Senate Narrowly Rejects Pro-Gun Amendment, While House Approves Protection for Veterans

NRA-ILA
NRA – ILA

Charlotte, NC –-(Ammoland.com)- On May 8 2013, the U.S. Senate took up consideration of S. 601, the “Water Resources Development Act of 2013.”

During the debate, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) offered an amendment to extend the Right to Carry to lands administered by the Army Corps of Engineers.

The Corps manages over 11.7 million acres, including many recreational areas. In 2009, Congress passed legislation protecting the Right to Carry in national parks and wildlife refuges, but lands under Corps of Engineers management are not covered by that law.

With strong bipartisan support for the amendment, the final vote was 56-43. However, under the rules for consideration of the bill, 60 votes were required for passage.

On the same day, the House Veterans Affairs Committee voted to approve a provision to require a judge or magistrate to declare that a person who receives veterans' benefits is a danger to himself or to others, before the person can be prohibited from possessing or acquiring firearms.

Currently, the Department of Veterans Affairs adds beneficiaries' names to the federal instant background check database when they are merely unable to manage their finances. Supporters of the provision argued that the need for help with managing money does not make a person dangerous. The chairman of the committee, pro-Second Amendment Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Fla.), said of the current situation: “It's arbitrary. It's inconsistent and it's unreasonable.”

About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

  • 5 thoughts on “Senate Narrowly Rejects Pro-Gun Amendment, While House Approves Protection for Veterans

    1. “With strong bipartisan support for the amendment, the final vote was 56-43. However, under the rules for consideration of the bill, 60 votes were required for passage.”

      So much for “majority rule,” Harry, you snake!

    2. all Federal rules and laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL…as a starting point….as is the senate..repeal the 17th amendment and we could start to see a difference….and then END THE FED…..who has us.a by the balls..and is trashing the strength of this nation..with the help of the president ..including the last 5..and the CONgress

    3. Considering the caliber and integrity of todays judges , giving them any say over any constitutional rights be they guns or speech or any other right and be they for veterans or any other citizens is in itself the extreme heights of ignorance . We actually have judges upholding Sharia law , giving murderers and child molesters lighter sentences than pot smokers and shoplifters , and just like the IRS , using their position to advance their political preferences and agendas . Judges that do this stuff should , like politicians of the same streak , be legitimate targets of constitutional patriots .

    Comments are closed.