd voted against it.
UPDATE: See also this article in the Washington Post.
Thanks to Bill St. Clair for correcting this post.
Here is the list of Senators who voted against the amendment:
NAYs ---16 (All Democrats)
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)
Note of the Democratic Presidential contenders Bayh and Kerry voted for the amendment while Clinton and Dodd voted against it.
UPDATE: See also this article in the Washington Post.
Thanks to Bill St. Clair for correcting this post.
posted by John Lott at 7:34 PM
4 Comments:
We can thank the National Rifle Association (and it's leadership) for this. I never thought they could have achieved so much after it looked so hopeless during Katrina in New Orleans. You tell me an individual or group or organization that has achieved so much or has been as successful as the NRA.
If I were Dick Durbin I would be ashamed.
You left out the third column of nay-voters:
Mikulski (D-MD)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Of course, all laws are essentially worthless. They always require *enforcement* to be of any use.
Just because there are some words on a piece of paper saying "no gun confiscation", this does *not* guarantee that [rogue] cops will not attempt same.
Would 'the law' support armed citizens using [deadly] force to resist such cops? If not, this new legislation is BS.
"Would 'the law' support armed citizens using [deadly] force to resist such cops? If not, this new legislation is BS."
There is one situation when you can act in self defense against police: when they attack you without probable cause and when you have not committed any crime. Especially if police attempt to enter your home without court authorization.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home