Originally posted by cattlelackranch
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Gun Confiscation During Disaster
Collapse
X
-
Gun Confiscation During Disaster
Tags: None
-
Direct violation of the 5th amendment...in 2006, moreover, President George W. Bush signed into law the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, which contained an NRA-backed amendment sponsored by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.). The amendment prohibits persons acting under color of federal law, receiving federal funds, or acting at the direction of a federal employee from seizing or authorizing the seizure of lawfully-possessed firearms or imposing or enforcing certain restrictions on firearms during a state of emergency.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Artos View PostDirect violation of the 5th amendment...in 2006, moreover, President George W. Bush signed into law the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, which contained an NRA-backed amendment sponsored by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.). The amendment prohibits persons acting under color of federal law, receiving federal funds, or acting at the direction of a federal employee from seizing or authorizing the seizure of lawfully-possessed firearms or imposing or enforcing certain restrictions on firearms during a state of emergency.
Nicely done. The next question is, why is the Governor of V.I. still in office? A direct violation of the U.S. Constitution is the surest grounds for impeachment.
Comment
-
Originally posted by texasdeerhunter View PostHas anyone checked this for accuracy? To see if the governor really gave this order? Because it's blatantly against the law to confiscate weapons as noted above. This seems like one of those internet scare tactics that get started anytime there is a major event and has no truth behind it
Comment
-
Originally posted by iamntxhunter View PostYes it is accurate and you can do your own research.
What is funny (not literally) is that a law to protect the 2nd A is written and is supposed to carry any weight when the 2nd A is being ignored all together.
Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
I don't follow the logic that a law can protect a Constitutional amendment.
Comment
Comment