S 397 passes 65-31!


PDA






CentralTexas
July 29, 2005, 06:46 PM
By MARY DALRYMPLE, Associated Press Writer
7 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Friday to shield firearms manufacturers, dealers and importers from lawsuits brought by victims of gun crimes, a measure opponents said had been ordered up by the gun lobby.


The 65-31 vote passed a bill that supporters said protects the industry from financial disaster and bankruptcy caused by damage lawsuits.

"This bill says go after the criminal, don't go after the law-abiding gun manufacturer or the law-abiding gun seller," said bill sponsor Sen. Larry Craig (news, bio, voting record), R-Idaho.

But Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., and other opponents said the gun industry needs no such special protection. "This bill has one motivation payback by the Bush administration and the Republican leadership of the Congress to the powerful special interest of the National Rifle Association," he said.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., yanked similar legislation from debate last year when Democrats successfully attached an extension of the ban on assault-style weapons and the NRA dropped its support.

Republicans picked up four more Senate seats in last November's election, emboldening gun rights supporters to try again.

The House passed a similar bill last year but has taken no action on it this year.

Democrats won inclusion this year of a new requirement that each handgun be sold with a separate child safety or locking device, unless purchased by government officials or police officers. Any violation could be punished by the suspension of a dealer's license, a $10,000 fine, or both.

Craig said the bill does not block gunmakers and dealers from facing product liability, negligence or breach of contract suits.

Its opponents, however, say the bill effectively exempts gun manufacturers from liability. They also say dealers sometimes let weapons get into the hands of people the law says shouldn't have them.

Democrats tried and lost attempts to insert special provisions in the legislation that would let children and police retain the right to sue, along with another amendment that would have let individuals but not municipalities retain the right to sue.

"Should those whose actions lead to the death or injury of a child get a free pass?" asked Sen. Frank Lautenberg (news, bio, voting record), D-N.J., who sponsored one amendment.

Supporters of the liability bill said the changes would have gutted the bill.

The Senate also brushed aside a Kennedy amendment that would have banned hollow-tipped, so-called "cop killer" bullets.

The gun industry gave 88 percent of its campaign contributions, or $1.2 million, to Republicans in the 2004 election cycle. Gun control advocates, meanwhile, gave 98 percent of their contributions, or $93,700, to Democrats during that election, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

___

On the Net:

Information on the legislation, S. 397, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/

National Rifle Association: http://www.nra.org

Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence: http://www.bradycenter.org

If you enjoyed reading about "S 397 passes 65-31!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
longeyes
July 29, 2005, 06:51 PM
What will it take to make Ted Kennedy retire???

CentralTexas
July 29, 2005, 07:00 PM
another round?

Hey, hey , no, people, please, I meant like as in drinking! :evil:

StephenT
July 29, 2005, 07:04 PM
So it's finally passed? Yes!!!!! The House has already passed a similar bill this year, right?

CTRL-ALT-DEL
July 29, 2005, 07:05 PM
Does anyone have the text to Kennedy's Amendment, stating what Ammo would have been banned? Would like to give a buddy of mine, who is a yellow dog dem a heart attack. :evil:

Rebar
July 29, 2005, 07:08 PM
But, there's not difference between the republicans and democrats, right?

What will it take to make Ted Kennedy retire???
They'll have to carry his well-pickeled corpse out of his senate office.

Owen
July 29, 2005, 07:22 PM
Who voted how?

Ravenslair
July 29, 2005, 07:26 PM
This is just one part that is very good for all of us. Just a reiteration of the Bill of Rights (and further qualification):

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

NCGUN
July 29, 2005, 07:33 PM
how was the corzine amendment decided, by vote?

I dont see it at http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_1.htm

Kharn
July 29, 2005, 07:33 PM
The handgun lock amendment requires a trigger or cable lock be delivered with every handgun sold with a dealer, but offers lawsuit protection for any gun owner that secures his weapon (with a cable/trigger lock, built-in lock, gun safe or locked case) against being sued for the actions of an unauthorized user. I'd say the $2 rise in the cost of handguns is worth the personal lawsuit protection.

Kharn

mordrid52
July 29, 2005, 07:43 PM
how was the corzine amendment decided, by vote?
It was a voice vote since Corzine knew it would lose.

Standing Wolf
July 29, 2005, 07:47 PM
It was a voice vote since Corzine knew it would lose.

Does this mean I'm never going to know how my state's other senator voted?

Kurush
July 29, 2005, 07:49 PM
The handgun lock amendment requires a trigger or cable lock be delivered with every handgun sold with a dealerHmm....

Here's the definition (it was already defined before this vote):
(34) The term ''secure gun storage or safety device'' means -
(A) a device that, when installed on a firearm, is designed to
prevent the firearm from being operated without first
deactivating the device;
(B) a device incorporated into the design of the firearm that
is designed to prevent the operation of the firearm by anyone not
having access to the device; or
(C) a safe, gun safe, gun case, lock box, or other device that
is designed to be or can be used to store a firearm and that is
designed to be unlocked only by means of a key, a combination, or
other similar means.
It seems to me that a garbage bag pull-tie qualifies under (A). At the most it would have to be a specially branded pull-tie that is explicitly for guns. I searched ATF's regulations and found no references to safety devices.

Third_Rail
July 29, 2005, 08:21 PM
Feinstein (D-CA), Not Voting

:D

NCGUN
July 29, 2005, 08:37 PM
LMAO, after all the crying about the DOD bill being tabled, we have http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/s397_dod.pdf

Guy B. Meredith
July 29, 2005, 08:57 PM
When does the House take action to make the bill a law?

Vang
July 29, 2005, 08:57 PM
I am fairly impressed it got through essentially untainted. Finally, a real success.

Spot77
July 29, 2005, 09:45 PM
And I found the perfect way to celebrate the victory today.....

...Bought a case of .223 and a case of 45ACP, as well as a few choice evil accesories for the AR :evil:

RangerHAAF
July 29, 2005, 09:58 PM
As I've heard it, the House will take up passing their own bill again when they return from their recess in the fall.

This was a great victory today and it was very lopsided with RINOS Chafee and DeWine voting with the libs.

mrtgbnkr
July 29, 2005, 10:04 PM
I hadn't seen the vote, but I knew that DeWine would vote against the bill...RINO

taliv
July 29, 2005, 10:04 PM
did you guys catch the amounts contributed by "pro-gun" and "gun-control" groups respectively? sucks to be them

Byron Quick
July 29, 2005, 10:12 PM
Applause. Took the Republicans about four and a half years to actually do something for RKBA. At this rate, if they stay a majority for thirty years or so; they might just get around to repealing some of the gun control junk.


But, maybe they'll get emboldened by success.

boofus
July 29, 2005, 10:24 PM
The section that affirms the right of individuals to keep and bear arms is better than the lawsuit preemption if you ask me.

Third_Rail
July 29, 2005, 10:30 PM
Do we have any indication when this may hit the House and then be signed into law, or can it still be shot down?

RangerHAAF
July 29, 2005, 10:46 PM
I'm wondering what's left for the Bradys and other gun control groups? With the Senate passing this bill the political door is rapidly closing for them and their discredited philosophies, nationally. They're really not going to be welcome anywhere else. What good are they to anyone in Washington? They don't give out much money during election time and they've pretty much worn out their welcome with reality minded Democrats who want to start winning and stop spinning about people not understanding their message. I would like to hope that the Democrats have finally come around to realize that the anti-gunners just aren't worth the headaches and bruisings that they have been causing them since 1994.

TheOtherOne
July 29, 2005, 11:11 PM
What are the chances the gun lock requirement will make it all the way to the Presidents desk and get signed? Will they be able to strip this poison pill out during committee or what? That's just what I need is my dealer being forced by the federal government to push a cable lock on me. :barf:

Am I a spineless voter if I don't stay true to my word and no longer vote for my (supposedly) pro-gun senators Bennett and Hatch for passing this bill with an anti-gun amendment?

Kharn
July 29, 2005, 11:15 PM
What are the chances the gun lock requirement will make it all the way to the Presidents desk and get signed? Will they be able to strip this poison pill out during committee or what? That "poison pill" would protect you from a lawsuit if some crackhead broke into your safe and sold all your guns on the street.

Kharn

TheOtherOne
July 29, 2005, 11:45 PM
That "poison pill" would protect you from a lawsuit if some crackhead broke into your safe and sold all your guns on the street.Is that what it does? I searched and think I finally found the amendment but I'm really not sure what the heck it says. I noticed it had the usual exemptions for Law Enforcement and the list of co-sponsors are impressive freedom fighters:

Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] - 7/28/2005
Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] - 7/28/2005
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 7/28/2005
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] - 7/28/2005
Sen Corzine, Jon S. [NJ] - 7/28/2005
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 7/28/2005

With those kind of backers I'm sure it's very pro-gun. :rolleyes: Does it also exempt me from lawsuits if a crook busts open my LOCKED door or breaks a closed window and steals a shotgun leaning in my closet or a pistol in my dresser drawer?

Mr. KOHL 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 12, after line 24, add the following:

SEC. 5. CHILD SAFETY LOCKS.

(a) SHORT TITLE.--This section may be cited as the ``Child Safety Lock Act of 2005''.

(b) PURPOSES.--The purposes of this section are--

(1) to promote the safe storage and use of handguns by consumers;

(2) to prevent unauthorized persons from gaining access to or use of a handgun, including children who may not be in possession of a handgun; and

(3) to avoid hindering industry from supplying firearms to law abiding citizens for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting.

(c) FIREARMS SAFETY.--

(1) MANDATORY TRANSFER OF SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:

``(z) SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE.--

``(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided under paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun to any person other than any person licensed under this chapter, unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device (as defined in section 921(a)(34)) for that handgun.

``(2) EXCEPTIONS.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

``(A)(i) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, the United States, a department or agency of the United States, a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, of a handgun; or

``(ii) the transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a handgun for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off duty); or

``(B) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State of a handgun for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);

``(C) the transfer to any person of a handgun listed as a curio or relic by the Secretary pursuant to section 921(a)(13); or

``(D) the transfer to any person of a handgun for which a secure gun storage or safety device is temporarily unavailable for the reasons described in the exceptions stated in section 923(e), if the licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer delivers to the transferee within 10 calendar days from the date of the delivery of the handgun to the transferee a secure gun storage or safety device for the handgun.

``(3) LIABILITY FOR USE.--

``(A) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun, and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device with the handgun, shall be entitled to immunity from a qualified civil liability action.

``(B) PROSPECTIVE ACTIONS.--A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.

``(C) DEFINED TERM.--As used in this paragraph, the term `qualified civil liability action'--

``(i) means a civil action brought by any person against a person described in subparagraph (A) for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of the handgun by a third party, if--

``(I) the handgun was accessed by another person who did not have the permission or authorization of the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun to have access to it; and

``(II) at the time access was gained by the person not so authorized, the handgun had been made inoperable by use of a secure gun storage or safety device; and

``(ii) shall not include an action brought against the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun for negligent entrustment or negligence per se.''.

(2) CIVIL PENALTIES.--Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``or (f)'' and inserting ``(f), or (p)''; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

``(p) PENALTIES RELATING TO SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE.--

``(1) IN GENERAL.--

``(A) SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF LICENSE; CIVIL PENALTIES.--With respect to each violation of section 922(z)(1) by a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer, the Secretary may, after notice and opportunity for hearing--

``(i) suspend for not more than 6 months, or revoke, the license issued to the licensee under this chapter that was used to conduct the firearms transfer; or

``(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty in an amount equal to not more than $2,500.

``(B) REVIEW.--An action of the Secretary under this paragraph may be reviewed only as provided under section 923(f).

``(2) ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.--The suspension or revocation of a license or the imposition of a civil penalty under paragraph (1) shall not preclude any administrative remedy that is otherwise available to the Secretary.''.

To be a little more fair to Hatch and Bennett they did initially vote against adding this amendment... but ultimately voted for it when they voted Yea on the passage of S 397

TonkinTwentyMil
July 30, 2005, 12:55 AM
... were by Democrats.

So, I'm real confused here.

Didn't Dem party honcho, Dr. Howie Dean, tell everyone just a couple months ago that Gun Control was no longer a national issue for his party?

Maybe those 29 Dem senators who voted against this bill thought they were voting against something else... like the Trial Lawyers Welfare Reform Act of 2005.

NCGUN
July 30, 2005, 01:13 AM
Regarding the trigger lock, read http://www.gunowners.org/a072905.htm and see why the little gun-lock issue could be a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Harry Tuttle
July 30, 2005, 01:25 AM
Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Not Voting
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Nay
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Nay Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Not Voting
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Mikulski (D-MD), Nay Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Dayton (D-MN), Nay
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Yea
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea Talent (R-MO), Yea
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Burns (R-MT), Yea
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Not Voting
New Jersey: Corzine (D-NJ), Nay Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Ohio: DeWine (R-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Not Voting Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Pennsylvania: Santorum (R-PA), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Chafee (R-RI), Nay Reed (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Yea Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Frist (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Jeffords (I-VT), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Virginia: Allen (R-VA), Yea Warner (R-VA), Yea
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Murray (D-WA), Nay
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming: Enzi (R-WY), Yea Thomas (R-WY), Yea

beerslurpy
July 30, 2005, 01:59 AM
Why dont the republicans repeal 922(o) (86 ban) the same way that it was done in the first place? They can get rid of the trigger lock bit and also repeal 922(o) at the same time. A late night last minute voice vote.

Am I missing something? Surely the republicans have a greater majority than the dems did in 86, no?

Kurush
July 30, 2005, 02:03 AM
You are missing that Frist wants to run for President so he's trying to be everybody's good buddy.

beerslurpy
July 30, 2005, 02:20 AM
Uh, 922(o) was tacked on in the House, and the House is where they plan to remove the safety lock BS. So I daresay that this has nothing to do with Frist or his ambitions. (which you are completely correct about by the way)

Kurush
July 30, 2005, 02:29 AM
Yep but the Senate still has to vote on whatever comes out of the conference committee.

beerslurpy
July 30, 2005, 02:51 AM
As long as they only vote, it just matters that they have a simple majority.

In conference committee, they could put in that it is a felony for Ted Kennedy to drink alcohol and it would still pass.

I just hope that the Republicans in the House actually do their jobs.

Mr.BadExample
July 30, 2005, 06:16 AM
The gun lock amendment does open up a can of worms, but it looks like the proposal to make .50BMG an NFA did not pass, and for that I am glad. Could have been worse, but let's not celebrate yet.

RealGun
July 30, 2005, 09:00 AM
So, I'm real confused here.

Didn't Dem party honcho, Dr. Howie Dean, tell everyone just a couple months ago that Gun Control was no longer a national issue for his party?

Maybe those 29 Dem senators who voted against this bill thought they were voting against something else... like the Trial Lawyers Welfare Reform Act of 2005.

Dems tried to make it gun control bill, but it was a legal reform bill. Hard core opponents were either damned if they were going to give the gun lobby any satisfaction or sincerely believed the common guy should be able sue. Anything that protects a business of any kind would get their attention. I think that's a pretty common theme among more liberal Senators.

The trigger lock amendment is mildly germane, because use of a safe or "trigger lock" supposedly provides immunity from lawsuit. It is not at all clear how use of an easily removed locking device would be established when a stolen gun was traced back to its owner. It is clear that usage of safes and trigger locks will become subjects covered by prosecutors. This noose will become tighter via increasingly specific laws until it becomes readily possible to nail someone for this fabricated negligence.

Nathaniel Firethorn
July 30, 2005, 09:20 AM
Good news.

But I would be much more interested in knowing what the heck is going on with the Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005. (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=120116)

- pdmoderator

aquapong
July 30, 2005, 09:34 AM
The House version of this bill has not yet passed. It is HR 800, and has 257 cosponsors, more than enough to go through. We all need to contact Tom DeLay and the reps cosponsoring the bill to tell them we want it passed when they come back from August recess.

RavenVT100
July 30, 2005, 10:17 AM
And I found the perfect way to celebrate the victory today.....

...Bought a case of .223 and a case of 45ACP, as well as a few choice evil accesories for the AR

Ah. I just went to the bar.

txgho1911
July 30, 2005, 11:27 AM
I can see through the records that Bayh (D-IN) may not be a Kennedy but he is anti.
Can also see through the records that Lugar (R-IN) is on the wrong side of most of the issues up this past week.

All of the 109th congresses Senate votes are here:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_1.htm

S.397 begins at about vote # 206. The various recorded votes on amendments until final passage streach up to about 219.

The RINO is up first for re-election. Lets show him the door.

RealGun
July 30, 2005, 01:00 PM
But I would be much more interested in knowing what the heck is going on with the Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005.

However, all or most of the nuisance amendments would need to be treated as germane, when the subject of the bill really was gun control.

Did someone say "gun"! Let's see...I think I have an amendment here somewhere.

What a circus.

RealGun
July 30, 2005, 01:11 PM
Senators up for reelection in 2006, sorted by State:

Last name First name State Party Class
Kyl Jon AZ R I
Feinstein Dianne CA D I
Lieberman Joseph CT D I
Carper Thomas DE D I
Nelson Bill FL D I
Akaka Daniel HI D I
Lugar Richard IN R I
Kennedy Edward MA D I
Sarbanes Paul MD D I
Snowe Olympia ME R I
Stabenow Debbie MI D I
Dayton Mark MN D I
Talent James MO R I
Lott Trent MS R I
Burns Conrad MT R I
Conrad Kent ND D I
Nelson Ben NE D I
Corzine Jon NJ D I
Bingaman Jeff NM D I
Ensign John NV R I
Clinton Hillary NY D I
DeWine Mike OH R I
Santorum Rick PA R I
Chafee Lincoln RI R I
Frist Bill TN R I
Hutchison Kay TX R I
Hatch Orrin UT R I
Allen George VA R I
Jeffords James VT I I
Cantwell Maria WA D I
Kohl Herb WI D I
Byrd Robert WV D I
Thomas Craig WY R I

I don't think Sarbanes and Frist are planning to run.

If you enjoyed reading about "S 397 passes 65-31!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!