On the recordJuly 13, 2006
I say to the Senator that if the Senator from Idaho and the Senator from Louisiana want to put together an amendment that allows me to protect my home, as you have described, with my legally owned firearm, I have no objection to that. There are circumstances here that we could write into it, but as it is written, this prohibits the seizure of a firearm based on the existence of a declaration of a state of emergency. That covers it all. If they are firing on National Guardsmen and they say we are going to have a gun-free area around where the Guardsmen are living, you could not seize the guns. You could not take them away, according to the Vitter amendment. Earlier versions of the amendment were much more explicit and they went through explanations, and the Senator, because he is on an appropriations bill and has procedural challenges, took out the language that clarifies what he is trying to do, and what he left behind is language that goes too far. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.
Source
govinfo.gov




