[LAR-15]

Senate moving to protect gun industry

By Joanne Kenen
Reuters
Thursday, July 14, 2005; 6:09 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The gun industry is likely to win sweeping protection against civil liability lawsuits in the U.S. Senate this month, reflecting a more firearm-friendly Senate after the 2004 elections, lawmakers said on Thursday.

Last year the Republicans killed their own bill, meant to shield gunmakers, gun distributors and gun sellers against many liability suits, after gun opponents attached amendments to it, including an extension of the 1994 ban on assault rifles.


But the November elections left a bigger Republican majority and the Senate is now a more conservative and more pro-gun rights body. Several Democrats, particularly from rural states, also back the immunity measure.

Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig, lead backer of the legal protections bill, said he was confident it would win Senate approval with few unpalatable amendments. A vote is likely in the next two weeks.

Even if mostly Democratic gun control advocates do manage to attach some amendments, Craig said the strategy this time would not be to dump the bill but remove anything objectionable in conference with the House (of Representatives).

"We hope we can defeat amendments and keep the bill clean except for the one amendment I agreed to let Senator Feinstein pass.," Craig said in a brief interview.

California Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a co-author of the 1994 assault weapons ban that Congress allowed to expire last year, said she would still try to amend the liability bill, but in more modest ways than last year.

For instance, instead of trying to reinstate the assault weapons ban, she said she would try to limit sales of powerful 50 caliber weapons so that they could only be sold through federally licensed dealers, not at gun shows.

"Senator Craig said he would vote for my sniper rifle bill if that is all I offered. I really don't like the underlying bill but it's probably the only way to get restrictions on ultra deadly sniper weapons. I accept Senator Craig's compromise. If it passes the senator has assured me he will fight to keep it even in conference"

The Senate Republican majority gained four seats, and some of the new Democrats are also opposed to tightening gun controls.

[LAR-15]

Senate moving to protect gun industry

By Joanne Kenen
Reuters
Thursday, July 14, 2005; 6:09 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The gun industry is likely to win sweeping protection against civil liability lawsuits in the U.S. Senate this month, reflecting a more firearm-friendly Senate after the 2004 elections, lawmakers said on Thursday.

Last year the Republicans killed their own bill, meant to shield gunmakers, gun distributors and gun sellers against many liability suits, after gun opponents attached amendments to it, including an extension of the 1994 ban on assault rifles.


But the November elections left a bigger Republican majority and the Senate is now a more conservative and more pro-gun rights body. Several Democrats, particularly from rural states, also back the immunity measure.

Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig, lead backer of the legal protections bill, said he was confident it would win Senate approval with few if any unpalatable amendments. A vote is likely in the next two weeks.

Even if mostly Democratic gun control advocates do manage to attach some amendments, Craig said the strategy this time would not be to dump the bill but remove anything objectionable in conference with the House (of Representatives).

"We hope we can defeat amendments and keep the bill clean," Craig said in a brief interview.

The liability bill is anathema to gun control groups. They said it wipes out legal rights of victims of gun violence, including police injured in the line of duty or families harmed by attacks like those of the Washington-area sniper in 2002.

The bill is a top priority for the National Rifle Association, the main U.S. gun rights lobby, which says it is needed to protect firearms manufacturers, distributors and sellers from politically motivated and frivolous lawsuits.

GUN-BAN ADVOCATES

"Unfortunately, as long as gun-ban advocates are able to burden firearm manufacturers with the costs of defending themselves in court, the entire gun industry is at risk of being eradicated," the NRA said on its Web site.

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said claims that the bill weakens law enforcement is a "red herring." He called it a "narrowly worded" bill to protect law-abiding businesses.

But the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says this year's bill goes even further than last year's by making it harder for regulators to move against rogue dealers.

Brady center president Michael Barnes said that even in a "tougher political environment" the group hopes to rally opposition to the liability bill and attach amendments, including one to require background checks at gun shows.

"We'd like to close loopholes that would allow criminals and terrorists to buy weapons without background checks," Barnes said, adding, "It's hard to believe that we wouldn't be able to muster a majority now" given the fears of terrorism.

California Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a co-author of the 1994 assault weapons ban that Congress allowed to expire last year, said she would still try to amend the liability bill, but in more modest ways than last year.

For instance, instead of trying to reinstate the assault weapons ban, she said she would try to limit sales of powerful 50 caliber weapons so that they could only be sold through federally licensed dealers, not at gun shows.

Feinstein said she was realistic about what she could hope to achieve in the current Senate. The Senate Republican majority gained four seats, and some of the new Democrats are also opposed to tightening gun controls.

[scout26]

ultra deadly sniper weapons

as opposed to just "regular deadly sniper weapons".

Pass the bill in the senate with Feinswine amendment and then remove it in conference. Give the Demoncrats a taste of their own medicine.

"Sorry Diane we just couldn't get the House to buy into your asinine theories."


(Yes, I'm in a grumpy mood....SNARL.....)

[hkOrion]

Feinstein said she was realistic

I don't know what reality she lives in, but it's not the same as the rest of us. and it makes me feel SO much safer to know that those eevil .50 cal assault rifles are out of the hands of people who like to spend $3 a round.... right....

[SIGarmed]

Hello Mcfly! .50BMG rifles are sold by FFL holders at gun shows! Ignorant? Either Feinstein is bluffing or this is just an act to fool her constituents once again. No private party sales! For once can't they be honest?

[peacefuljeffrey]

hkOrion... I know what you mean. Has that idiot Feinstein asked herself, "How many people have been killed with these weapons, if they're so 'ultra deadly'?"

:rolleyes: I can't even believe she used a "term" like "ultra deadly."

Why, she could have used "ultra-mega-gazillion-heinous-killer-deadly"! She could have won herself more credibility!

"Senator Craig said he would vote for my sniper rifle bill if that is all I offered. I really don't like the underlying bill but it's probably the only way to get restrictions on ultra deadly sniper weapons."


Someone really needs to put her publicly on the spot and ask her about this "ultra deadly" nomenclature.

WHY is it "ultra deadly," senator?
Has it killed a lot of people?
Does it hold a lot of ammunition?
Does it fire more rapidly than other guns?
Is it more concealable (*guffaw*) than other guns?
Is it easier to use, and be accurate with, than other guns?
Are there more of these around than there are other guns?
How, exactly, would someone use a bullet from one of these guns to bring down an airliner? What part would they have to hit? Why did DOZENS of such rounds fail to bring down WWII bombers every time, if ONE bullet from one of these rifles can bring down an airliner "from over a mile away"?

I have NOT YET EVER seen any rebuttal in a public news story or article, or in any public forum apart from THR, to a claim that it would be so easy for a terrorist to use a .50BMG to take down an airliner. WHY NOT? It's one of the biggest overstated lies in the history of attempted gun control!

-Jeffrey

[Old Fuff]

>> Feinstein said she was realistic about what she could hope to achieve in the current Senate. The Senate Republican majority gained four seats, and some of the new Democrats are also opposed to tightening gun controls. <<

Sen. Feinstein seems to be a bit slow between the ears. Maybe after the 2006 elections the Republican majority will gain a few more seats because of her efforts. :evil: ;)

[Standing Wolf]

As far as I'm concerned, this is the Republican party's last chance. If this bill ends up being signed into law with any leftist extremist infringements on our Second Amendment civil rights, they can count on my vote going elsewhere.

The Republicans have been talking big and delivering nothing too long.

[taliv]

you know, one semi-positive possible outcome of the democrats consistent lying is that some terrorist might be STUPID enough to try shooting a jet with a 50, instead of something far more likely to hurt somebody.

[Ben Shepherd]

Standing Wolf: Agreed- I've already been talking to other parties.

[boofus]

If they blow this bill again I too will be voting for someone else. The ATF barrel ban isn't helping secure my vote any either.

This is the Repugs' final chance to do right. They are the majority party so they had better act like it and listen to their constituents instead of people that voted against them.

[LAR-15]

The first article is a parody (I made it up). :evil:

The second article is the real one. :eek:

[LAR-15]

Proposed by Feinstein:

To regulate .50 caliber sniper weapons designed for the taking of human life and the destruction of materiel, including armored vehicles and components of the Nation's critical infrastructure.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 28, 2005
Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. CORZINE, and Mr. DURBIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance



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


A BILL
To regulate .50 caliber sniper weapons designed for the taking of human life and the destruction of materiel, including armored vehicles and components of the Nation's critical infrastructure.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Fifty Caliber Sniper Weapons Regulation Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) Certain firearms originally designed and built for use as long-range .50 caliber military sniper weapons are increasingly being sold in the United States civilian market.

(2) The intended use of these long-range firearms, and an increasing number of models derived directly from them, is the taking of human life and the destruction of materiel, including armored vehicles and components of the national critical infrastructure, such as radar and microwave transmission devices.

(3) These firearms are neither designed nor used in any significant number for legitimate sporting or hunting purposes and are clearly distinguishable from rifles intended for sporting and hunting use.

(4) Extraordinarily destructive ammunition for these weapons, including armor-piercing and armor-piercing incendiary ammunition, is freely sold in interstate commerce.

(5) The virtually unrestricted availability of these firearms and ammunition, given the uses intended in their design and manufacture, present a serious and substantial threat to the national security.

SEC. 3. COVERAGE OF .50 CALIBER SNIPER WEAPONS UNDER THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT.

(a) In General- Section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining firearm) is amended by striking `(6) a machine gun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive device.' and inserting `(6) a .50 caliber sniper weapon; (7) a machine gun; (8) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (9) a destructive device.'.

(b) Definitions-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 5845 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining terms relating to firearms) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(n) Fifty Caliber Sniper Weapon- The term `.50 caliber sniper weapon' means a rifle capable of firing a center-fire cartridge in .50 caliber, .50 BMG caliber, any other variant of .50 caliber, or any metric equivalent of such calibers.'.

(2) MODIFICATION TO DEFINITION OF RIFLE - Section 5845(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining rifle ) is amended by inserting `or from a bipod or other support' after `shoulder'.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall only apply to a .50 caliber sniper weapon made or transferred after the date of enactment of this Act.

[Standing Wolf]

These firearms are neither designed nor used in any significant number for legitimate sporting or hunting purposes and are clearly distinguishable from rifles intended for sporting and hunting use.

Even if the Second Amendment were about hunting and sport shooting, only a fool would believe such a patently absurd statement.

[Spot77]

Isn't it time we produced a .49 bmg cartridge? Or better yet, a .55 cal? :evil:

[R.H. Lee]

If it passes, rechamber and neck it down to .495 or up to .510, then it ain't a .50 any longer.

[clange]

(3) These firearms are neither designed nor used in any significant number for legitimate sporting or hunting purposes and are clearly distinguishable from rifles intended for sporting and hunting use.
This sporting use bull???? needs to stop. Now.

Industry immunity is good, but this sporting use crap is the biggest threat we're currently facing, bigger than any one ban. If the republicans dont do anything about it over the next three years i doubt i will ever vote for another R at the federal level. I'm tired of never gaining any ground. They've got the people, they need to fight, not defend.

[RevDisk]

If it passes, rechamber and neck it down to .495 or up to .510, then it ain't a .50 any longer.

If I'm not mistaken, the ATF can classify any caliber over .50 as DD. Take a glance at the new kit/C&R ban if you think the ATF would be lenient.

[LAR-15]

ATFE rarely rules in gun owners favor.

[rick_reno]

When are the Republicans going to realize they're in charge? There is nothing to be gained by throwing a bone over the fence to those mangy democratic dogs on the other side of the fence.

[dasmi]

but it's probably the only way to get restrictions on ultra deadly sniper weapons.

ULTRA DEADLY! EXTREME!! SNIPER WEAPONS!! HOLY CRAP THE SKY IS FALLING! YOU ARE MORE DEAD WHEN KILLED BY A .50 BMG THAN A .308!! WE MUST BAN THIS EVIL CALIBER!!

I really don't like that woman.

[beerslurpy]

I'm getting seriously sick of this sporting purposes crap. They need to break Ron Paul's bill out of committe already and pass it. Now.

[Flyboy]

When are the Republicans going to realize they're in charge? There is nothing to be gained by throwing a bone over the fence to those mangy democratic dogs on the other side of the fence.
I submit to you that they already do know, they just share many of the same objectives.

[dasmi]

I submit to you that they already do know, they just share many of the same objectives.

I'm afraid I agree.

[gunsmith]

Standing Wolf for Senate!

[Waitone]

hkOrion... I know what you mean. Has that idiot Feinstein asked herself, "How many people have been killed with these weapons, if they're so 'ultra deadly'?"We will never know. It is a known fact of congressional physics that the corpse is vaporized when hit with a .50 BGM from 2 miles away. You want proof? How many people just disappear in this country? How many have disappeared since the uber-deadly gun went for sale?

You got is all wrong. The good senator from Cali is just protecting us from evil gunslingers <cough, cough and creating the framework into which new calibers and definitions can be inserted which will result in future bans without the messiness of a congressional vote>

All seriousness aside. You get a regulation in place constructed around a centerfire cartridge or muzzle energy you then have the framework to used by a subsequent administration.

[peacefuljeffrey]

A BILL
To regulate .50 caliber sniper weapons designed for the taking of human life and the destruction of materiel, including armored vehicles and components of the Nation's critical infrastructure.


If the legislation is predicated on a LIE, or on FALSEHOOD, is it invalidated?

This preamble claims that the .50 caliber sniper weapons are DESIGNED for the DESTRUCTION OF THE NATION'S CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

Is that so? Let's ask Mr. Barrett. :rolleyes:

-Jeffrey

[foghornl]

Making ANY deal with Sen Fine-Swine is a worse deal the Eve made with The Serpent in the Garden of Eden.

You'll just get stabbed in the back & bit on the butt at least twice as fast as the other deal I mentioned. . .

[El Tejon]

Call and write. Defeat all amendments.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Just a few points to make...

First, we worked hard in 2004 and got 5 clearly pro-gun Senators elected where there used to be anti-gun Senators. notice how big of a difference it has made in what the antis are willing to even attempt?

Second, all five of those Senators are Republicans. Coincidence?

Third, I've heard substantial complaining about why the Republicans haven't automatically removed all gun laws within days of Congress starting. As long as any legislation can be filibustered in the Senate, we need 60 votes to pass anything remotely controversial. We currently have 54-55 votes that are usually pro-gun and maybe 49 votes that are reliably pro-gun.

This means as long as we lack the votes we will still have to make some compromises with people who oppose our goals just so we can get a vote on the bills we wish to pass. That is the reality of the Senate. If you feel better blaming the Republicans for it, then by all means go ahead; but make sure you are letting your Senators of either party know what compromises you consider unacceptable - because you might not like the ones they make if you do not.

[Henry Bowman]

Bart Roberts is right, and Ohio is as much to blame as any state. Sen. DeWine is an anti gun RINO. Sen. Voinovich is not openly anti, but is a spinless RINO who crys over Bolton going to the UN.

In yesterday's Cincinnati Post, there was a front page article about which Democrat would run against DeWine next year. We need to make it clear that DeWine has to first win the Republican primary. Recently, his son ran in the primary for the Congressional seat vacated by Rob Portman in a very conservative district. He had his daddy's money and name. Yard signs were everywhere. Up until a few days before the election, it was simply assumed that he would win. He had his butt handed to him on a platter and came in a distant third!

[Luchtaine]

The legitimate sporting purposes phrase is a big threat. But that being said what part of long range target shooting isn't legitimate?

Anyways the militia clause that they love so much to try and make the second amendment a collective right, means that it applies military weapons. What kind of militia is restricted to legitimate sporting weapons.

Maybe you could modify a remington 7600 or a BAR - the new ones not the m1919 to feed off a belt... hey its my deer rifle... okay bad idea it was for the sake of humor anywas...

Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession... James Madison Federalist no. 46

[lostone1413]

Think if the Republicans our the friends of gun owners wouldn't be any amendments. See no difference in the Democrats and Republicans anymore. All the same

[spacemanspiff]

ultra deadly sniper weapons
oooooooooooooooooo they are ULTRA deadly!

we should just be glad she didnt call them supercalifragilistichumptydumptysuperduperpooperscoopermorepowerfulthansupermanspidermantheincrediblehulkandwolverineputtogether deadly.

[Lone_Gunman]

It sounds like Larry Craig has already capitulated and agreed to support Feinstein's amendment.

I suspect that the final bill will be immunity for gun companies, and a ban on private transfers of 50 BMG weapons.

There is no reason for Republicans to budge an inch on this issue. They already have a majority and could pass the immunity bill with no amendments, if they wanted to pass it.

[Marshall]

Think if the Republicans our the friends of gun owners wouldn't be any amendments. See no difference in the Democrats and Republicans anymore. All the same

I AM COMPLETELY BEFUDDLED ABOUT HOW YOU CAN HONESTLY MAKE THAT STATEMENT.

[R.H. Lee]

Unless Republicans go to the mat on this, it will prove they’re no different than Democrats when it comes to RKBA. The dreaded .50 represents no more of a ‘threat’ than the .338 Lapua or the .308 Win for that matter. Awhile back some Democrat (Schumer I think) made some statements regarding the .50’s ability to ‘pierce a limousine at over a mile’, disclosing his true fears.

This is incrementalism again. Anti gunners nibbling. If they can start at the top of the food chain with the .50, they can set precedent and move on down to other ‘high power rifles’ that have the same potential. It’s BS and I expect the Republicans to call it that.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

There is no reason for Republicans to budge an inch on this issue. They already have a majority and could pass the immunity bill with no amendments, if they wanted to pass it.


Lone Gunman, how do you propose Republicans pass a cloture vote in the Senate (60 votes) without budging an inch on this issue or without allowing amendments?

[Sam Adams]

What kind of militia is restricted to legitimate sporting weapons.

The irony is that the 1939 U.S. v. Miller decision http://www.rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html that the antis so love to cite as precedent for limiting firearms in the hands of the public, had Miller losing because the gun in question (a saw-off shotgun) had no legitimate use in the militia (because there was no judicial notice of such use, because Miller had no lawyer arguing for him before the Court). Putting aside the fact that the Army made extensive use of sawed-off shotguns as "trenchbrooms" in WW1 (only 21 years before), the exact opposite result should occur with any semi-auto version of a military weapon (and, for that matter, especially with the full-auto versions, since they are ideally suited for militia use). The .50 BMG cartridge was invented (along with a machine gun to shoot it) by John Moses Browning after the lessons of WW1 showed that our boys needed more firepower to handle lightly armored vehicles, and to snipe at longer ranges.

The answer to your question is that a militia composed of the body of the people cannot be restricted as to the weapons it uses. The government, in fact, derives all of its power and authority from We The People, so we cannot be legally restricted by the government from doing something that the government can do. Of course, we are restricted - but that is in the nature of tyrannical governments. Another part of the answer is that Feinstein, Schumer, Kennedy, et al (including a bunch of R's) don't want to even think about one of the primary purposes of the militia (let alone to ever admit it in public), which is to prevent a domestic tyranny from arising via deterrence and, if necessary, by the use of force by millions of citizens against the likes of Feinstein, Schumer, Kennedy, et al and the goons they hire with our tax dollars. And don't believe me...look at the quote from a Federal Appeals Court Judge in my signature below.

[lostone1413]

The difference might be in how fast they take thye guns between the parties that is it. I still challenge anyone who thinks GWB is Pro Gun for a list of bills he has pushed for us. All anyone can say is the AWB wasn't renewed. First it come up BEFORE THE ELECTION. GWB needed the Gun Owners support. Then he kicks you in the teeth making an Anti 2nd amendment person like Gonzales AG. Can't wait to see who he wants on the court.

[Lone_Gunman]

Bartholemew, they should vote down any bill with amendments attached, and then attach gun maker lawsuit immunity to another bill that will have wide support.

I believe that would work, anyway.

Do you feel it is inevitable and pre-requisite that we expect anti-gun legislation to be added on to the bill?

If banning private transfers of 50 caliber weapons is added as an amendment, then I think the whole bill should be voted down.

[RealGun]

I would let the gun liability bill die again. No amendments, especially constitutionally offensive ones. Let them figure out who can afford to supply guns to the Pentagon.

Craig has no business making these deals. He can't deliver votes anyway. He can only agree not to resist the amendment or he can agree to cosponsor it. As others have suggested, this is a door opener for regulation of other calibers. It also gets more into regulating rifles like handguns.

Furthermore, the deal is only with Feinstein, placing no restriction on other anti-gun Senators, especially Schumer. It could still be another circus. Kennedy surely still wants a study on "armor piercing rifle ammo", and I am sure he would love to start singling out calibers like the .50 BMG as a warmup.

I would agree with others that the primary fight is the sporting purposes issue, because if they can accept, in the majority, that such restriction was never appropriate, the rest of the pro-gun arguments may start to make more sense.

Don't get the idea that keeping the amendment will not be supported in conference. If it isn't, Craig can't use the same deal again. It would have to be a serious deal.

The main problem is that the GOP is too weak on being pro-gun. They shouldn't need any Democrat votes and there should not be any concern about from where a majority vote will come.

Before anyone bales out on the GOP, consider that they need an even greater majority to have some margin for members that don't regard gun votes as important to the party. There is no reason not to believe that 60 or more GOP Senators is possible. There are also 13 Democrats in the House with outstanding pro-gun records that could be welcomed, if not supported, in any bids for Senate seats.

[jefnvk]

Lets pil;e on amendments of our own. Feinstein, get a .50 ban tacked on, and we will get an amendment tacked on reopening the NFA registry. Try another amendment? We'll get SBR's off the registry, and treat them like pistols (which they really oughta be treated as anyways). Anything else? We can still drop the handgun age to 18. Make a C&R available to use for ANY gun taht ain't in the NFA registry. Get rid of the stupid sporting clause for imported weapons.

Play their game folks.

[Waitone]

In the interest of appearing reasonable I want to add my two cents:

You give 'em nuthin'!!!!

Compromise, dealing, and cowardice has done nothing but encourage their bad behavior. Give 'em nuthin' and after a while they'll expect nuthin'.

For too long compromise has been a one way street where we give up. Let them give us a list of things they'll trade away. :fire:

[LAR-15]

GUYS/GALS I EDITED THE FIRST ARTICLE

The second one is the real one.

Calm down! :neener:

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Do you feel it is inevitable and pre-requisite that we expect anti-gun legislation to be added on to the bill?

Certain amendments (like the Boxer gunlock bill) passed with a wide enough margin that even the votes we picked up won't make a difference in stopping it. Few Senators have the courage to stand up and say that forcing consumers to spend more money on gunlocks that many of them neither need nor use is foolishness. I expect that amendment to be offered again and to pass.

In the meantime, we have to face facts that there are more anti-gun Republicans (eight) than there are pro-gun Democrats. Those Republicans will vote for cloture out of party loyalty; but when it comes time to pass an amendment, they will not vote with us.

I'd also add that there were several Democrats who voted against the AWB last time who could easily flip their vote (Reid and Feingold both come to mind). Feingold for example voted to support a ban on practically all centerfire rifle ammo, including .30-30 by name, but voted against an AWB renewal.

We certainly have a much stronger position than we did in March 2004; but we are a long way from being in a position to "not budge an inch" and still be able to pass pro-gun legislation. There is going to be compromise on this bill if it passes.

Craig has no business making these deals.

Craig didn't make any bill. The first post was satire by LAR-15.

Lets pile on amendments of our own.

We can add any amendment we can get 51 votes for. The problem is if we had 51 votes for the type of amendments you listed, we likely wouldn't need to worry about compromise.

[Old Fuff]

>> In the meantime, we have to face facts that there are more anti-gun Republicans (eight) than there are pro-gun Democrats. <<

True! And that's the rub. While the Democrats, as a party, are the driving force behind gun control legislation there are Republicans who are all too willing to vote with the Democrats on gun issues, and sometimes many others. We aren't going to get far until that fact is realized.

I should know. John McCain is a prefect example of a true-blooded RINO - and he's from Arizona - but he wasn't elected through any effort of mine. Someday the local Democrats will wise up and run a conservative candidate, and the Republicans may get a nasty suprise ... :evil:

[RealGun]

Feingold for example voted to support a ban on practically all centerfire rifle ammo, including .30-30 by name - Bartholomew Roberts

To be accurate, that amendment was to approve "a study", not a ban. Yes, where that was headed is obvious, but votes to approve a study, establishing some "facts", are not the same as votes to approve a ban.

[GunGoBoom]

Isn't it time we produced a .49 bmg cartridge? Or better yet, a .55 cal?

In the immortal words of Kip Dynamite, "That's what I'm talkin' about!"

To be sold at every street corner and gun show in Calif with impunity.

[ClonaKilty]

Anyone know the GOA or NRA position on this bill w/Feinstein's amendment?

[Henry Bowman]

Anyone know the GOA or NRA position on this bill w/Feinstein's amendment? THERE IS NO FEINSTEIN'S AMENDMENT! For some reason LAR-15 thought it was funny to make up a satirical post. He fessed up to it in his next post, but many have missed it. Didn't seen funny to me in the first place.

Could we just lock this thread down and end the confusion!

[LAR-15]

YES THERE IS AN AMENDMENT!

Read the second article.

Feinstein WILL offer a bill to ban 50 caliber centerfire rifles

[LAR-15]

Anyone know the GOA or NRA position on this bill w/Feinstein's amendment?


Uh they will vote Feinstein's amendment down.

IF it does pass it will be stripped out in conference.

Thomas 'backstabbing' Daschle is gone.

[RealGun]

Uh they will vote Feinstein's amendment down.

That isn't self evident. There are only a handful of reliably pro-gun Senators of either party. Actually there are no Democrats even close. A GOP caucus concern about 2nd Amendment voters is not reliable either. The gun lobby has a job to do, as usual.

[Henry Bowman]

Feinstein WILL offer a bill to ban 50 caliber centerfire rifles The point is, it's not on there yet and Sen. Craig did not agree to it.

[flatrock]

The gun ban activists are trying to take away our right to keep and bear arms.

Comprimising with them means giving up our rights to a certain extent.

With the next comprimise we give up a little more.

We continue doing that until we've lost significant rights even though each little step seemed insignificant at the time.

Gun owners are among the largest voting blocks in the country. Why are we defending what rights we have left rather than pushing to have our rights restored? The laws restricting our rights to keep and bear arms have had no demonstratable effect on reducing crime.

Rights should only be restricted when there is noticable and tangible benefits, and gun control legislation has failed to provide such benefits.

It's time to start repealing gun control laws and put the gun grabbers on the defensive.

We also need to get the truth out to the public better, not just talking about it amongs people who already know the facts and agree with us.

When we allow statements like the findings in her bill stand without being publicly refuted, we allow the continuation of the misinformation campaign that the gun grabbers have successfully pushed for decades.

How can there be lots of 50 cal weapons sold to the Civilian market and those guns not have a legitamate, legal purpose without there being significant amounts of crime where those weapons are used?

If guns are only used to murder people, how can we have 80 million gun owners in the US and not have complete anarchy?

The gun control lobby's claims are absurd if you look at them very closely, but they've been making sure that they're repeated over and over again in the media for so long that people are accepting them as fact.

[Henry Bowman]

Gun owners are among the largest voting blocks in the country. Flatrock -- Everything else you have stated is true. But gun "owners" are not a voting block any more than are "men" or "women." Just being the owner of a certain piece of equipment does not make all think or vote together.

Half of American gun "owners" would give them up in a second if promised that doing so would give them a feeling of security. Many others have no need or use for the Second Amendment -- they are sporters or hunters. Even many who believe in personal responsibility self defense are not "advocates" and have other issues that are more important to determining their vote.

[Old Guy]

sporting purposes crap the same wording (Minus crap!) that all the Canadian gun grab laws are about, I love Florida!!!

[Luchtaine]

Sam Adams,

Well it was exactly my point (rheotirical question). You very succinctly answered it anyways and well done too I might add. I read about that Miller case in a book a while back but did not recall it while writing that post.

At anyrate it comes down to the goverment doing whatever they please aka tyranny.

I whole heartedly agree with the no compromise stance what were the 10 years between 1994 and 2004. That was more than enough compromise to push some repeals.... if you ask me.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

To be accurate, that amendment was to approve "a study", not a ban. Yes, where that was headed is obvious, but votes to approve a study, establishing some "facts", are not the same as votes to approve a ban.

No that isn't accurate RealGun. You are confusing the many different amendments offered to this bill. Feingold voted "Yes" on Kennedy's proposed bill to ban ammunition (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00028).

Feingold voted against the amendment you referenced (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00027) (the one offered by Senators Craig and Frist) that only called for a study on armor piercing ammunition.

Gun owners are among the largest voting blocks in the country.

If that is true, then why are there at least 45 Senators still in Washington D.C. who think banning a firearm based on silly cosmetic features is OK?