The battle begins!

[dgibson]

The first shots were fired in Congress yesterday regarding lawsuit preemption. Pay close attention to the 5th paragraph of this release from the NRA-ILA:

On Wednesday morning, the U.S. Senate began to debate S. 1805—the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" (formerly referenced as S. 659/S. 1806.) A bi-partisan 75-22 vote allowed debate to proceed, lifting the threat of a filibuster.

The debate continued late into the evening with no substantive movement on the bill and no additional votes were taken. Senators did, however, reach a "Unanimous Consent Agreement" spelling out specific amendments that would be permitted to be offered during the debate in anticipation of a final vote on the underlying measure next Tuesday.

On Thursday, the Senate reconvened and first considered was an amendment by anti-gun Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) that would require all handguns be sold with a mechanical safety device approved by the Consumer Product Safety Commission(CPSC). This amendment was then replaced with a "second degree" amendment by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI). The Kohl amendment is much less restrictive and also provides liability protection for gun owners. The revised amendment passed 70-27.

The Senate next debated an amendment by Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) which would permit current and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms off duty in other states. Arguing hysterically against the amendment, anti-gun Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) revealed his deep distrust of gun carrying even by sworn police officers. A vote on the Campbell amendment was deferred until Tuesday.

Sen. Kennedy then introduced an amendment to ban the manufacture and sale of "armor-piercing" ammunition. Kennedy, who actually condemned the .30-30 Winchester cartridge during debate, wants to institute a "performance-based" standard that would grant any future Attorney General sweeping authority to ban any center-fire ammunition, including most common-place rifle hunting ammunition. The standard proposed by Sen. Kennedy was rejected in the 1980s as overly broad and unnecessary to meet any threat posed to law enforcement officers` safety. A vote on this NRA-opposed amendment will take place Tuesday.

The Senate next debated and voted upon two amendments seeking to gut S. 1805. The first related to the D.C. sniper case, but the proposal by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) was defeated, 56-40. A "law enforcement" exemption offered by Sen. John Corzine (D-NJ) was soundly defeated, 56 to 38.

NRA strongly opposed both amendments. One of the strengths of S. 1805 is that it adopts the same rules for all plaintiffs, no matter how sympathetic or unsympathetic, and no matter how notorious or mundane their victimization. Plaintiffs` rights should depend on settled principles of law, not on emotion or sympathy.

[ 02-27-2004, 09:40: Message edited by: dgibson ]

 

[1_pointer]

My biggest worry during the DC sniper thing was that they were using a bolt action sporting rifle. That would have been REAL bad!

 

[dgibson]

More activity:

Vol. # 5 Special Edition February 27, 2004

NSSF WEB SITE PROVIDES UPDATES ON SENATE DEBATE

Vote Expected Tuesday. . . With a flurry of attempts to amend it, The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms act is moving through the U.S. Senate toward a vote early next week. Stay abreast of developments, and their significance to passage of this bill, with frequent visits to the NSSF Web site at http://www.nssf.org. Our opponents are trying to make too much of a vote yesterday, because an amendment offered to the bill passed 70-27. The amendment would require locks to be provided with every handgun sold, even though virtually all new guns are provided with locking devices from the factory. Additionally, in just the past six months, Project ChildSafe has distributed 6 million firearm safety kits in 35 states with visits to 8,900 communities. The program, created by and initially paid for by the firearms industry, is in its sixth year.

27Feb2004
The latest from Capitol Hill
Late last night an agreement was reached on amendments to be offered to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (S. 1805/ S. 659). After a successful procedural vote (75-22), the Senate began to debate and vote on amendments. The White House has issued a “Statement of Administration Position” (SAP) that encourages the Senate to pass a “clean” bill free of extraneous amendments. However, anti-gun senators used parliamentary leverage to extract concessions to vote on amendments that held the potential for derailing the bill. Pro-gun senator countered with their own amendments. Throughout the day, votes took place on the following amendments.

1. Locking Devices
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) offered an amendment that requires a safety lock to be distributed with each new and used firearm sold. The Senate agreed by a 70-27 vote to approve the measure. The legislation provides liability protection for gun owners.
[ NSSF Statement on Amendment ]

2. Reaffirm Victims’ Ability to Sue
Offered by Senators Frist and Craig, this legislation passed by a 59-37 vote. It “reaffirmed” the right to bring a civil action against any dealer or distributor who violates federal or state laws in the distribution or sale of a firearm. This amendment was used to counter legislation proposed by Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) to “carve out” a special exception to S. 1805 for the victims of convicted murders John Muhammad and John Lee Malvo.

3. Muhammad/Malvo Carveout
This amendment was sponsored by Senator Mikulski and allowed suits by the Washington, D.C. snipers to move forward against both Bull’s Eye and Bushmaster. It failed 56-40.

4. Reaffirm Law Enforcement’s Ability to Sue
Again, an amendment offered by Senator Frist to reaffirm and restate the ability of law enforcement officers’ right to bring a civil action against a dealer or distributor who violates state and/or federal law in the distribution or sale of a firearm. The legislation was designed to counter an amendment sponsored by Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ). It was defeated 60-34.

5. Law Enforcement Carveout
This legislation, offered by Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ), would have allowed law enforcement officers to retain the right to sue manufacturers. It was soundly rejected 56-38.

The Senate will resume debate tomorrow on additional amendments. However, recorded votes will not begin until Monday. Tuesday will be a big day for the S. 1805. A showdown will occur on two of the most contentious amendments: a straight 10-year extension of the assault weapons ban, and background checks at gun shows. Following votes on those measures, S. 1805 will go to final passage.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Quick Facts

Overwhelmingly passed in the House, 285-140
Has bipartisan Senate support
Would prevent politically motivated junk lawsuits against law-abiding companies in highly regulated industry making and selling non-defective products
Does not provide blanket immunity
Lawsuits will proceed for illegal acts
Lawsuits will proceed for defective products
Lawsuits will proceed for negligent entrustment
Read the bill for yourself

Read letters of support from union members, business leaders and trade associations.

Senator Tom Daschle's support

Firearms Industry's Position

FAQ on S. 659


PROTECT OUR INDUSTRY, PROTECT YOUR JOB -- ACT NOW TO SAVE OUR SPORT!

The Senate is debating The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, legislation prohibiting junk lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others. See whether your Senator is a co-sponsor of this important legislation by clicking here. Then, call your Senators as soon as possible to voice your support.

Contact your Senators and urge them to support the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

Call Both Your U.S. Senators
(202) 224-3121
Enter Your ZIP Code and Write Your Senators by Clicking Here



COPYRIGHT 2004 by National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. Permission is granted for broadcast, publication, retransmission to e-mail lists, WWW or any other copying or storage, in any medium, online or not, if 1) the text is forwarded in its entirety, including this paragraph, and 2) no fee is charged. — SUBSCRIPTION to Bullet Points is free, and available at www.nssf.org — To UNSUBSCRIBE, click here and follow the instructions to have your e-mail automatically removed.

 

[feclnogn]

I sent Pete Domenici's office an email. I told them if they let this go and Bush signs it into law they would lose the vote of one NM gun owner. I also reminded them that the Republicans only lost NM by 400 votes and would do so again in 2004. If this bill goes through Bush will lose in 2004 in addition the sentate will flip over to the D column.

 

[danr55]

Fecl,, did I miss something? I was of the opinion that this bill protected the rights of retailers and wholesalers that operated within the law.
Please explain why you are so opposed to it..

Thanks

 

[feclnogn]

The bill does propose to protect what you stated. That is a good thing. However the dems are trying to add amendments to it for mandatory trigger locks with hand gun purchases, the gun show loop and reinstating the assault weapons ban. That is a bad thing and unacceptable. At least to me.

 

[feclnogn]

To finish my thoughts, this bill needs to go through unamended with a vote just for the lawsuit protection language. If they can't get that then it needs to go away or be vetoed by Bush.

 

[feclnogn]

Here is an email I got from GOA

Gun Control Added To Lawsuit Protection Bill
-- Battle to resume on Tuesday

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

ACTION ITEMS:

1. GOA Members: By now you have received your postcards regarding
the gun bill that is currently on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
There is still time to send those cards, as final passage on the
bill will not occur until Tuesday at the earliest. If you have
not received those postcards and are not a member yet of GOA, you
can go to http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm to sign up for
full membership benefits, which include postcards and additional
legislative alerts.

2. All pro-gun activists: Please use the pre-written message
below to contact your Senators. And forward this alert to every
pro-gun family member and friend that you have.


Friday, February 27, 2004

While some gun control passed yesterday in the U.S. Senate, the
biggest skirmishes are still to come next week. The battle will be
fought over amendments to S. 1805, the gun liability bill which was
formerly S. 659.

The Senate will continue debating the bill today and Monday, with
votes resuming late Monday night or Tuesday. But one notable
provision passed yesterday -- a Lock Up Your Safety requirement.

This amendment -- offered by anti-gun Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI) --
would require all handgun purchasers to pay an implicit "gun tax" by
requiring them to buy a trigger lock when they purchase their
handgun, irrespective of need. In addition, the amendment would
create a broad and implicit cause of action against gun owners who
fail to actually use the storage device to lock up their firearms.
Of course, a locked gun then becomes unavailable for self-defense.

This gun control measure has opponents of the bill beaming.
"Remember, the sponsors of this bill stood up and opposed this
amendment," said Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). "The president has
said he wants a clean bill. This is no longer a clean bill."

(Senator Boxer offered a Lock Up Your Safety provision of her own
which was superceded by the Kohl amendment.)

On Tuesday, the Senate is expected to take up several more
amendments including concealed carry reciprocity (for off-duty cops,
not other citizens) and an ammunition restriction study which will
determine whether the ban on so-called "cop killer" ammunition
should include superior performance bullets in popular hunting
calibers such as the 30-06.

Most importantly, the Senate is expected to vote on the McCain gun
show ban and whether to extend the Clinton semi-auto ban.

It is important the Senate understands that any anti-gun language
attached to this bill is completely unacceptable!!!

CONTACT INFO: Use the pre-written letter below to help direct your
comments to your two Senators. You can send the letter as an e-mail
by visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm (where phone and fax numbers
are also available

 

[Tom]

The NRA sight helps you find out who your senators are.

Here is a list of all the e-mail addresses for every senator.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Do something about this! Ask your senator to support S1805 without any rediculous ammendments like Sen.Kennedy introduced where lots of hunting ammo would be banned. It will help a lot to ask them to pass it clean.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by feclnogn:
However the dems are trying to add amendments to it for mandatory trigger locks with hand gun purchases, the gun show loop and reinstating the assault weapons ban. That is a bad thing and unacceptable. At least to me.

Fecl,
Educate me, please. Why are the mandatory trigger locks with hand gun purchases, the gun show loop and reinstating the assault weapons ban ammendments bad? Are these removable locks on the pistols? Why not have the gun show loop hole closed down? I get damn nervous every time I go to a gun show and see some of the starry eyed "Gothic" kids looking at guns.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

If those starry eyed Gothic kids are old enough and have committed no crimes, they are both allowed and entitled to buy a gun. Why should dress or appearance dictate what inalienable rights they have? A background check would not stop them from buying a gun.

Weren't you the same guy who was complaining about the state saying you had to wear a seatbelt? I guess you just like to post and argue.

 

[dgibson]

Elky, I can touch on a few high points regarding the opposition to those things, as I understand them.

1) Gun locks are already voluntarily provided by nearly all the handgun manufacturers. Arguments against legislating them vary, including that they are unreliable and/or will be in the way when you need the gun most. Another argument against them is that safe storage of a weapon is the responsibility of the gun owner, and the method is his decision. No mechanical device can supplant proper safety techniques and common sense.

2) The so-called "gun show loophole" arguably doesn't exist. By law, any dealer of firearms is already required to comply with background checks and other laws, whether at a gunshow or not. As it stands now, they can go back to their shop and perform the background check; it doesn't have to be done on-site (yes, the buyer still has to wait or pick up the item after the check is complete). The "loophole law" would require it done then and there, adding extra trouble and a good deal of expense to the operation. The only people who don't have to perform background checks at gunshows (or anywhere else) are private individuals selling from one person to another. How many private individuals do you know who will spend the money to rent a table at a gun show? Thus, it's seen as a ploy to end gun shows out of unneccessary expense. Further, despite all the hoopla, the gun control crowd can't come up with any meaningful statistics of guns being bought at these shows and being used for crime. The same rule applies as usual: criminals don't do background checks, they do backchannel purchases.

3) The "assault weapon ban" is considered a farce for many reasons. First, it has little to do with real "assault weapons," as fully-automatic firearms have been strictly regulated since the 30's. What it does attempt to ban is an aesthetic...folding stocks, removable magazines, semiautomatic operation. Mainstream semiautomatic pistols used to be available in minor calibers with high-capacity magazines (the Browning Hi-Power had a 13-round magazine since what, the 20's?), but now they're not. Again, the law served largely to curtail the right of private citizens to own these items if they so choose, and did little or nothing to prevent criminals from having them if they wanted them. And there is the usual (justifiable) fear that the ban will be expanded, which Feinstein and crew have already attempted this year. They don't want it to end, they want it to get bigger--their new additions to the "assault weapon ban" would touch upon shotguns and items covered in Ted Kennedy's blather above. The "assault weapon ban" is but step one in their push to ban all firearms.

Or so the arguments go.

 

[JoseCuervo]

D-Gib,

Thanks for the insight and not just reading the second ammendment to me.

I am not sure exactly why the 3 points would sway me to vote one way or another on a politician, as they seem far less "impactive" on my life than the lack of Salmon (due to Dubya's refusal to breach the dams on the Lower Snake River) or the lack of adequate habitat on Public Lands (due to Dubya and Craig's refusal to end all Welfare Ranching).

I know at Moosie's Deer Hunters of Idaho banquet, they gave us all gunlocks next to our salad forks. Didn't seem like a big deal or assault on my Second Ammendment rights.

You know what should serve as the wake-up call, is the fact that former Mayor DiFi could remain in the Senate office as long as she has, with the anti-gun stances she has. That fact means either many people in Calif agree with her positions and support Gun Control, or many pro-Gun advocates view her other social issues as more important, or finally, that the NRA is impotent in political arenas like US Senate elections. (Kind of like Unions are becoming.)

Dgib, thanks again, and how did you like the way that I was able to work in Dam Breaching and Welfare Ranching into the topic???

 

[beardown]

I agree with Gunner, every election the repubs try this scare tatic with the NRA. I do agree with them though ,no more gun laws or bans are needed. But there are bigger issues that the repubs just wont address or are just against what I believe. The fact is ownership of guns is protected by the constitution and nobody will ever change the constitution! Oh wait thats right Dubya wants to fuct with the constitution! Looks like constitution is'nt that sacred after all!

 

[JoseCuervo]

Cali,

No, I was actually trying to look for some education here. I didn't see the big deal with the trigger locks. That is why I was asking if they were removable? I have seen some show up on Remington safetys lately, and I am just trying to figure out of the ones Fecl was concerned with were an integrated lock that could be ignored, or a detachable lock that could be removed, or an integrated "child proof" lock that required a "squeeze here, while cocking" type of action.

Same thing with the Gunshow loophole, what is the real concern with that? If those kids dressed in black just bought a dozen other guns from the previous 12 tables, shouldn't that "ring a bell"? We ask bartenders not to sell a 12th drink to a customer with car keys, why wouldn't we want to slow down some punk in a trenchcoat and white make-up? I am not too sure on this issue, and would actually like some education, and not just a waving of the 2nd Ammendment.

No, I don't think I was complaining about the state making me wear a seat-belt. As I have worn them long before they were mandatory. I started wearing them when I first was learning to fly, as when you pull negative G's, the lack of a seat-belt is a hinderence. And from that point on, I have put one on when I get behind any wheel or yoke. But I do think it is lunacy that we have to dictate common-sense to people.

PS. (and yes, I do like to argue....or more accurately, debate.)

 

[AZ402]

Beardown has been sucked into the liberal spin I see............

 

[MarlandS]

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them. "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." -U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D/CA) speaking of her authorship of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban on "60 Minutes" 2/5/95 *Don't forget: Senator Feinstein packs and has armed bodyguards with "assault" weapons to protect her!

"What good does it do to ban some guns. All guns should be banned."
-- Sen. Howard Metzanbaum

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." -U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

 

[JoseCuervo]

MarS,

But why does DiFi keep getting re-elected? It would appear that the Majority of the largest state in the Union (I think CA is the largest), endorse her for some reason. Why do you think they keep electing her, because they agree with her positions on Guns or they believe her positions on other issues are more important to their lives?

And as for Janet Reno, which would you rather have, your gun registered, or your life registered, like John Ashcroft and his "Patriot Act"? Gun registration is relatively benign, compared to Ashcroft/Dubya's Patriot Act.

 

[JoseCuervo]

"a purposeful misquote."......

Ahhh... The "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" raises its' head again.....

 

[JoseCuervo]

And does this mean that Dubya is trying to close the "gun show loophole" and extend the assault weapons ban????

Gun bill passes first Senate vote

Feb. 26, 2004

WASHINGTON — A Republican-led bill to shield gun manufacturers and distributors from lawsuits arising from gun crimes passed its first Senate test Wednesday, but Democrats plan to complicate its future by forcing votes on extending an assault weapons ban and requiring background checks on purchasers at gun shows.

The Senate, with a 75-22 test vote, showed that there is enough support from both parties to get gunmaker immunity legislation through, but Democrats plan to try and add their gun legislation to the package before it heads to the House.

Democrats want "provisions that will close the gun show loophole, that would reauthorize the ban on assault weapons," said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I. "We should require effective safety locks on handguns. We should improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check system."

The White House - which supports the gunmaker immunity bill, extending the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole - nonetheless called on the Senate to pass the legislation without amendments.

Rest of story....Click here