7/29/05 - Senate S.397 Discussion


PDA






Pages : [1] 2

Bartholomew Roberts
July 29, 2005, 09:56 AM
Debate on S.397 today will likely not begin until this afternoon; but those of you who can should keep an eye on CSPAN since the cloture vote is scheduled for today and the issue could come up despite not being scheduled.

There are at least four amendments that will receive a vote today before cloture - a Kennedy Ammo Ban, Exemption for Law Enforcement, Exemption for Parents Whose Children Are Injured By Guns, and an unknown amendment offered by Reed. Most of these amendments were offered last year as well and all of them failed the vote then with fewer pro-gun members in the Senate.

We really need to turn up the pressure on our Senators though. Today should be the final day on this. We want them to know we will be watching no matter what.

If you enjoyed reading about "7/29/05 - Senate S.397 Discussion" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Norton
July 29, 2005, 10:05 AM
Do we have any specifics on the text of the amendments?

txgho1911
July 29, 2005, 10:05 AM
I am watching my Senators votes. They are not aligned with my wishes.
Keep up with yours.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00207
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00208


Anyone else in Indiana who Want to help oust the rino with a good replacement lets get it busy tis year. I warned Kent a few weeks ago that he might get recruited for this.

El Tejon for US Senate!

aquapong
July 29, 2005, 10:05 AM
Eyes on. :scrutiny:

Bartholomew Roberts
July 29, 2005, 10:19 AM
No specifics on the text of the amendments. None of them are online yet or present in the Congressional Record. The guess above is based on what Senators have said during the debate so far and news reports of the debate.

We know what the amendment numbers are (1615, 1619, 1620, and 1642). These correspond to amendments from Kennedy, Corzine, Lautenberg, and Reed respectively. Going back into the Congressional Record you can see Corzine and Lautenberg offer amendments with exemptions from S.397 for certain groups. An AP newswire reports that an ammo ban will be voted on today (Kennedy?) and we don't know what Reed is offering.

LAR-15
July 29, 2005, 10:35 AM
Looks like Craig and Frist are picking amendments that will lose.

Good deal.

It will shut the Dems up.

"Hey you got votes on some of your amendments."

NCGUN
July 29, 2005, 10:42 AM
So Warner's amendment is Dead?

Bartholomew Roberts
July 29, 2005, 10:54 AM
The fourth amendment by Reed changes S.397 so that only municipalities are bound by its language. Individuals would still be free to sue under current rules.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/29/AR2005072900272.html

RealGun
July 29, 2005, 11:02 AM
Like yesterday, I expect the votes will be on motions to table the amendments, not votes on the amendments themselves.

Warner's amendment has apparently been dismissed. It was one which would have undermined the bill's entire concept. Warner is trying to preserve the existing VA cases related to the Malvo sniper thing (Bullseye). Allowing that would mean insurance premiums or refused liability coverage would still put gun dealers out of business, even the best of them. Passage of the bill will kill the Malvo case. The bill does provide justice in that Bullseye has already lost its license.

Trigger locks did not get tabled, because Frist liked it and voted for it. Obviously it is widely supported (70%). It remains to be seen if that amendment is retained through conference with the House.

Whatever is voted on will not be with full attendance. After lunch on a Friday, lots of Senators head for the airport. Even if the session is held over, several will be exempted and excused for prior commitments.

foghornl
July 29, 2005, 11:07 AM
I have called my Senators local offices (DeWine & Voinovich) and their offices in DC (866-220-0044, and ask for your Senators office) I have politely requested they represent my by voting yes on S397 and NO! on amdenments 1615, 1619, 1620 & 1642.

LAR-15
July 29, 2005, 11:31 AM
If cloture is passed I assume the trigger lock amendment can be thrown out as non germane, right?

:confused:

K-Romulus
July 29, 2005, 11:42 AM
(from the WashPost article)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/29/AR2005072900272.html

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., introduced an amendment that would ban hollow-tipped, "cop killer" bullets.

Edited to add):

I tracked down the text of Kennedy's Amendments:

(hopefully link to congr. record works)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r109:6:./temp/~r109IsYwfa:e0:

SA 1615. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S . 397 , to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:


On page 13, after line 4, insert the following:

SEC. 5. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.

(a) EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.--Section 921(a)(17)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' at the end;

(2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

``(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor; or

``(iv) a projectile for a center-fire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.''.

(b) DETERMINATION OF THE CAPABILITY OF PROJECTILES TO PENETRATE BODY ARMOR.--Section 926 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(d)(1) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Attorney General shall promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against Body Armor Exemplar.

``(2) The standards promulgated under paragraph (1) shall take into account, among other factors, variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or center-fire rifle from which the projectile is fired and the amount and kind of powder used to propel the projectile.

``(3) As used in paragraph (1), the term `Body Armor Exemplar' means body armor that the Attorney General determines meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers.''.

***************

The link works, and lets you read all the other amendments in the following consecutive pages (click on the "Forward" link at the top and bottom of the page).

Other amendments include a ban on the FiveSeven handgun and various carve-outs from the liability bill, including a carve-out for .50 BMG rifle.

RealGun
July 29, 2005, 11:49 AM
I have politely requested they represent my by voting yes on S397 and NO! on amdenments 1615, 1619, 1620 & 1642.

I think it would help to give them a rationale, such as to keep it a legal reform bill, not a messy gun control bill.

LAR-15
July 29, 2005, 11:49 AM
Kennedy's amendment will be slapped down like last year.

I also noticed Frist offered another amendment but THOMAS does not have it's text.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 29, 2005, 11:50 AM
If cloture is passed I assume the trigger lock amendment can be thrown out as non germane, right?

No, the gun lock amendment is now part of S.397. The only chance to remove it would be in the House-Senate conference committee if S.397 passes (the House version of this bill has no gun lock language).

LAR-15
July 29, 2005, 11:52 AM
Ah...........okay

Bartholomew Roberts
July 29, 2005, 11:53 AM
Yeah, that's pretty much the same Kennedy ammo ban from last year where he specifically mentioned .30-30 as one of the evil calibers that needed to be banned. It went down in flames last year with 5 more F-rated Senators than are there this year.

Justin
July 29, 2005, 11:55 AM
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., introduced an amendment that would ban hollow-tipped, "cop killer" bullets.

He must have listened to Dennis Leary's "No Cure for Cancer" too. ;)

Bartholomew Roberts
July 29, 2005, 12:30 PM
They are finishing up debate on the Energy conference report... so S.397 could come up any time now. With four votes scheduled plus a cloture vote and a final vote, they will have to start debate on it soon I imagine.

LAR-15
July 29, 2005, 12:36 PM
Are they going to vote on the two Frist/Craig amendments?


I noticed they blocked amendments to restrict 50 calibers and to ban the FN 5-7 pistol.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 29, 2005, 12:48 PM
Well, they haven't allowed votes on them yet or scheduled votes yet.Since cloture is today, hopefully that means they are blocked; but let's not take anything for granted.

71Commander
July 29, 2005, 01:17 PM
Thanks all for keeping an update. I'm back to tube scaning. :(

Sawdust
July 29, 2005, 02:12 PM
Here we go...back to 397...

Sawdust

Inoxmark
July 29, 2005, 02:12 PM
S397 debates just begun.

Daniel T
July 29, 2005, 02:15 PM
Time to start hitting Refresh every 30 seconds then. :)

GigaBuist
July 29, 2005, 02:19 PM
Lautenberg is up now... bloviating about how the bill would prevent suits when a gun is mishandled.

He's not talking about the actual bill... just lieing through is teeth.

EDIT: If I was hitting a bell every time he lied it'd sound like a friggen pinball machine.

EDIT: He's got a scenario now... if a criminal walks into a gun shop, and the owner takes out arms, and turns his back, and the criminal runs out the family couldn't sue the gun dealer for negligence.

Don't Tread On Me
July 29, 2005, 02:19 PM
Lautenberg is up. He is whining about liability for children etc...damages, lawsuits, that it's all "blanket" immunity.

Is making some outrageous, factually void argument about how a dealer might negligently leave a deadly assault rifle on the counter while he goes into the backroom only to have the thug steal it by walking about of the store who will do a drive by and kill a 6 year old, and that kids parents won't be able to sue the dealer.


General stupidity.

Beren
July 29, 2005, 02:23 PM
Lautenberg has already made me vomit twice. Now a third time, by implying that this bill will cause more children to die.

SmershAgent
July 29, 2005, 02:23 PM
Lautenberg is up now... bloviating about how the bill would prevent suits when a gun is mishandled.

It should prevent suits under those circumstances. Why on earth should the manufacturer be responsible if someone did not practice proper gun handling procedure?

Inoxmark
July 29, 2005, 02:24 PM
Lautenberg is saying how a dealer would invite a crimilal to steal a weapon :confused: from his shop and be held not responsible. Who would think the dealers do that. :rolleyes:

Dan from MI
July 29, 2005, 02:24 PM
From reading this here, it sounds like the Kennedy bill is the .30-30 ban from last year.

GigaBuist
July 29, 2005, 02:28 PM
It should prevent suits under those circumstances. Why on earth should the manufacturer be responsible if someone did not practice proper gun handling procedure?

You know that, and I know that, but that's not what he's saying. He's pretending like NOBODY can be sued.

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 02:29 PM
Craig: There are 4 amdts pending, 3 of 4 have relevant 1st degrees.

Roberts: There is nothing on these amendments that will change anybody's vote. I don't question the right of any Senator to be heard on the floor. I ask could we please cut down on the rhetoric. Talks about his family commitment. Lists his voting intentions if he is not present, pro-gun votes. Against Kennedy amdt, for example, yes on S.397, etc.

Lautenberg: We're here because the other side wants to block any suggestions that would make this bill responsible or acceptable. What's more important, for us to support the NRA and make sure they're satisfied? The other side is willing to block family's ability to sue somebody who has been careless with the way a gun is handled. Or is it to protect our children? Special interests vs children. This bill wants to protect the gun industry, even when they are negligent. My amdt says there should be no blanket grant of immunity in cases with a child, 17 and under. How dare we look a mother in the eye and tell her she can't hold those responsible for the death of her child responsible. One has to really look deeply whether there is a constitutional question. Does the 5th suggest that you have the right to seek damages? What this bill says is that the parents of children killed by gunfire caused be negligence cannot seek redress. Numerous industries would like the same protection. But they don't have the muscle to break into this place and at gun point jam something thru this Senate. S.397 says too bad, sorry about your kid, but we can't let you harm our big campaign donors. Criminal goes into a gun shop, asks to look at AW, dealer lays out deadly weapon and leaves. When the dealer comes back from the back room, the criminal has taken guns and left. That outrageous behavior can't be punished. The next day that criminal could use that gun in a drive-by to kill 6 year old. Because of S.397, those parents couldn't go to court to sue that dealer. When they ask why, they'll be told they can thank their Senator. Or send their anger and rage. Nearly 3k kids die from gunshots every year. The Senate should try to reduce this, not stand by and let it grow. CDC shows that in ‘02 2860 kids died from gunshots in USA. They also found that firearms deaths were 12 times higher than in 25 other industrialized nations combined, for 15 and under. These are shameful statistics. When we hold people accountable, we prevent wrongdoing in the future. It says if you're not careful with inventory and sales, you're going to pay a price. Why should we lock the court house doors to our children? There are thousands of real life examples of children suffering from gun industry negligence. Offers example of kid shot by gun he found that a trafficker had dropped. Criminal said dealer had to know what he was doing. Dealers like this have to be held accountable.

Don't Tread On Me
July 29, 2005, 02:29 PM
Amazing!! Lautenberg is whining and crying saying


"The NRA is more powerful than Senator Warner" because Frist won't allow Warner's amendmen.

That was a great line.

Dan from MI
July 29, 2005, 02:32 PM
Lautenberg looks drunk.

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

As for what the amendments are -The gun grabbers at CSGV have this out.

STEP 2: Urge Them to: "Vote NO on S. 397 and Vote YES on:

1. Reed Amendment No. 1642 (suits by individuals)
2. Kennedy amendment No. 1615 (cop-killer bullets)
3. Corzine Amendment No. 1619 (suits by children)
4. Lautenberg Amendment No. 1620 (suits by law enforcement)

===========================

At least I have an idea what the amendments are now. They all suck.

SmershAgent
July 29, 2005, 02:33 PM
Criminal goes into a gun shop, looks to ask at AW, dealer lays out deadly weapon and leaves. When the dealer comes back from the back room, the criminal has taken guns and left. That outrageous behavior can't be punished. The next day that criminal could use that gun in a drive-by to kill 6 year old. Because of S.397, those parents couldn't go to court to sue that dealer. When they ask why, they'll be told they can thank their Senator. Or send their anger and rage. Nearly 3k kids die from gunshots every year. The Senate should try to reduce this, not stand by and let it grow.

Of course it's an assault weapon that the dealer "lays down on the counter", wanders off, and forgets about. That happens all the time at stores around here - I find loose guns just scattered about.

It also seems that he's implying more children are going to die from now on because baseless lawsuits will be prohibited.

:banghead:

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 02:33 PM
Lautenberg: Warner pointed out that majority of dealers follow rules. But there are rogue dealers. This bill says go ahead, do what you want. The Senate leadership denied Warner the chance to have his amdt voted on. But the NRA is more powerful than Senator Warner. So disrespectful against such a senior member. There should be no free pass for bad dealers. Who do you want to please, mothers and fathers, or the NRA and gun industry? We don't want to put good dealers out of business. If we fail to adopt my amdt, dealers will have no incentive to act responsibly. This unjust, immoral force (NRA) has elected Senators to force this through. I want to talk about the Republican alternative amdt. It is a shame and insult to American children and parents. I urge the public to compare my amdt to that which is offered, and see which is serious about offering the chance for compensation. Our amdt says that the gun violence immunity bill should not apply to children.

TarpleyG
July 29, 2005, 02:35 PM
This bill wants to protect the gun industry, even when they are negligent
THAT is a bold-faced lie right there. Nowhere in this proposed legislation does it allow for a negligent manufacturer of a gun to get off scott free. I really despise politicians.

Greg

SmershAgent
July 29, 2005, 02:35 PM
We don't want to put good dealers out of business.

ha...ha...ha

Don't Tread On Me
July 29, 2005, 02:36 PM
Craig supplied his own amendment. Don't know what it is yet.


He is now going to refute all of Lautenbergs over-emotional "for the children" crap and lies.

topflight70
July 29, 2005, 02:38 PM
Lautenberg talks about rougue dealers... Does he have any CLUE as to what FFL holders have to do to stay in line with ATF regulations? :fire:

Who am I kidding... OF COURSE NOT! :banghead:

GigaBuist
July 29, 2005, 02:39 PM
Craig up: Says Laughtenberg's negligence scenarios are prosecutable under the proposed law.

Says to go after criminals, not dealers and manufacturers that were acting within the law. If they act outside the law, then you can and should go after them.

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 02:40 PM
Lautenberg: Are there times when court house doors ought to be shut to children and their families? There shouldn't be. I have 10 grandchildren, and nothing is more important to me. Common, think about it when you cast your vote. Look in the mirror and see how you ought to be voting.

Craig: We just heard the arguments by Lautenberg. I do not question his sincereness. But if I can be direct, if you want to drive a trunk thru the bill, this amdt accomplishes that. Children are as protected under this law as any else. Because it says go after the criminal, not the mfg or seller. If it can be proven they are negligent than anyone can and should bring lawsuits. It's the same issue as previous amdts, trying to carve out a special class. We have many laws on the books to protect our nation's children. We must insist on enforcement of these laws instead of trying to carve out something special and unenforceable. If those laws are broken by gun industry, than S.397 will not shield them. This bill allows children the same opportunity as anybody else if there is negligence. How do you solve the question defined by Lautenberg? You enforce the law, and go after the criminals, you sweep the streets clean of those who break the laws and misuse the guns. That's the issue. Support us, and vote for the alternative and opposing the Lautenberg amdt.

Don't Tread On Me
July 29, 2005, 02:41 PM
Craig pretty much told it how it is, yielded to Lautenberg so he can ask a question. Is going to yield to Thune.

Aren't you glad Dascle's gone?


Thune is making a wide range of arguments. He is very sharp, very clear. He is covering it all, quickly, and cleanly. Makes strong arguments.

RavenVT100
July 29, 2005, 02:46 PM
Lautenberg doesn't want to put rogue dealers out of business. He wants to put all dealers out of business. Let's be real about who we're dealing with here. I'm not sure that guy would be too unhappy if police didn't carry guns in the United States. That's how extreme his views are. Of course, his personal bodyguards will always have guns.

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 02:47 PM
Thune: I rise in strong support of S.397, and against these amdts, all of which are designed to gut it. Prosecutions are up, crime is down, that should be the focus of our effort. I come from a state where we view these issues as personal freedoms and rights. It's a part of the culture of our state, of personal freedom and responsibility. Talks about children hunting and enjoying guns responsibly. S.397 would end many of the abusive lawsuits with the intent to bankrupt the gun industry. This bill is not about the NRA, it's about law abiding citizens and mfgs, who are having their 2nd amdt right infringed upon. This is about protecting American workers losing their jobs due to the money needed to defend against these lawsuits. For too long the judicial system has been a conduit around the legislative process, for social engineering. A death or injury caused by a gun should not cause expense to the mfg if they followed the law. The firearms industry has spent over 200 mil in lawsuits. Many of these cases are filed by cities and special interests groups. The firearm industry is one of the most regulated. Some ultimately hope to drive gun mfgs out of business. It's part of our traditions, and our military mfg base. S.397 is good policy, a bi-partisan bill. Calls for support to S.397, and opposition to gutting amdts.

GigaBuist
July 29, 2005, 02:48 PM
Thune sounds like he got his talking points off THR... wow!

Good riddance Daschle!

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 02:52 PM
Sessions: We had a group of activists, sometimes with a big city, trying to conjure ways to make a legit mfg liable for criminal murders. It threatens an industry that supplies our military and police. If we don't watch it, we'll end up having to import all our firearms. The Lautenberg amdt is unprincipled, and unjustified. It is inconsistent with bill.

Reed: You made the statement that an intervening criminal act absolves somebody of negligence. But the law says very clearly that such an act doesn't absolve somebody of their own negligence.

Sessions: I won a lawsuit on this, a VA member who was murdered off the grounds. They said it was negligent that he got off the grounds, and we argued that nobody should expect criminal third party activities they couldn't foresee. Talks about rising insurance rates, etc. A person who has a weapon stolen is liable if the thief uses their weapon? What kind of law is that?

RealGun
July 29, 2005, 02:53 PM
Lautenburg was mealymouthed. Couldn't stay on the high road.

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 02:55 PM
Craig: From ‘92 to ‘03, accidental deaths from guns fell 54%. 5-14 makes up 1.4% of total deaths of firearms. On the streets though, deaths are also down because we are enforcing the law and going after the criminal. I hope my colleagues will support my amdt instead of Lautenberg amdt.

Lautenberg: Not once did I talk about taking away guns from people. It was suggested my amdt would drive a truck through this bill, well I want to drive that truck full of healthy children. (Nutjob)

Dan from MI
July 29, 2005, 02:56 PM
What's the Craig Amendment?

aquapong
July 29, 2005, 02:57 PM
Anyone know the text of this Craig amendment offered as an alternative to the Lautenberg amendment?

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 02:57 PM
Damn, they're all moving a lot faster today. I can't type fast enough. Here comes the vote on the Craig Amendment...

Don't Tread On Me
July 29, 2005, 03:00 PM
Roll Call right now on Craig Amendment....

Dan from MI
July 29, 2005, 03:02 PM
Dayton voted no, so the anti's don't like the Craig Amendment - whatever it is.

Andrew Rothman
July 29, 2005, 03:03 PM
Is this it?

S.AMDT.1605
Amends: S.397
Amendments to this amendment: S.AMDT.1606
Sponsor: Sen Craig, Larry E. [ID] (submitted 7/27/2005) (proposed 7/27/2005)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To make clear that the bill does not apply to actions commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the Gun Control Act.

GLOCK19XDSC
July 29, 2005, 03:05 PM
No, it's a new one, I think. I heard 1644. No clue what it is.

SmershAgent
July 29, 2005, 03:06 PM
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To make clear that the bill does not apply to actions commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the Gun Control Act.

An exemption for the federal government, in other words. It's not a grave risk with the current administration, but Clintons' DOJ certainly enjoyed litigation of this nature. And parts of the GCA are so vague, it wouldn't be too hard for a future administration to start suing manufacturers under the guise of 'enforcement'.

:uhoh:

GLOCK19XDSC
July 29, 2005, 03:07 PM
But I could be wrong. :o

Dan from MI
July 29, 2005, 03:10 PM
It sounds like it means that the gun manufacturers have to break criminal law for lawsuits against them to be legit.

DON'T take my word for it.

RealGun
July 29, 2005, 03:23 PM
It sounds like it means that the gun manufacturers have to break criminal law for lawsuits against them to be legit.

I don't believe that would affect insurance, so it would be okay.

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 03:24 PM
The Craig Amendment to S.397, passes.

Yea: 72

Nay: 26

TrybalRage
July 29, 2005, 03:25 PM
Lautenberg up

GigaBuist
July 29, 2005, 03:26 PM
Craig passed, 72:26.

Craig got on the floor and asked that the Laughtenberg ammendment vote not take any longer than 10 minutes. The Craig vote took 30.

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 03:26 PM
Craig is up, telling Senators to stay around and vote faster. They're trying to get the ball rolling quicker, also reduced voting time now. Lautenberg amendment is being voted on now.

aquapong
July 29, 2005, 03:28 PM
I'll be counting no's for this amendment. :uhoh:

Don't Tread On Me
July 29, 2005, 03:29 PM
Yes, Lautenberg Amendment is up. Craig openly complained on the floor that some members of the Senate are dragging their feet, chewing up too much time. So he asked for 10 minute votes instead of 20 minutes.


If you notice, the anti-gunners are the ones whose names get called over and over till the very end.


Seems to me like they are trying to waste as much of the day as possible so that a small possibility that this won't get voted on today. That would give them time for their leftist cohorts in the media to bombard the general publics opinion for another month.


I don't see Craig allowing them to do this.

71Commander
July 29, 2005, 03:30 PM
I'll be counting no's for this amendment


Wouldn't it be easier to count yea's. Only have to count to 30. :neener:

Dan from MI
July 29, 2005, 03:33 PM
The votes I want to see on Lautenberg's amendment are Levin and Stabenow although I know where they stand already. Jerks.

Martinez and Salazar - where they stand?

GigaBuist
July 29, 2005, 03:34 PM
I think we just hit 51 votes for no.

EDIT: Bunch more "no's" since they rattled off the last tally, so unless I can't count (that's a possibility!) this amdt is dead.

aquapong
July 29, 2005, 03:35 PM
2 more no's after Frist...if I counted correctly. They were rattling off names pretty quickly.

aquapong
July 29, 2005, 03:36 PM
Failed! :neener:

Dan from MI
July 29, 2005, 03:38 PM
Salazar - no. (Interesting as he's a swing gun vote)

Landrieu - no

If Landrieu voted no, there's little chance of passing. She's slightly anti.

aquapong
July 29, 2005, 03:44 PM
Lol! Anyone else see Feinstein talking to Senator Craig? She looks like she's lecturing him.

< Feinstein >
"Now Larry, the VPC will not stop eroding my base of support if you don't let me kill this bill with a few poison pill amendments."
< / Feinstein >

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 03:45 PM
The Lautenberg "I want to drive a truck full of healthy children through this bill" Amendment, which excludes the liability waiver for crimes where the victim is under 17, fails.

Yeas: 35

Nays: 64

Don't Tread On Me
July 29, 2005, 03:45 PM
Kennedy is up

Dan from MI
July 29, 2005, 03:46 PM
Lautenberg Lost 64-35 :neener:

The Kennedy amendment is the big one. Up next.

RealGun
July 29, 2005, 03:46 PM
Take a break for a 20 minute Kennedy rant.

Andrew Rothman
July 29, 2005, 03:47 PM
So what exactly was the Craig amendment which passed?

Dan from MI
July 29, 2005, 03:49 PM
A pissed off and drunk Kennedy rant :rolleyes:

TrybalRage
July 29, 2005, 03:50 PM
what a SCUMBAG

foghornl
July 29, 2005, 03:51 PM
Sen. Ted "Where are my pants, my car, and my secretary" Kennedy is spouting the usual lies from VPC/Brady Bunch/et al.

"Scotch" Kennedy said they should be considering Sen FineStein's .50 cal ban...yada yada yada

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 03:52 PM
Kennedy: It's preposterous to call this bill Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. If we were honest, we'd call it Protection of Unlawful commerce. It's blatant special interest bill protecting those who would supply arms to criminals and terrorists. It's difficult to believe that the Bush Admin would push aside major Def bill for this. Bush called for clean bill, without AWB, etc. Instead of considering this, we should be considering the regulation of .50 cal rifles. These guns can shoot down airplanes, and penetrate several inches of steel. In ‘95, Rand Corp IDed these rifles as serious threat. Snipers love them. A study by Dept Homeland IDed these weapon as serious threat to aviation. Mfgs advertise these guns as capable to destroying multi-mil aircraft. Every round sold threatens our troops. Instead, we are guaranteeing those who sell these guns will not be held liable. The NRA could care less they are interrupting the Def bill. They're willing to let mfgs and dealers put powerful killing machines in the hands of terrorists and criminals. Bush and Repubs will do what it takes to give NRA what it wants. For years courts have been the only place where negligent and conspiring dealers can be challenged. The bulk of mil contracts are already held by foreign mfgs. Lawsuits have nothing to do with that. We have not heard of one mfg filing for bankruptcy because of them. In fact, gun profits are up.

Dan from MI
July 29, 2005, 03:55 PM
I hope the swimmer mentions the .30-30 again.

GLOCK19XDSC
July 29, 2005, 03:56 PM
He's gonna collapse. :evil:

TrybalRage
July 29, 2005, 03:56 PM
This guy makes me so mad :cuss:

Why shouldn't we be allowed to own those??

Studduck
July 29, 2005, 03:56 PM
Be sensitive to actual "bags of scum"! :p

TarpleyG
July 29, 2005, 03:57 PM
"All you need is a credit card and you can get your SF sniper rifle without a background check"

Does he actually believe this? I only wish it were true. What a bunch of outright lying sonsabitches!!!

Greg

Dan from MI
July 29, 2005, 03:57 PM
The GAO report was LAUTENBERG's report. Nuff said.

And who the hell determines the definition of "terrorist" by legal definition?

mordrid52
July 29, 2005, 03:57 PM
I love how he complains about the "guns of the Special Forces" Vulcan Armament ad like they use some sort of magic uberweapons that kills hundreds with every shot.

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 03:57 PM
Kennedy: Talks about S&W filings, and litigation costs. Can't pronounce Ruger. The level of litigation against mfgs is minuscule. Trots out 57 of 10 mil tort suits figure. This legislation is another in the long line of Congressional payback to NRA, to the detriment of the American people's safety. The gun lobby has made it impossible to police negligent dealer. Under Brady bill, FFLs must run background checks, but NRA demanded gun dealer definition be narrowed. We have shameless proposal that shields reckless sales, even protects mfgs that promote weapons for urban combat use. Shows ad from Vulcan Armament talking about their guns being used by Spec Ops, and Kennedy goes nuts. Outrageous! Credit card, you get your rifle used by specops. At the insistence of NRA, congress already cut funding for ATF. According to GAO, that ATF would take 22 years to inspect all gun dealers. It also tells us that terrorist suspects regularly buy guns here. Under current law, terrorists are legal buyers. Under this bill, mfgs and dealers will be exempt if they sell to terrorists. There were 45 instances of background checks matching terrorists.

StopTheGrays
July 29, 2005, 03:58 PM
According to Kennedy I can call Vulcan Arms and get the guns the Specials Forces are using in Afghanistan, all I need is a credit card. That is it. :rolleyes:


Edited to add
I seriously just had the thought of calling Vulcan and saying Sen Kennedy said it was ok to sell and ship a Special Forces rifle to me and ask them to do so :evil:

sturmruger
July 29, 2005, 03:58 PM
This guys is such a idiot!! How do the people of his state keep electing him??

Dan from MI
July 29, 2005, 03:58 PM
"""All you need is a credit card and you can get your SF sniper rifle without a background check""""

Private sales use credit cards? That's news to me.

aquapong
July 29, 2005, 03:58 PM
Kennedy - "These dealers will not even be held liable if they sell guns to terrorists!"

Would that be the same terrorist watch list that was used when you, Mr Kennedy, attempted to board a plane and you were denied entry? Unless you insinuate that you are a terrorist, you can personally affirm how flawed that same list can be.

TrybalRage
July 29, 2005, 03:59 PM
Well maybe the INS should do their job, then this wouldnt be an issue.

Don't Tread On Me
July 29, 2005, 04:01 PM
Kennedy is on the verge of foaming at the mouth.


Only one word describes his "debate" and that is RABID. He is acting very angry, very fanatic.


He is now crying over terrorists buying our guns. Oh yea, and .50's.

aquapong
July 29, 2005, 04:02 PM
CLEARLY ON THE VULCAN ARMS WEBSITE

Explain the Legalities?
All of the firearms manufactured by Vulcan Arms, Inc. are completely compliant with all FEDERAL laws. Purchasing any of the firearms listed here is no more complicated than purchasing a bolt action rifle or shotgun. The customer is responsible for ensuring the specific firearm is legal in your area. Any receiver or firearm to be shipped requires that a signed copy of the receiver's FFL be on file prior to shipment. Faxed copies are not acceptable.

http://www.vulcanarmament.com/cgistore/store.cgi?page=/new/faq.html&setup=1&cart_id=9832458.5288

Nickotym
July 29, 2005, 04:03 PM
Now he is using Ebay as asource for buying AP bullets. We all know noone lies on ebay.

TrybalRage
July 29, 2005, 04:04 PM
EBAY is his reference? What a clown.

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 04:04 PM
Kennedy: Do you think S.397 is doing anything about that? No. Disgraceful. We already know terrorists are exploiting our gun laws. Talks about that training manual. We're not talking about hypothetical. Talks about terrorist group caught trying to buy guns here and ship them out. Talks about plot to blow up propane tanks. This bill will bar state AG from bringing action against sellers. At NRA command, industry is already exempted from consumer regulations. They also persuaded gov't to destroy gun records in 24 hours. Blah blah, terrorists. Make no mistake, NRA comes first for Repubs. Unholy alliance. S.397 gives greater protection to gun industry than any other. My amdt would expand current ban on AP ammo. You can buy it online, etc. that is a disgrace. The NRA would have us believe cop killer bullets don't exist. Cites eBay sale listing AP bullets. Number of officers killed in ‘04 32 were killed with vest on. Only AP can do this, and my amdt addresses this.

foghornl
July 29, 2005, 04:05 PM
I just heard "The Senator has 5 minutes." Don't know if I can listen that much longer.... :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

"...I think I'm gonna hurl..."



OOOPS, I just did..... dang.it, I need ANOTHER new keyboard.

chrisher
July 29, 2005, 04:05 PM
My wife came into the room and said, "Honey, I don't ask you for much..." When she begins with that line, it's usually followed by, "But would you please scoop the cat box, mow the lawn, etc." Just now, it was, "But I need you to get on a plane and go kick this moron's (Kennedy's) a$$."

What a wife!!!

TarpleyG
July 29, 2005, 04:06 PM
I sent the swimmer a nastygram basically calling him a liar and asking him to be sure and check his facts before spouting off. Hopefully the SS doesn't come after me. (I was polite and concise, don't worry)

p.s. Funny--SS--never thought of that before...

Greg

waterhouse
July 29, 2005, 04:06 PM
I'm pretty sure Kennedy just said "We don't keep records of firearms sales because we are concerned about people's privacy and their right to keep and bear arms."

This sounds like a reasonable statement, until you realize that he is screaming it and he clearly thinks it is ludicrous that our privacy and RKBA are important rights.

mordrid52
July 29, 2005, 04:06 PM
Because no one on Ebay would ever mislabel thier product to get more hits :rolleyes:

RavenVT100
July 29, 2005, 04:06 PM
Haha, now they have to call Orrin Hatch to set things right.

"The sky is truly falling!"

aquapong
July 29, 2005, 04:08 PM
Here I thought it was my phone messing with my tv. :D

TarpleyG
July 29, 2005, 04:09 PM
I thought Hatch's phone buzzing the speaker was MY phone buzzing MY speakers. I was going all around my office trying to find the source...

Greg

StopTheGrays
July 29, 2005, 04:09 PM
Hatch needs to shut off his phone. :cuss:

foghornl
July 29, 2005, 04:09 PM
Don't worry about the flight, chrisher...Sen Hatch is doing a pretty good butt-kicking job on "Swimmin' Teddy" right now...

Alabama Sen Sessions has got his kicking foot going quite well now...

Wow even the FOP & LEAA support this bill, and said the "Cop-Killer Bullet" is a thinly veiled fraud...take that, Teddy!

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 04:10 PM
Hatch: To hear Kennedy, you'd think the sky is falling. That if we don't vote for his amdt, we'd be for terrorism. I rise to speak against the Kennedy amdt. Craig's amdt would strengthen penalties for using AP handgun ammo, and would create study on effect of performance based ban. The Kennedy amdt would ban nearly all rifle ammo. It is also opposed by FOP. Fact is we have laws in this area that are working. BATFE reached same conclusion in recent study. They found no additional legislation regarding such laws is needed. Kennedy believes we just need to keep passing laws. The Frist-Craig amdt recognizes that current law regarding AP is working. It states that you can't mfg and import for civilians AP handgun ammo. It says that if AP ammo is used to kill cop, than the max penalty used is death. Wound cop with AP, mandatory sentence of 15 years. It sends msg that ammo is illegal, that they will pay ultimate price for use. Reject Kennedy amdt.

Nickotym
July 29, 2005, 04:11 PM
Another reason his ebay argument is flawed is that ebay does not allow the sale of loaded ammo, so the AP bullets he lists are only bullets. I don't know of too many on the street thugs who reload their ammo.

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 04:15 PM
Message from Bush arrives.

Sessions: I have some great LEO friends who have served. They're concerned that repeat offenders are released to the street. They feel sometimes that the justice system is too slow and sentences never get carried out. This is consistent with letters we've received concerning Kennedy amdt. Reads LEO letter supporting S.397, and referring to Kennedy amdt as poison kill. Says cop killer bullets are thinly veiled lie. FOP writes in opposition to Kennedy. They say that though presented as officer safety issue, regardless its effect would be to expand definition of AP based on marketing strategy. Only one officer has been killed from AP handgun ammo, and that was due to vest failure.

NCGUN
July 29, 2005, 04:15 PM
I've been away, someone catch me up, Lautenburg failed, craigs passed, and we are awaiting kennedy's amend vote now?

Dan from MI
July 29, 2005, 04:16 PM
Does the Craig Amendment expand the definition of "Armor Piercing" or just restate the ban on what is currently DEFINED as AP bullets?

In short, this amendment could do nothing, or be really bad.

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 04:17 PM
Kennedy: I have here the FFL ref guide, which already bans 14 different types of ammo. I'm just trying to add a 15th, of cop killer bullets. Our officers can't be protected by a study, if you care about terrorism, you'll support my amdt. This isn't about hunting, geese don't wear vests.

TarpleyG
July 29, 2005, 04:17 PM
If Kennedy has the ATF policy manual, why doesn't he read the whole thing? If he did, he'd know that you cannot simply call Vulcan and order a rifle to your door.

Greg

Dan from MI
July 29, 2005, 04:19 PM
"""This isn't about hunting, geese don't wear vests."""

They have feathers which is actually a damn good protector from shot. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

aquapong
July 29, 2005, 04:19 PM
I don't know of too many on the street thugs who reload their ammo.
You didn't see Dillon's latest catalog with the gangstas using the progressive loader to fill the clips for there gats, Glock foty's, and Uzi's? :D

Nickotym
July 29, 2005, 04:19 PM
voting on Craig's second amendment.

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 04:20 PM
Vote on Kennedy and opposing Craig amdt going on now...

foghornl
July 29, 2005, 04:21 PM
I can't hear the replies on the Craig amendment vote, but when I heard "Mrs. Clinton"...well my skin started crawling so bad, I soaked ANOTHER keyboard

sturmruger
July 29, 2005, 04:22 PM
I sure do like CSPAN online!! It is always interesting to see what happens in the US Senate.

Nickotym
July 29, 2005, 04:23 PM
I do recall reading about a gang of high school aged children using Dillon presses to reload for their "sniper rifles" though. Seriously, there was an article a few issues back about a rifle competition team that takes a practice day to reload every now and then to keep up with their needs.

sturmruger
July 29, 2005, 04:24 PM
I count only 16 votes out of 100 Senators!! Where are the rest of them??

Nickotym
July 29, 2005, 04:25 PM
chamber sure looks empty.

Nickotym
July 29, 2005, 04:27 PM
I would imagine the text of Craig's amendment is the same or similar as the last time this was attempted. I don't think Craig would give much resistance to having that stripped in conference committee.

Andrew Rothman
July 29, 2005, 04:30 PM
Feinstein just voted for the Craig amendment.

Whoops. If it's attractive to her it can't be good!

Ironbarr
July 29, 2005, 04:31 PM
Why is Craig sponsoring amendment for outlawing and creating severe penalties for use of AP ammo?

Steel penetrators?

Help - I just got here 5 minutes ago.

/IB

mordrid52
July 29, 2005, 04:33 PM
The Craig amendment being voted on right now makes it a capital offense to kill a law enforcement officer with real AP ammo. It also sets up a study to investigate the "problem" of "cop-killer" bullets.

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 04:34 PM
He isn't banning anything. It's just a pacifier opposed to the Kennedy amendment that would put criminals in jail longer for shooting a cop with AP handgun ammo, and calls for a study to be done. No worries.

sturmruger
July 29, 2005, 04:34 PM
The way I understand it AP ammo is all ready illegal and Craig is just strenthening the penalties.

I trust Larry Craig more then any other Senator in DC. If he thinks this is a good move then I am sure it is going to be a good thing in the end.

Dan from MI
July 29, 2005, 04:34 PM
It's why I want to see the definition of Craig's amendment. I'm worried it's a "game played".

On edit - Lenin voted no.

Andrew Rothman
July 29, 2005, 04:37 PM
I guess some anti Senators voted for this, knowing it'd pass, so they can go home and say, "I voted (for a Republican amendment) to protect cops from cop-killer bullets."

TrybalRage
July 29, 2005, 04:39 PM
For dryyyyyy, clear eyes...

Ironbarr
July 29, 2005, 04:40 PM
Hillary voted "NO" then came to the table, talked a bit, then went "AYE".

Gee, I wonder why!!!!!

/IB

NCGUN
July 29, 2005, 04:41 PM
Is this where we are at TODAY:

Warner Amend is dead

Lautenburg Amend is dead

Craig Amend (sponsor of this bill) which strengthens
punishment for armor
piercing ammo (AP) which kills LEO's and seeks to kill
Kennedy Amend is
being voted now

Kennedy Amend which adds 30-30 AP ammo to be outlawed being
voted now

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 04:44 PM
That's about it, NCGUN.

EDIT: Except the Kennedy bill would ban far more than just thutty-thutty ammo. We're talking some seriously bad voodoo on this one if it passed.

Dan from MI
July 29, 2005, 04:44 PM
FROM CSPAN

Craig Amdt - Stregthens penalties on use of AP ammo. Creates Study on use of AP ammo.

=========

My opinon - Sucks as I'm a fiscal conservative and that we don't need study, but not dealbreaker if that's all this is.

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 04:47 PM
The Craig Amendment, which would strengthen penalties for those who use armor piercing ammunition, and also create a study on the matter, passes (I think, that was unusual).

Craig asks everybody to stay and vote immediately on Kennedy amendment, which is going on now.

RealGun
July 29, 2005, 04:48 PM
I trust Larry Craig more then any other Senator in DC

Chuckle. Craig is not a lawyer.

Dan from MI
July 29, 2005, 04:48 PM
KENNEDY's amendment is up now. THIS is the REALLY bad one.

Please let me know Stabenow and Lenin's votes in case I miss them, although I think I can safely assume that they both suck.

SmershAgent
July 29, 2005, 04:48 PM
FROM CSPAN

Craig Amdt - Stregthens penalties on use of AP ammo. Creates Study on use of AP ammo.


If they're talking about real AP ammunition, then the study should conclude that it's almost never used in crimes and that no further legislation is necessary.

Since it's a Craig amendment, I suspect that's the case (unlike Teddy's version of what AP ammo should include).

Unless you've been storing some steel-cored handgun bullets with jackets that comprise at least 1/4 of the overall weight since 1986 AND you plan on using them to murder a police officer, this amendment should be completely benign. It's just a token nod to the anti-gun crowd so they can brag about how they voted on a measure to protect police from "cop-killer bullets".

CTRL-ALT-DEL
July 29, 2005, 04:53 PM
is there a text of Kennedy's amendment?

NCGUN
July 29, 2005, 04:55 PM
Bart, do you have the URLs that will reflect the voting record for the Lautenburg, Kennedy, and Craig Amendments?

ClonaKilty
July 29, 2005, 04:56 PM
I think it's dead by my informal count. McCain voted "no!" Will wonders ever cease?

Rockrivr1
July 29, 2005, 04:56 PM
Whats the vote at now? Cant get CSpan and I'm on the edge of my seat.
Kennedy, I HATE THAT GUY!!!!

Andrew Rothman
July 29, 2005, 04:57 PM
I counted 59 Nays. Kennedy amendment dead.

[Edit] 60 nay, 30 aye

GLOCK19XDSC
July 29, 2005, 04:58 PM
Dan from MI,

In case you missed it: Stabenow and Levin voted "Aye."

topflight70
July 29, 2005, 04:58 PM
Anybody got an official count and list of votes? :confused:

Dan from MI
July 29, 2005, 04:59 PM
And STABENOW and LEVIN VOTE TO BAN THE .30-30 AGAIN! :fire: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :banghead: :banghead:


KEITH BUTLER FOR SENATE - http://www.keithbutlerforussenate.com

Even Bingaman, Lugar, Warner, and Dewine voted against this. Salazar voted no too.

Dan from MI
July 29, 2005, 05:00 PM
Pat Leahy no?

NeveraVictimAgain
July 29, 2005, 05:01 PM
As I'm watching now they are voting on the Kennedy Amendment. How did he define "armor piercing" or "cop killer" bulletts? Have any other restrictive amendments passed?

THANKS!

Dave

CTRL-ALT-DEL
July 29, 2005, 05:02 PM
someone post a link to how these people voted on the Kennedy amendment

Kurush
July 29, 2005, 05:02 PM
I can't believe Congress is rejecting this common sense measure to stop terrorists from getting 30-30 sniper rifles. As we all know, the 30-30 is so powerful it can shoot down an airplane from 5 miles away and if it even misses an M1 Abrams tank, the wind from it will suck the brains out of everyone inside :uhoh:

Dan from MI
July 29, 2005, 05:05 PM
As I'm watching now they are voting on the Kennedy Amendment. How did he define "armor piercing" or "cop killer" bulletts? Have any other restrictive amendments passed?

The Kennedy bill expands "cop killer" bullets to include any centerfire or pistol round that can penetrate a vest and/or that the Attorney General calls a cop killer bullet. Kennedy tried to push it off as a tungsten (sp) round this year.

Last year he speficaly targets the .223 and .30-30. That why I call this bill a .30-30 ban as that is a deer hunting round.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 29, 2005, 05:05 PM
You can find pretty much every Senate vote back into the early 1990s here:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_1.htm

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 05:06 PM
The Kennedy Amendment, which would vastly expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition such that it would include a vast range of center-fire rounds, fails.

Yeas: 31

Nays: 64

Ironbarr
July 29, 2005, 05:06 PM
Levin "AYE", Stabenow - no vote, time expired.

TrybalRage
July 29, 2005, 05:06 PM
Amendment does not pass.

ClonaKilty
July 29, 2005, 05:07 PM
It's dead (again)! 64 no 31 yes.

Going to debate the Corzine amendment now. I don't know what it covers.

RavenVT100
July 29, 2005, 05:07 PM
Corzine has an Amendment? Dear Jebus.

What exactly is he planning?

mordrid52
July 29, 2005, 05:09 PM
I think they said that it's Corzine, Reed (or Reid), then the final vote.

Boats
July 29, 2005, 05:10 PM
Corzine exempts law enforcement officers from the lawsuit bar.

ClonaKilty
July 29, 2005, 05:10 PM
Corzine:
"I'm a realist and I know where this is going." " I know this amendment is not going to pass"
If he he expects it to get voted down, why is he wasting our time?

Kurush
July 29, 2005, 05:11 PM
Congressional Record (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2004_record&page=S1634&position=all) ,Ted Kennedy February 26, 2004
Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating

RavenVT100
July 29, 2005, 05:11 PM
Corzine is running for New Jersey Governor. He has promised to make New Jersey the first "gun free" state. This guy is most likely on par, or to the left of, Kennedy. And he is much smarter.

Dan from MI
July 29, 2005, 05:13 PM
Levin "AYE", Stabenow - no vote, time expired

If Stabenow was a no vote, she changed it from AYE earlier.

ClonaKilty
July 29, 2005, 05:13 PM
He is making the argument that unscrupulous dealers allow straw purchasers to buy, resell and the guns wind up on the street.

And therefore, his conclusions goes, we should allow the criminal & civil courts to sue dealers for negligence.

:rolleyes:

aquapong
July 29, 2005, 05:15 PM
He's got to make a show for his anti base.

Boats
July 29, 2005, 05:17 PM
Dang, Chuckie found a live camera. :cuss:

Andrew Rothman
July 29, 2005, 05:18 PM
someone post a link to how these people voted on the Kennedy amendment

Watch this page. When the roll call vote is recorded, it'll show up here:

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm

It refreshes every 20 minutes, but I don't know how fast they get the votes on there.

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 05:18 PM
Corzine: I come to the floor, moved by an event that happened this week. I went to a week for an officer on Monday night, gunned down by a gang member. Violence brought by illegal movement of guns in our society, and irresponsible dealing in guns. My amdt is to protect the rights of LE victimized by crime to secure compensation from those who facilitates arming criminals on a negligent basis. I know this amdt won't pass, and S.397 will. Talks about cops who sued dealer for million dollar settlement for selling guns to straw buyer. I think it's time we recognize we need the ability to use both criminal and civil justice system to protect our officers. We're putting people who protect us at risk everyday. Asks for voice vote.

Craig: Nobody questions Corzine's sincerity. We believe the laws are already with the officers, and the FOP agrees. Last year, this amdt was opposed by FOP. They don't believe a special category is necessary. This is an amdt that destroys S.397, calls for opposition

Schumer: It is hard to accept the fact that we are accepting a special industry, that deals with something that is dangerous, and giving them special immunity. We're giving it to one small group because they have influence. I also say that even when somebody is negligent, even when an org doesn't abide by the rules, they will still be exempt. How can we say that? I want people to remember the terror of the DC snipers. These terrorists obtained their assault rifle from Bullseye, who couldn't account for their sales. Yet they would be protected. Who would exempt a gun dealer who violated the law? I would say this. You wanna know why Americans are fed up with this body? Because of catering to a small group like this. I support 2nd, but no amendment is absolute, not 1st, not any.

ClonaKilty
July 29, 2005, 05:18 PM
Schumer:
"Who would exclude liability from a dealer who violated the law?"

No one, you freaking moron. Which is why lawbreakers are still liable.

You didn't read the bill, did you?


Oh and get this. Schumer: "I support the 2nd amendment"
:barf:

RavenVT100
July 29, 2005, 05:19 PM
Schumer: "I support the Second Amendment."

:D

CTRL-ALT-DEL
July 29, 2005, 05:19 PM
Thanks Matt.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 29, 2005, 05:19 PM
Craig points out that last year even Fraternal Order of Police opposed Corzine's bill exempting law enforcement. Corzine points out that this year they haven't taken any public stance. Craig retorts with the name of an FOP bigwig that Senators can call if they want to hear it from the horse's mouth.

Voice vote on Corzine - Amendment shot down in flames.

Kurush
July 29, 2005, 05:19 PM
Corzine was defeated on a voice vote.

GLOCK19XDSC
July 29, 2005, 05:20 PM
Schumer: "I support the 2nd amendment, but no amendment is absolute." Riiiight. :banghead:

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 05:20 PM
Voice vote on Corzine amendment, it is defeated.

CTRL-ALT-DEL
July 29, 2005, 05:20 PM
Schumer: "I support the Second Amendment."


WOW, what a whopper, Chuckie will smoke a big turd in hades for that one. :what:

TrybalRage
July 29, 2005, 05:24 PM
Fearmongering. Just think, while filling up your car...

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 05:25 PM
Reed: My amdt has the purpose to support the right of individuals who have been harmed. It embraces the principle of the law. S.397 sweeps away rights of individuals and municipalities. I am reluctant to change law and practice, but I propose we step back and eliminate suits by municipalities, by keep suits by individuals. Repeats that there is no crisis. This law will deny ordinary people their voice in court when they've been harmed. People are being shot because of criminal negligence. This legislation would bar the door to court houses for real people. Talks about the same cases we've heard over and over, DC snipers. I love the part about the girl who was shot by the Bushmaster assault rifle, with no mention of the man behind the trigger.

NCGUN
July 29, 2005, 05:25 PM
Ok, assuming that the REED Amend is defeated... this would be over. But, is there anything that could undo any of these Amendments.. or is this set in stone?

armoredman
July 29, 2005, 05:26 PM
Imagine how much fun this would be if we didn't have a clear majority here....

RavenVT100
July 29, 2005, 05:26 PM
Is Reed telling the truth? Wouldn't S.397 fail to cover a dealer who was indeed negligent in selling a gun to a felon?

I think what the underlying theme here is that yeah, the people who are really committing crimes are being negligent. But they don't have any money. Gun companies have money. And that's why they're targeted with suits.

MasterPiece Arms.com
July 29, 2005, 05:27 PM
Corzine is running for New Jersey Governor. He has promised to make New Jersey the first "gun free" state. This guy is most likely on par, or to the left of, Kennedy. And he is much smarter.

Corzine has appeared for some time to be the Council on Foreign Relation's point man in the Senate, even higher in seniority than Di Fi. Calling Corzine smarter is a two edged sword. He appears smarter because of above mentioned senority, added with DEEP behind the scenes support from the establishment. Instead of calling him 'smarter' I call him 'better connected,' because a lot of CFR members are just useful idiots. Most CFR members don't rize in senority to become knowing conspirators like Corzine. The ones that are let into the CFR's deeper confidence are extremely evil (no surprise there).

Dan from MI
July 29, 2005, 05:28 PM
I'm not celebrating until this passes the Senate without any bad amendments, survives the conference committee, passes again, and is signed by Bush without anything bad.

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 05:28 PM
Reed: Says the exceptions have been carefully crafted to keep real current cases from getting to court. We will see more reckless behavior because of this legislation. Complains about Lautenberg amendment failed. To those without CSPAN, I envy you.

ClonaKilty
July 29, 2005, 05:28 PM
Reed claims that the exceptions to 397 have been "carefully crafted" to disallow suits against negligent dealers.
:rolleyes:

nico
July 29, 2005, 05:33 PM
Hutchinson (sp?) gets my respect for calling Malvo and Muhamad what they are:
Serial Killers. Anybody wanna trade her for Mikulski?

ClonaKilty
July 29, 2005, 05:37 PM
KBH: succinctly and clearly shows that the bill DOES allow lawsuits against negligent dealers. Took her <5 minutes to retort.

Reed: basically says it is his own legal opinion that the legit. lawsuits wouldn't make it to court under 397.

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 05:37 PM
Hutchison: This is a complete substitute for the bill, and guts it. It does exactly the opposite of the bill's purpose. Reed mentioned some terrible situations, regarding the DC snipers, and said they would not be able to sue the dealer. In fact he was found to have violated the laws, and his license was revoked. Under our bill, those people would be able to sue. Everything we have been working on all day would be reversed under this amdt. We're not here to bar legit lawsuits, for malfunctions. We're trying to stop gun mfgs for having answer lawsuit after lawsuit for criminal use of their product. Calls for seeing through Reed amdt.

Reed: S.397 would prevent AG or State Legislature from authorizing suit, etc. Same complaints.

Ironbarr
July 29, 2005, 05:38 PM
She "didn't vote" - time expired.

(Unless I missed it - though I was paying attention.)
///
///
(I hope)

ClonaKilty
July 29, 2005, 05:39 PM
Debate is over, calling roll now. Standby.

Dan from MI
July 29, 2005, 05:45 PM
Ironbarr - I'll have to look at the roll call to see if I misheard. I thought she was one of the first to vote in that long list of "in the affirmative". If she didn't vote, I'm going to have even more fun with my letter to the editor for chickening out about a year before election after voting for a ban in 2004.

ClonaKilty
July 29, 2005, 05:45 PM
CRUSHED! It's gone. Standby for official tally.

txgho1911
July 29, 2005, 06:00 PM
00217 29-Jul S. 397 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 1615 Agreed to Kennedy Amdt. No. 1615; To expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition and for other purposes.

This doesn't look crushed.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_1.htm

Tell the pond scum to take a picture.

Dan from MI
July 29, 2005, 06:03 PM
That's GOT to be a typo. It lost 65-34(approx) on CSPAN.

armoredman
July 29, 2005, 06:03 PM
That better be a typo....too many people watching this for them to get away with it....

ClonaKilty
July 29, 2005, 06:04 PM
CSPAN reported the vote on kennedy's amdmt as 64 against, 31 for. It's dead.

Reed: Nays 63. It's also dead! Hooray!

10 min debate now, I guess on 397 itself.

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 06:04 PM
The Reed Amendment, which would gut S.397 and still allow for the very suits it seeks to stop, failed.

Yeas: 33

Nays: 63

Kurush
July 29, 2005, 06:04 PM
defeated, nays 63

Kurush
July 29, 2005, 06:06 PM
Reed has some probably made-up chart that supposedly shows lawsuits against S&W have been going down.

ClonaKilty
July 29, 2005, 06:08 PM
Reed shows graph of declining lawsuits vs Ruger (or S&W?). As if the decline shows there is absoltuely no threat of a killer lawsuit to the industry.

It's like his version of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

Now he's regurgitating the irrelevant cases (MD snipers etc) and going emotional on us, saying we're not open to lawsuits against negligent distrubutors.

He has no freaking ears, has he not listened to Craig or Hutchinson?

SmershAgent
July 29, 2005, 06:08 PM
Reed has some probably made-up chart that supposedly shows lawsuits against S&W have been going down.

And I have a chart showing that he's an idiot.

Dan from MI
July 29, 2005, 06:08 PM
Agreed to is a typo from THOMAS.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217

Kennedy Amendment

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---31
Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI) :cuss:
Lieberman (D-CT)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI) :cuss:
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---64
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

Not Voting - 5
Cornyn (R-TX)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Roberts (R-KS)
Smith (R-OR)
Sununu (R-NH)

txgho1911
July 29, 2005, 06:11 PM
Someong tell the pond scum to take a picture before it's gone!

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 06:12 PM
Reed: S.397 is not about the facts, there is no litigation crisis. Trots out S&W declining case numbers. There is no threat to mil weapons. This is not about legal principle. The principle of negligence is being stood on it's head. We've had talk about intervening criminal activities removing liability, but that isn't the case in law. States have been handling this. It's about sheer power by the NRA, to take us off the Defense bill, the power to take us away from stem cell debate. It's not about principle. If S.397 passes, what will be the incentive to act reasonably (how about BATFE raids? :rolleyes:) If they're reckless now, what will they do when we say nobody can touch them? We're silencing the voices of gun violence victims. It's not about trying gun mfgs for somebody else's fault, it's about their own responsibility. It's about the DC sniper victims. We're telling those victims the NRA is more important. This is wrong.

Craig: Last year I promised co-sponsors we'd return for a fair opportunity, and attempt to establish a clear record on a very important decision. Thanks Frist and his colleagues. This bill is intended to do one thing, to end the abuse in the court system against law-abiding businesses that violate no law, but because the product they sell ultimately ends up being used in criminal act, they are liable. I think the Senate will say they ought not be. What we have crafted is a very narrow kind of exemption from predatory lawsuits. That's what S.397 is about. The reality is very clear, and the legislation simple.

ClonaKilty
July 29, 2005, 06:12 PM
FINALLY!

Calling roll now for the final vote. Stay tuned.

armoredman
July 29, 2005, 06:13 PM
Finally is right....sheesh....

RealGun
July 29, 2005, 06:13 PM
Hard core against the bill:

Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Corzine
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Maurray
Nelson - FL
Obama
Reed - RI
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden

That's an unofficial tally of the Reed amendment. I don't think it alone makes them anti-gun but does make them in favor of lawsuits without concern for the cost of being in business (litigation insurance).

I think the final vote on the bill will likely be these folks voting NO.

Andrew Rothman
July 29, 2005, 06:13 PM
Reed Amendment vote:
----------------------
X=no vote
I clearly missed one vote -- anyone know which?

Y Akaka (D-HI),
N Alexander (R-TN),
N Allard (R-CO),
N Allen (R-VA),
N Baucus (D-MT),
Y Bayh (D-IN),
N Bennett (R-UT),
Y Biden (D-DE),
Y Bingaman (D-NM),
N Bond (R-MO),
Y Boxer (D-CA),
N Brownback (R-KS),
N Bunning (R-KY),
N Burns (R-MT),
N Burr (R-NC),
N Byrd (D-WV),
Y Cantwell (D-WA),
Y Carper (D-DE),
Y Chafee (R-RI),
N Chambliss (R-GA),
Y Clinton (D-NY),
N Coburn (R-OK),
N Cochran (R-MS),
N Coleman (R-MN),
N Collins (R-ME),
N Conrad (D-ND),
N Cornyn (R-TX),
Y Corzine (D-NJ),
N Craig (R-ID),
N Crapo (R-ID),
Y Dayton (D-MN),
X DeMint (R-SC),
Y DeWine (R-OH),
Y Dodd (D-CT),
N Dole (R-NC),
N Domenici (R-NM),
N Dorgan (D-ND),
Y Durbin (D-IL),
N Ensign (R-NV),
N Enzi (R-WY),
Y Feingold (D-WI),
X Feinstein (D-CA),
N Frist (R-TN),
N Graham (R-SC),
N Grassley (R-IA),
N Gregg (R-NH),
N Hagel (R-NE),
Y Harkin (D-IA),
N Hatch (R-UT),
N Hutchison (R-TX),
N Inhofe (R-OK),
Y Inouye (D-HI),
N Isakson (R-GA),
Y Jeffords (I-VT),
N Johnson (D-SD),
Y Kennedy (D-MA),
Y Kerry (D-MA),
Y Kohl (D-WI),
N Kyl (R-AZ),
N Landrieu (D-LA),
Y Lautenberg (D-NJ),
Y Leahy (D-VT),
Y Levin (D-MI),
N Lieberman (D-CT),
N Lincoln (D-AR),
N Lott (R-MS),
N Lugar (R-IN),
N Martinez (R-FL),
N McCain (R-AZ),
N McConnell (R-KY),
Y Mikulski (D-MD),
N Murkowski (R-AK),
Y Murray (D-WA),
Y Nelson (D-FL),
N Nelson (D-NE),
Y Obama (D-IL),
N Pryor (D-AR),
Y Reed (D-RI),
N Reid (D-NV),
X Roberts (R-KS),
X Rockefeller (D-WV),
N Salazar (D-CO),
N Santorum (R-PA),
Y Sarbanes (D-MD),
Y Schumer (D-NY),
N Sessions (R-AL),
N Shelby (R-AL),
X Smith (R-OR),
N Snowe (R-ME),
N Specter (R-PA),
Y Stabenow (D-MI),
N Stevens (R-AK),
X Sununu (R-NH),
N Talent (R-MO),
N Thomas (R-WY),
N Thune (R-SD),
N Vitter (R-LA),
N Voinovich (R-OH),
N Warner (R-VA),
Y Wyden (D-OR),

Lemon328i
July 29, 2005, 06:15 PM
Must be a typo as the roll call vote clearly show that Sen Kennedy's amendment was defeated. Probably got confused with Sen Craig's own amendment.

Secret Master
July 29, 2005, 06:16 PM
Oh, thank goodness! I thought you guys meant "Reid" ammendment. Boy was I mad!

ClonaKilty
July 29, 2005, 06:16 PM
While they're making sausage on the Senate floor, let's discuss a topic:

Would the passage of 397 potentially mean an opening for further tort reform (not just for firearms industry)?

Discuss.

Andrew Rothman
July 29, 2005, 06:17 PM
While they're making sausage on the Senate floor, let's discuss a topic:

Would the passage of 397 potentially mean an opening for further tort reform (not just for firearms industry)?

Discuss.
Not in this thread, please. Start another.

Dan from MI
July 29, 2005, 06:18 PM
Is the final vote up now?

And $100 says Carl Lenin and Debbie Stabmenow vote Nay on the final bill.

sturmruger
July 29, 2005, 06:20 PM
I wouldn't take that bet!! They voted for the Kennedy Amendment didn't they?

armoredman
July 29, 2005, 06:21 PM
The aye votes sound like a full roll call!

Ravenslair
July 29, 2005, 06:21 PM
WooHoo!!!

aquapong
July 29, 2005, 06:23 PM
More tort reform...man I hope so.

Waiting for it to be official... :cool:

ClonaKilty
July 29, 2005, 06:26 PM
Not fiished voting yet but I've counted at least 58 "ayes" so far...looks good.

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 06:30 PM
S.397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Guns Act, PASSES.

Yeas: 65

Nays: 31

ClonaKilty
July 29, 2005, 06:31 PM
WOOHOO!

65 for
31 against

We finally did it!

aquapong
July 29, 2005, 06:32 PM
Congrats guys...score one for our side. Let's give it a bit and then hit the sporting clause.

The wife and I are going out to eat at a fancy restaurant to celebrate. Ok, so we've got a gift certificate from Christmas...but that's cool. :D

sturmruger
July 29, 2005, 06:32 PM
I guess that is a go then!! I bet all of the gun manufacturers are happy as can be. I bet Rugers stock goes up tomorow.

SmershAgent
July 29, 2005, 06:32 PM
How long after it's signed until the Bradys take it to court?

TarpleyG
July 29, 2005, 06:33 PM
What amendments were attached after all was done?

Greg

armoredman
July 29, 2005, 06:33 PM
Now, we reconcile the Senate and House version, and hope that the anti's don't slip some stuff in there, or hope someone like Ron Paul DOES slip in a repeal of NFA 34 or GCA 68.... :cool:

ClonaKilty
July 29, 2005, 06:34 PM
Celebration indeed, not quite as nice as the AWB expiring but good nonetheless. We'll open that nice bottle of wine tonight.

OK, I gotta go running now, been putting it off while I watched this.

bg
July 29, 2005, 06:35 PM
Now to throw a wrench in the gears...What amendments were added,
and will the Pres sign it ? What happens if he doesn't ?

Still and all finally we get a win !

NCGUN
July 29, 2005, 06:35 PM
Now if we can just get the Corzine and Craig voting record up

LAR-15
July 29, 2005, 06:35 PM
YEAH BABY!

sumpnz
July 29, 2005, 06:36 PM
Maybe I'll buy that Sig P245 this weekend in celebration (think the wife will buy that excuse?).

Nightfall
July 29, 2005, 06:37 PM
We've got ‘em on the run! :evil:

A final word... don't forget to write your Senators regarding their votes, and be particularly warm and supportive to those who voted correctly throughout this process. You get more flies with honey than vinegar, and all that.

And now, I am going to avoid typing for a couple days. :)

Dan from MI
July 29, 2005, 06:38 PM
The bill passed. Woo hoo.

No thanks to Lenin and Stab.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 29, 2005, 06:39 PM
There were three amendments added:

1) An alternate amendment to the Kennedy amendment by Sen. Craig that proposes to study the issue of armor piercing ammo and enhance the penalties for using AP ammo in crime. Text of amendment not yet available but likely the same as that offered last year.

2) An alternate amendment to the Lautenberg amendment by Sen. Craig To protect the rights of children who are victimized by crime to secure compensation from those who participate in the arming of criminals. Text of amendment not yet available.

3) An amendment by Sen. Reed that FFLs must provide a secure gun storage device with handguns. Discussion and text of bill is here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=149085).

The President has already indicated he will sign it.

LAR-15
July 29, 2005, 06:39 PM
All three amendments that passed can easily be stripped out in conference.

They do nothing.

Well actually I support putting criminals to death who kill with AP ammo.

But they are really meaningless.

You notice we got 65 votes for final passage.

We had 61 cosponsors.

Ya think those two amendments attracted some extra support? You bet!

Nickotym
July 29, 2005, 06:43 PM
How does it proceed in conference now? Couple of members from each house or what?

Andrew Rothman
July 29, 2005, 06:45 PM
Final roll call vote:
-----------------
X=no vote

N Akaka (D-HI),
Y Alexander (R-TN),
Y Allard (R-CO),
Y Allen (R-VA),
Y Baucus (D-MT),
N Bayh (D-IN),
Y Bennett (R-UT),
N Biden (D-DE),
N Bingaman (D-NM),
Y Bond (R-MO),
N Boxer (D-CA),
Y Brownback (R-KS),
Y Bunning (R-KY),
Y Burns (R-MT),
Y Burr (R-NC),
Y Byrd (D-WV),
N Cantwell (D-WA),
N Carper (D-DE),
N Chafee (R-RI),
Y Chambliss (R-GA),
N Clinton (D-NY),
Y Coburn (R-OK),
Y Cochran (R-MS),
Y Coleman (R-MN),
Y Collins (R-ME),
Y Conrad (D-ND),
Y Cornyn (R-TX),
N Corzine (D-NJ),
Y Craig (R-ID),
Y Crapo (R-ID),
N Dayton (D-MN),
Y DeMint (R-SC),
N DeWine (R-OH),
N Dodd (D-CT),
Y Dole (R-NC),
Y Domenici (R-NM),
Y Dorgan (D-ND),
N Durbin (D-IL),
Y Ensign (R-NV),
Y Enzi (R-WY),
N Feingold (D-WI),
X Feinstein (D-CA),
Y Frist (R-TN),
Y Graham (R-SC),
Y Grassley (R-IA),
Y Gregg (R-NH),
Y Hagel (R-NE),
N Harkin (D-IA),
Y Hatch (R-UT),
Y Hutchison (R-TX),
Y Inhofe (R-OK),
N Inouye (D-HI),
Y Isakson (R-GA),
Y Jeffords (I-VT),
Y Johnson (D-SD),
N Kennedy (D-MA),
N Kerry (D-MA),
Y Kohl (D-WI),
Y Kyl (R-AZ),
Y Landrieu (D-LA),
N Lautenberg (D-NJ),
N Leahy (D-VT),
N Levin (D-MI),
N Lieberman (D-CT),
Y Lincoln (D-AR),
Y Lott (R-MS),
Y Lugar (R-IN),
Y Martinez (R-FL),
Y McCain (R-AZ),
Y McConnell (R-KY),
N Mikulski (D-MD),
Y Murkowski (R-AK),
N Murray (D-WA),
Y Nelson (D-FL),
Y Nelson (D-NE),
N Obama (D-IL),
Y Pryor (D-AR),
N Reed (D-RI),
Y Reid (D-NV),
X Roberts (R-KS),
Y Rockefeller (D-WV),
Y Salazar (D-CO),
Y Santorum (R-PA),
N Sarbanes (D-MD),
N Schumer (D-NY),
Y Sessions (R-AL),
Y Shelby (R-AL),
X Smith (R-OR),
Y Snowe (R-ME),
Y Specter (R-PA),
N Stabenow (D-MI),
Y Stevens (R-AK),
X Sununu (R-NH),
Y Talent (R-MO),
Y Thomas (R-WY),
Y Thune (R-SD),
Y Vitter (R-LA),
Y Voinovich (R-OH),
Y Warner (R-VA),
N Wyden (D-OR),

Bartholomew Roberts
July 29, 2005, 06:46 PM
How does it proceed in conference now? Couple of members from each house or what?

The Majority and Minority leaders of the Senate and the House name the members of the conference committees. The House usually has a little better position than the Senate in conference committees. Conference committees cannot add anything, they can only strip stuff out. Also three of the four leaders appointing committee members are NRA-backed and voted for the bill.

LAR-15
July 29, 2005, 06:48 PM
Two things:

Ken Salazar voted our way.

Feinstein did not vote at all on the final bill.

Boats
July 29, 2005, 06:50 PM
Actually, the House hasn't heard their version yet. That will probably come up in September.

The real key here is to now write to your RKBA friendly reps if you want to do some damage to the gun control crowd. The House can amend their version to have a limited amount of goodies, like gutting the recent ATF replacement parts rule, without stripping away too much Senate support for passage of the final conference bill.

I wonder what other incremental roll backs could be achieved?

I don't think that there will be an opening of the MG registry or tampering with any of Bush I's EOs possible, but all kinds of minor tweaks to the laws, like loosening the "storefront" restrictions on FFLs and other Clintoon era BS are feasible.

LAR-15
July 29, 2005, 06:52 PM
Who do we need to talk to to add a repeal of 922(o) to the House version?

Rick Boucher?

Cliff Stearns?


A repeal cannot be added on the floor, it must be added before it is brought to the floor. the House has a rule of germaneness.

GigaBuist
July 29, 2005, 06:52 PM
Actually... I think you missed the stock jump already.

Two days ago S&W shot up about 6% for the day, and Ruger 10%.

This morning, partly from a financial release by S&W (not sure about Ruger) S&W was up 30% or close to it and Ruger was up 18% at one point today.

I had intended to get in on this, but missed it by a day. Oddly enough, I've been trying to devote more time to economics/stocks than guns... and that's why I had no idea this was happening until a non-gun buddy saw what happened yesterday. Just didn't have time to shuffle funds around. :(

Brett Bellmore
July 29, 2005, 06:52 PM
Conference committees cannot add anything, they can only strip stuff out.

Well, theoretically, anyway. I seem to recall that rule having been violated on a few occasions.

71Commander
July 29, 2005, 06:53 PM
The GOP needs to withdraw funding for DeWine's future run for office. With friends like him..............................

Dan from MI
July 29, 2005, 07:18 PM
I wouldn't vote for DeRINO under any circumstances.

If you enjoyed reading about "7/29/05 - Senate S.397 Discussion" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!