The Senate needs to act, gun owners need to speak on this one - S. 659


PDA






alan
February 12, 2004, 11:34 AM
Last summer, The House passed it's version of legislation to ban the idiot suits against gun makers, distributors and dealers. They passed a "clean bill", or at least what appears to be one such.

S. 659, the Senate companion piece, says or said, unless since changed, the same thing said in the House version, has lain fallow for entirely to long. Supposedly, S. 659 is scheduled for floor action in early March. The usual rogues gallery of anti-gun apparachnicks is lined up in opposition, Kennedy, Feinstein, Lautenberg et al.

The Senate needs to pass A CLEAN BILL. S.659, as originally written, mirrors House passed legislation. Members of The Senate need to hear from their constituents. Pass S. 659, without the usual parlimentary game playing, or better yet, The Senate should accept the House passed legislation.

Gun owners, and others who can see past the smoke and mirrors of anti gun rhetoric and lies need to make themselves heard. Time's awaisting.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Senate needs to act, gun owners need to speak on this one - S. 659" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Bartholomew Roberts
February 13, 2004, 10:46 AM
This bill is scheduled to come to the floor for three days of debate on March 3rd. (Edited to add: According to Neal Knox's Feb 11 Alert, this could now be delayed a few days over ricin concerns)

Since a pro-gun majority controls the Senate Judiciary committee, the bill is currently clean; but three senators have annouced intentions to try to amend the bill from the Senate floor. If they get a simple majority vote of Senators present, they can attach their amendment to S.659 - this is why alan's post is so important.

Feinstein: will attempt to add amendment identical to S.1034 - the bill that eliminates the sunset of the assault weapon ban and stops the import of pre-94 magazines.

McCain: will attempt to add gunshow background check amendment sponsored by Americans for Gun Safety

Schumer: will attempt to add amendment that kills the recent Tiahrt Amendment. The Tiahrt Amendment forces the Department of Justice to destroy NICS information on legitimate approved purchases within 24 hours.

7.62FullMetalJacket
February 13, 2004, 11:00 AM
Why is it that Senators from the two most populous, screwed-up states seek to tell the rest of the country how to behave? Feinstein has an AWB in her home state which is far more draconian than the federal AWB. What is her compelling interest for 49 other states?

I know, I am preaching to the choir.

But I still want to know what her cause is since her "constituents" are already banned from having AWs at the state level.

corncob
February 13, 2004, 04:27 PM
Dear Senator Graham:

I understand that a bill banning junk lawsuits against gun manufacturers is coming to the senate floor for debate soon. I urge you as my representative in Washington to help pass this bill. It is unfair for well-funded activists to use this nation’s judiciary to bankrupt this vital industry in a “back-door” attempt on the God-given rights of all Americans.

Furthermore, I urge you to pass a clean version of this bill. Please do all in your power to prevent the addition of any amendments that undermine the Founders’ intent that the federal government draw its power from a well-armed and vigilant citizenry. With the approaching sunset date of the egregious 1994 “assault weapons” ban, now is not the time to compromise.

My family and I support legislators who defend our liberty; we do not support those who do not. Thank you for your time and service to the people of South Carolina.

Sincerely,

alan
February 13, 2004, 08:15 PM
7.62FullMetalJacket:

Re your question as to the motives/desires of "Lady Dianne", the following might be informative. Respecting the Anti-Gun Apparachnicks, of whom she is certainly one, their ultimate and oft mouthed goals are as follows: The Total Proscription of Firearms.

Nelson Shields the founder of Handgun Control Inc. back in the 1970's, offered the following. Our goals cannot be accomplished in a single stroke, we must approach their achievment on a piecemeal basis, which if one looks at history, is exactly what they have done. By the way, they have experienced some success, going at the thing this way. One might be surprised, having taken a close look at their tactics, by the number of people they have fooled.

If you think that I might clarify further, shoot me an e-mail, or we could continue here. Of course, I could be wrong, however I call them as I see them. As for Feinstein, we have her famous "... Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in .." comment, offered after passage of The Feinstein Amendment, as it was then known, later becoming The Assault Weapons Ban, so called.

Be real careful with Senate 1034.

7.62FullMetalJacket
February 13, 2004, 09:29 PM
I know where she stands. I just wish someone in the Senate with an "R" behind their name would state the obvious: "Mr. And Mrs. California are already banned from owning assault weapons. I am calling on the Senator from California to tell us exactly what dog she has in this fight."

YOu know, that old "state's rights" thing.

M1911Owner
February 13, 2004, 11:28 PM
:banghead: :cuss: :fire: VERY FRUSTRATING!!!!

Feinstein:cuss: and Boxer:cuss: are my senators. Not a :cuss: thing I can do to change their minds.

:banghead: :banghead:

alan
February 14, 2004, 12:39 AM
M1911Owner wrote:

VERY FRUSTRATING!!!!

Feinstein and Boxer are my senators. Not a thing I can do to change their minds.

The above is quite true, there is no way to change "the minds" of Boxer/Feinstein on the question of firearms. Are they elitists or racists or both, I don't know, and when I lived in California a very long time ago, neither were in the "national legislature".

While their minds cannot be changed, others might be voted into office, replacing them. Of course, the Republican Party would, of needs, have to get it's act together, which seems to present a very considerable problem in California and elsewhere too.

NY Patriot
February 15, 2004, 02:29 AM
M1911Owner, I hear where you are coming from...

That's why I want to point out that it is vitally important that we contact EVERYONE in The Essential "End the AW Ban" Contact List & Sample Letter Thread (www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39429), not just our local congresscritter & our two Senators. Take me as an example... my Senators are Chuckie Schumer & Madam Hillary, and my Rep. is Nita Lowey, a hard core leftist. If I only wrote to them, my opinions would be virtually guaranteed of being ignored, and my efforts would be for naught.

BUT... I make sure that everyone who could potentially have a hand in the outcome of the AW ban battle hears from me! The POTUS represents EVERY American, thus he hears from me. I'm a registered Republican, so the RNC gets an earful. I'm also an NRA member, so guess what... they are beholden to my views & opinions if they want the continued privilege of spending my money. All the Congressional & Senatorial committee members, as well as the House & Senate leaders & Speakers are, by virtue of their exalted positions, answerable to ALL Americans, not just those living in their districts & states.

You get the idea... our letter writing responsibilities extend FAR beyond our district & state boundaries!!!

Don't give up that easily friend… you can still make your opinion count!!!

jimpeel
February 15, 2004, 03:11 AM
The problem is that the Senators from other states don't want to hear from anyone but their constuituents. They think that anything they do will only affect their constitutntes -- or at least that's what they hope we think.

I wrote my senators, Ben Nelson and Chuck Hagel. Hagel is on board but I have heard nothing from Nelson.

NY Patriot
February 15, 2004, 04:05 AM
Jimpeel...
The problem is that the Senators from other states don't want to hear from anyone but their constituents.

Not entirely true, Jim. I'm from NY, & I have personally received replies from politicians & notables who don't directly represent me (the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, Lindsey Graham, Ed Gillispie, Karl Rove, etc.), as have many other gun owners who have responded to my "End the AWB Thread".

Trust me... if enough of us write, call, fax, etc. our message will get through to those who don't normally care to hear it!

alan
February 15, 2004, 01:43 PM
NY Patriot quoted JimPeel as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is that the Senators from other states don't want to hear from anyone but their constituents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Respecting at least some of our elected things, if one were to judge by the responsiveness of these people to their constuents, or by the lack of response, they do not want to hear from them either.

Actually, I've contacted elected things from other areas many times, as well as others mentioned by NY Patriot. Do not recall ever having much in the way of responses, though writing, even telephone messages and e-mails likely have some effect. In one case, the staffer asked if I had been in touch with my own elected reps and senators. I indicated that I most certainly had, and politely pointed out that their boss, voting on FEDERAL LAWS, effected me also, notwithstanding district lines.

Essentially, it's like the story of the person who "never voted because their vote didn't count". It most certainly doesn't count when it isn't cast. I got into this with an individual a while back. When I pointed out to him, that the last U.S. Senatorial election in Nevada, as I recall, turned on about 500 votes, I believe that the individual I was speaking with might have had second thoughts. Cannot tell for sure, but they perhaps did begin to have second thoughts, possibly even FIRST thoughts.

jimpeel
February 15, 2004, 02:59 PM
Feinstein's answer person hung up on me once he found out I'm from NE and stated that I should call Nelson or Hagel. Goodbye. Click.

alan
February 16, 2004, 12:20 AM
JimPeel:

Feinstein's "answer person" has about as much class as does her boss, which isn't much.

Funny thing about that, is how these drones forget that their bosses are voting on FEDERAL LEGISLATION, which last time I looked, transcended state borders as well as congressional or senatorial district lines.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the way some of these clowns act/react to CONSTITUENT COMMENT, they don't want to hear from them either, though perhaps the inclusion of a check, along with one's letter would garner, for ones letter, somewhat more attention.

No4Mk1*
February 16, 2004, 12:45 AM
http://www.georgewbush.com/ContactUs/

Dean Speir
February 17, 2004, 12:14 AM
 

This is really much, much bigger than just S&W…

Entire industry embarrassed just in time for Lawsuit Immunity vote (http://www.thegunzone.com/sw-news.html)

But then it always is, isn't it? Something seems to come along to screw the Pro-Gun pooch just before a key vote! The letters to your Senators are really critical now… there's far too many pants-wetters on the Hill.

 

jimpeel
February 17, 2004, 12:53 AM
And who can blame them? Imagine what NRA, GOA, et al would do if Sarah Brady were ever arrested for drunk driving, or Senator Charles Schumer (D, NY) ever actually used his licensed D-frame Colt .38 Special?
Hearken back to her revelation that she had bought a scoped rifle for her son and what we all made of that.

We grow the fodder, we feed the stock, and we get what we grew -- good or bad.

bjengs
February 17, 2004, 02:50 AM
Why is everyone so upset? I am very confident that President Bush will veto this bill. He is, after all, pro-RKBA.

Norton
February 17, 2004, 07:07 AM
Nelson Shields the founder of Handgun Control Inc. back in the 1970's, offered the following. Our goals cannot be accomplished in a single stroke, we must approach their achievment on a piecemeal basis, which if one looks at history, is exactly what they have done. By the way, they have experienced some success, going at the thing this way. One might be surprised, having taken a close look at their tactics, by the number of people they have fooled.




This sounds an awful like the "dialectic" so often referred to in Communist circles. A patient, methodical enacting of one's agenda over a long period of time. The cause is of upmost importance.....:fire:

jimpeel
February 17, 2004, 02:14 PM
That would be "incrementalism" at its best.

The Hegelian Dialectic is the false creation of a crisis (thesis), the solution for which is already in place (antithesis), and taking credit for solving the problem which never existed (synthesis) to further a pre-conceived goal (Higher unity).

He·ge·li·an·ism

n.

The monist, idealist philosophy of Hegel in which the dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis is used as an analytic tool in order to approach a higher unity or a new thesis.Bill Clinton was a master of the Hegelian Dialectic.

The Marxian dialectic is similar.

The Marxian process of change through the conflict of opposing forces, whereby a given contradiction is characterized by a primary and a secondary aspect, the secondary succumbing to the primary, which is then transformed into an aspect of a new contradiction.

TheOtherOne
February 17, 2004, 05:31 PM
Concerning Feinstein and Boxer:While their minds cannot be changed, others might be voted into office, replacing them.
It seems like there are ALOT of gun owners in California. Isn't California still the number one economy for guns in the United States? Why is it so hard for all the California gun owners to get together and start voting these people out of office?

Vasilia Zhietzev
February 17, 2004, 10:28 PM
OK:

here's my email to senator gibbons. hope you don't mind the paraphrasing.

VZ


Mike Gibbons:

This bill is coming up in March, and I'm wondering how you are standing on it.

Last summer, The House passed a version of legislation to ban the 'idiot suits' against gun makers, distributors and dealers. They passed a "clean bill", or at least what appears to be one such.

S. 659, the Senate companion piece, says or said, unless since changed, the same thing said in the House version, has been laying fallow ever since. Supposedly, S. 659 is scheduled for floor action in early March.

Are you in favor of passing a clean bill? S.659, as originally written, mirrors House passed legislation. Will you recommend The Senate should accept the House passed legislation?

If not, what are your objections? I am most certainly interesting in hearing your view.

As a Missouri resident whom has responsibly owned firearms, I'm in favor of supporting responsible gun ownership. I'm not in favor of frivolous suits against manufacturers & dealers whom make & sell the items. It is the willful intent to harm or kill in a person's mind that should bear the brunt of breaking the law, not the tool.

Firearms are a tool - a tool with lethal consquences in an uneducated pair of hands. Where is the responsibility & accountability of using a tool like that taught in Missouri? I've been willing to give up my personal time to be educated, practice for hours at ranges, and listen to experienced firearms owners & legal officers, AND pay quite a bit of my personal income to be a responsible legal owner of a tool that will allow me, a female, to:
* defend myself & any child when my male loved ones are not there to defend me.
* provide me with a way to serve my country when & if *i* am needed.
* give an example of personal accountability & responsibility to others in this community.

I look forward to your response.

Frohickey
February 17, 2004, 10:53 PM
It seems like there are ALOT of gun owners in California. Isn't California still the number one economy for guns in the United States? Why is it so hard for all the California gun owners to get together and start voting these people out of office?

We try. Oh boy, how we try.

But between the illegal alien voters and the room-temperature body temp voters, its hard to make a dent. :p

boofus
February 18, 2004, 05:59 PM
I called my congress critters today about SB659 and the upcoming AWB sunset. I called John Cornyn, Bill Frist, Hastert and Delay. I probably came off as some sort of dumbass, cause I called House of Representative members on the Senate bill, but hey maybe they can pull some strings to help in the Senate. At the very least they needed to get some support for canning the AWB.

Hehe, I did my part so everyone else do the same! Otherwise you got no reason to bitch and moan if Feinstein + Schumer version 2.0 gets passed and your Ruger 10/22 becomes a rapid fire saturday night sniper assault armor piercing weapon. :neener:

RobW
February 18, 2004, 06:30 PM
bjengs: I wouldn't hold my breath for this. GW already stated that he would sign an AWB renewal, if it appears on his desk. Be sure the anti-freedom and anti liberty crowd will find a way that it appears right there (like the Feinstein/Boxer rider on S 659).

GW used just ONE veto up to now, and that for keeping the unconstitutional "Patriot Act" going.

At this time of his presidency, Ronald Reagen had (to my knowledge) 18 vetos against anti freedom and anti liberty laws.

Hail to the "compassionate conservative" that signs the mutilation of the 1st amendment, vetoes an attempt to make the "Patriot Act" less frightening, and keeps the BORDERS WIDE OPEN!!!

alan
February 18, 2004, 08:06 PM
Smith and Wesson screwing the pooch AGAIN??? Say it isn't so Joe, say it isn't so.

S&W's Latest Blunder Endangers Passage of S659…


This is really much, much bigger than just S&W…

Entire industry embarrassed just in time for Lawsuit Immunity vote

But then it always is, isn't it? Something seems to come along to screw the Pro-Gun pooch just before a key vote! The letters to your Senators are really critical now… there's far too many pants-wetters on the Hill.




__________________

Bartholomew Roberts
February 19, 2004, 05:22 PM
UPDATE:

The Brady Campaign has released an alert to its members indicating the vote may be moved up and could take place as early as FEBRUARY 24.

If you haven't contacted your Senators yet, NOW is the time to do it

Call the Capitol Switchboard at: 202-224-3121.
Ask for your U.S. Senator.
Tell your Senator to support a clean (without anti-gun amendments) version of the NRA's Legal Immunity Bill (S. 659)

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/alerts/reader/0,2061,569184,00.html

alan
February 19, 2004, 06:30 PM
Bartholomew Roberts wrote:

UPDATE:

The Brady Campaign has released an alert to its members indicating the vote may be moved up and could take place as early as FEBRUARY 24.

If you haven't contacted your Senators yet, NOW is the time to do it

Call the Capitol Switchboard at: 202-224-3121.
Ask for your U.S. Senator.
Tell your Senator to support a clean (without anti-gun amendments) version of the NRA's Legal Immunity Bill (S. 659)

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news...,569184,00.html

For those readers who are to poor to afford a long distance call, or to cheap to make one, the following is the TOLL FREE number for CAPITOL SWITCHBOARD. 1-800-648-3516. Just tell the lady who answers which office you want to speak with, and they put the call through. Should all else fail, Senators and Congressmen have local district offices too.

It all boils down to the following. There is absolutely no excuse, or virtually no excuse, for anyone not contacting their elected things on ANY matter of concern to them. How much good phone calls do is perhaps arguable, but it's sort of like voting, and the man or woman who opined that the reason they never voted was because THEIR VOTE DOESN'T COUNT. It most certainly doesn't, especially when it's not cast.

Don't forget, opposition to S. 1034, H.R. 2038 and "the usual suspects" is needed too.

Samurai Penguin
February 19, 2004, 07:49 PM
GW already stated that he would sign an AWB renewal, if it appears on his desk. Be sure the anti-freedom and anti liberty crowd will find a way that it appears right there...

GW used just ONE veto up to now, and that for keeping the unconstitutional "Patriot Act" going...

Hail to the "compassionate conservative" that signs the mutilation of the 1st amendment, vetoes an attempt to make the "Patriot Act" less frightening, and keeps the BORDERS WIDE OPEN!!!

But...but...we gotta stand behind Bush, or one of those "Anti-Freedom, Tax-&-Spend Democrats" might get in!!! :rolleyes:

And the difference between R & D is what, again? :confused:

dustind
February 20, 2004, 06:05 PM
www.awbansunset.org has a lot of information on this topic.

MountainPeak
February 21, 2004, 07:07 PM
Samurai, to answer your question, the difference is ONE gun issue versus damn near all of them. Sorry for hollering, but GET IT!!! P.S. Between the R and D's, who is the most solid on AWB and S.659? There is a difference. If you can't see that, other than 2nd Amendent issues have blinded you, or they carry a bigger priority. Nothing wrong with that, I guess, but please be honest about it.

Rovert
February 22, 2004, 11:02 AM
There is absolutely no excuse, or virtually no excuse, for anyone not contacting their elected things on ANY matter of concern to them. Unless, of course, your Senators are Lautenberg and Corzine. :cuss:

Dean Speir
February 22, 2004, 11:40 AM
  Unless, of course, your Senators are Lautenberg and Corzine. … or Clinton and Schumer, or the "Boxstein Bitches," Babs and not-so-Lady-like Di!

That's a six-vote handicap right there, so extreme pressure must be brought to bare!

 

alan
February 22, 2004, 01:08 PM
Dean Speir, Rovert and anyone else who might be interested:

Even with "the terrible 6, or any part thereof, "representing" you in the U.S. Senate, maintaining contact with these clowns might not be quite the waste that some would describe it as being.

RangerHAAF
February 23, 2004, 08:36 AM
I've just read that S.659 is scheduled to hit the Senate floor tomorrow. Has anyone else read this? The bill has 59 co-sponsors to date but there are a few Republican holdouts that need to have the heat turned up to remind them of who they represent.

http://www.capwiz.com/nra/issues/bills/?bill=5044436&cs_party=all&cs_status=all&cs_state=ALL


http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040223-121730-5000r.htm

dustind
February 23, 2004, 01:13 PM
I read this from www.awbansunset.com from Thunderball

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040223-121730-5000r.htm

That gun banning weasel!

Tball

http://www.awbansunset.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2 forum has a lot on this issue posted frequently.

nralife
February 23, 2004, 04:51 PM
CCRKBA ACTION ALERT!
CONTACT YOUR SENATOR, URGE SUPPORT FOR S.659

The U.S. Senate appears ready to debate S. 659, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act on Wednesday, Feb. 25, and gun owners need to call Capitol Hill and urge their Senators to support these measures and block a filibuster, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said today.

"The other side has pulled out all the stops to defeat this important measure," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan M. Gottlieb. "Gun rights activists who want to help preserve the firearms industry, and bring an end to years of costly, frivolous lawsuits against perfectly legal businesses, need to call their Senators now.

"Anti-gunners will be flooding the Capitol switchboard with telephone calls on Tuesday," Gottlieb said. "Firearms owners need to counter that with the same energy and devotion to our civil rights as the other side is showing in their effort to destroy the Second Amendment. Senators need to hear from their constituents and the message should be loud and clear: Pass S. 659, with no anti-gun amendments."

S.659 would stop frivolous lawsuits against the firearms industry and law-abiding gun dealers. These lawsuits have been consistently thrown out of court, Gottlieb noted, because they are without merit. In a couple of cases, cities have dropped their legal actions, either because they found out during discovery that they had no case, or because they could not produce documentation to support their specious claims, he noted.

On Tuesday, he said, gun owners calling the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 should ask to be connected with their U.S. Senators. Be prepared to call twice to reach both Senators from your state.

Call between the hours of 9 am and 1 pm EST. That means calls from the Central Time Zone should be made between 8 a.m. and 12 Noon. Calls from the Mountain Time Zone should be made between 7 a.m. and 11 a.m. Calls from the West Coast need to be made between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m.

"The anti-gun crowd is calling Tuesday its 'national call-in day' to try and stop this legislation, which President Bush has already said he would sign," Gottlieb stressed. "Gun owners need to turn Tuesday into a 'national gun rights victory day'."

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

-END-

alan
February 23, 2004, 07:48 PM
Re calling Senators on S. 659 or anything else, and or congress persons, the TOLL FREE number for CAPITOL SWITCHBOARD is 1-800-648-3516. Wonder why I seem to be the ONLY PERSON who posts it?

Anyhow, make the calls, whichever number you use. The one I offered will simply save the caller a little money.

Additional anti-gun/anti civil rights legislation, they are the same thing, are unacceptable in any guise, and there never was/nor is there now, a Gun Show Loophole.

Your elected things, re anti-gun legiuslation, must hear a thunderous NO. Matter of fact, the time for REPEAL might be now. Think about it, better yet, write some letters, send some e-mail, make some phone calls.

No4Mk1*
February 24, 2004, 01:30 AM
I wish S659 would just go away for a year. I know it is important but I'm afraid a few Republicans might decide to "compromise." I have emailed my Congressman and Senators and even joined the GOA. Thanks for posting the switchboard number, when you call it do you get an answering macine or a living person? I'll have to call tomorrow.

alan
February 24, 2004, 02:31 AM
No4Mk1*:

When you dial into the toll free number I posted, you get a real human being, most often a lady, who inquires as to whom it is you wish to speak with.

As I said, they will then put your call through to whichever senate or congressional office you wish to speak with. At that point, you might be put on to a recorder, usually you will get to speak with a staff person, with whom you can leave a message, or ask to speak with someone in particular, for instance, regarding firearms legislation, the staffer involved with that particular subject. Take it from there. As S. 659 being put off for a year, think about this.

No matter how dumb the suit I choose to bring against you might be, you have to defend against it, which costs you money, perhaps lots of money. Assuming that there a lot of people willoing to bring these ridiculous suits, another year could mean a whole lot of money down the drain, and by the way, it is you, the end user that ultimately pays the costs, in increased prices for the guns that you buy. Failing that, you might still pay a cost, this time one expressed in reduced choices, this the result of smaller firms having been driven into bankruptcy, as has happened.

As to any who might choose to "compromise", be they Republicans or Democrats, they are "compromising" you down the river. There are elections this year, so this is a good time to find out which way the land lays, so to speak. Put it off, and the whore politicans will play on the demonstrated "short memories" of the electorate, and they might win their bet.

Some will disagree with me, particularly on this last. I merely call them as I see them,

NY Patriot
February 24, 2004, 03:19 AM
Here is a resource that should make the job at hand even eaiser...

Sample Letters/Faxes/E-mail on The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act & Essential Contact Info (www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=67550)

alan
February 24, 2004, 12:38 PM
NYPatriot and others:

The form letters you posted might be useful, though I prefer doing my own writing. This A.M., I spent about 15 minutes on the telephone, via 1-800-648-3516. I spoke with the D.C. offices of my senators and congress person.

Left messages with senators urginging strong support for S. 659, a clean version, opposition to "closing of gun show loophole" which does not exist, opposition to reauthorization or extention of Assault Weapons Ban, as well as noting that gun control legislation is a fraud, that where enacted has yet to perform as promised. Left my name and address of course. It was quick and easy, and there seems little to prevent anyone from doing pretty much the same thing, assuming that they are willing to spend a moment or so, protecting their rights.

Another post specified a different TOLL FREE number, 1-800-839-5276. I rang that number, and left word with the offices of Senator Mitch McConnell. That took all of a couple of minutes.

Re people who just cannot find the time to take any action, even something as easy as picking up a telephone, one is either part of the solution, or they are part of the problem. Re those who cannot take even the small action of using a telephone, their location is, sad to note, all to obvious.

Shooter 2.5
February 24, 2004, 12:39 PM
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Here are the numbers. Remember to call the White House and Senate Leader, Bill Frist.

Bartholomew Roberts
February 24, 2004, 05:19 PM
S.659 has been dropped and a similar version (still clean and written by NRA Board of Director Larry Craig) called S.1805 is now being considered.

For those who want to see the exact text, visit http://thomas.loc.gov/ and type in S.1805 (also see related Craig bill S.1806)

Sen. Frist introduced S.1805 today and indicated they will discuss the bill tomorrow afternoon depending on whether or not an attempt to filibuster an unrelated ob/gyn bill is made tomorrow.

Sen Frist also introduced a motion of cloture on S.1805. Cloture is a motion used to shut down a filibuster - so it sounds like we may have at least 60 votes in support of S.1805 right now. Cloture also limits the time a bill can be debated. If we are successful with the cloture motion, then we will know the answer to this in about 4 business days.

alan
February 24, 2004, 06:10 PM
Bartholomew Roberts:

One wonders as to why this "change", especially at this seemingly late date?

Bartholomew Roberts
February 24, 2004, 06:33 PM
Alan - looking at the dates of the bills and the authors, my guess is that S.1805 and S.1806 were rewrites of S.659 in order to get enough Senators on board to be able to beat a filibuster.

S.1805 and S.1806 are almost identical and have the same author (a co-sponsor of the original S.659). They are basically the Judiciary Committee's approved version of S.659 with slight tweaks. Both bills have been around since October of last year; but everybody was still referring to S.659 since it was the original bill.

The author of S.1805 and S.1806 (Sen. Larry Craig) is an NRA Board of Directors member and one of the original authors of S.659 also.

alan
February 24, 2004, 06:58 PM
Bartholomew Roberts responded to my question:

Alan - looking at the dates of the bills and the authors, my guess is that S.1805 and S.1806 were rewrites of S.659 in order to get enough Senators on board to be able to beat a filibuster.

S.1805 and S.1806 are almost identical and have the same author (a co-sponsor of the original S.659). They are basically the Judiciary Committee's approved version of S.659 with slight tweaks. Both bills have been around since October of last year; but everybody was still referring to S.659 since it was the original bill.

The author of S.1805 and S.1806 (Sen. Larry Craig) is an NRA Board of Directors member and one of the original authors of S.659 also.

The ways of those law makers ate indeed, strange. Perhaps Churchill was correct, re what he would allow, or not all, "the people to see".

Telperion
February 24, 2004, 10:43 PM
http://republican.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Home.Day&EventDate=02/25/04

Remarks start at 9:30, then a cloture vote at 10:30. Fingers crossed... :uhoh:

Dan from MI
February 24, 2004, 11:04 PM
I made a few calls today.

Carl Lenin's oops, I mean Levin's office didn't even ask where I was from. Didn't expect much from him. Don't blame me. I vote for Rocky.

Debbie Stabusall's office was the same thing. I didn't vote for her either.

Also called Mike Rogers' office. I expect him to do the right thing. He has no say in the senate, but he could pull strings or it couls come back out of a conference report.

Bill Frist's office is important as well since he's the majority leader. (202) 224-3344

And lastly, I called the White House Comment Line - 1-202-456-1111

Bartholomew Roberts
February 25, 2004, 12:32 AM
Remarks start at 9:30, then a cloture vote at 10:30. Fingers crossed...

That is awesome news, if cloture is invoked, no new amendments can be added to the bill :evil:

Any amendments not proposed by 10:30 are dead, dead, dead.

NY Patriot
February 25, 2004, 03:21 AM
We all knew this day would come... the first real battle in the war to eradicate the AW Ban. The gauntlet has been thrown down, my friends. The only question left is... how are you going to respond to the challenge???

Are you going to stand up & be counted or are you going to continue to wallow in apathy & cynicism?

Are you going to continue to talk tough, but do nothing? Are you an Internet commando, or are you going to sacrifice your time, $$$, and effort to protect & restore our RKBA?

Are you a fair weather patriot, or are you willing to make room in your life for the political activism needed to ensure that the AWB is cast upon history's ash heap of failed & discarded ideas?

Are you ready to acknowledge that this is not just a hobby or pastime that we are engaged in?

Are you willing to admit that this is a bare knuckles brawl to reclaim our birthright as free men?

Can you finally see that this a battle to preserve & restore the cultural & philosophical legacy that is the grand American experiment?

Are you ready to shoulder the burden that this is YOUR fight, YOUR chance to shape the course of history, YOUR responsibility, and YOUR opportunity to forge a legacy of liberty and freedom for your nation's future?

No free rides... The Essential "End the AW Ban" Contact List & Sample Letter Thread (www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39429)... and no excuses!!!

Mark Tyson
February 25, 2004, 08:45 AM
My head is aching . . .

What bill to I implore my overlords in Congress to support? S.659, S1805 or S 1806?

Bartholomew Roberts
February 25, 2004, 09:47 AM
They'll get the message if you mention any of them; but S.1805 is the current bill under discussion.

MountainPeak
February 25, 2004, 04:30 PM
New Mexico senator Jeff Bingaman is trying to have it both ways. His rep. said he would like to support it, but he has concerns about protecting the public from defective firearms. This is bull, the law doesn't stop suits" for firearms with "defect in design". I've called 23 friends today in NM and asked them to call Bingaman's number. I bet most will. 1-800-443-8658(Bingaman's #). Don't let these guys off the hook. Tell them you strongly support S659 WITHOUT amendments. The NRA site is just one that has your senator's phone number.

Correia
February 25, 2004, 05:16 PM
I spoke with people at Hatch and Bennett's offices in Utah and Washington today. Apparently they are getting absolutely bombarded with calls about this bill! :) Keep up the good work guys.

alan
February 25, 2004, 06:10 PM
NY Patriot offered the following, worth reading too:

We all knew this day would come... the first real battle in the war to eradicate the AW Ban. The gauntlet has been thrown down, my friends. The only question left is... how are you going to respond to the challenge???

Are you going to stand up & be counted or are you going to continue to wallow in apathy & cynicism?

Are you going to continue to talk tough, but do nothing? Are you an Internet commando, or are you going to sacrifice your time, $$$, and effort to protect & restore our RKBA?

Are you a fair weather patriot, or are you willing to make room in your life for the political activism needed to ensure that the AWB is cast upon history's ash heap of failed & discarded ideas?

Are you ready to acknowledge that this is not just a hobby or pastime that we are engaged in?

Are you willing to admit that this is a bare knuckles brawl to reclaim our birthright as free men?

Can you finally see that this a battle to preserve & restore the cultural & philosophical legacy that is the grand American experiment?

Are you ready to shoulder the burden that this is YOUR fight, YOUR chance to shape the course of history, YOUR responsibility, and YOUR opportunity to forge a legacy of liberty and freedom for your nation's future?

No free rides... The Essential "End the AW Ban" Contact List & Sample Letter Thread... and no excuses!!!

I hear, in his comments, an echo of things I've previously said here and in other places. He might be somewhat more emotional or eloquent than I, but let that pass. The points made, I think, CANNOT be overstressed.

Ladies and gentlemen, the thing lies in YOUR hands. If you blow this one, and remember, there are other aspects too, do not scratch your head tomorrow, in wonder regarding all the bad things that suddenly happened.

MountainPeak
February 25, 2004, 07:44 PM
Debate is happening right now! Turn on CSpan. Take a look at the AWB preview. CALL your senators.

STONER
February 25, 2004, 10:29 PM
Everyone should call both of their Senators now, both in Washington & their state offices.

To call Washington, the Capital Switchboard has two (2) toll free numbers:

1-800-648-3516

1-800-839-5276

Let them know, NO AWB, no renewal, no new bill, and NO COMPROMISE!

SapperLeader
February 25, 2004, 11:00 PM
I called both my senators in virginia this morning, and think I got the same nice girl both times, to give my little speech about if they vote for or support a awb renewal, they will lose the vote they had from me, and I will give it to a libertarian or democratic canidate, but definitly not them. I also sent emails today, and If I get the chance Ill write a snail mail letter friday. This crap may happen, but I can at least say I gave it my all in fighting it.

dustind
February 26, 2004, 01:33 AM
http://capwiz.com/gunowners/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=5187541

This is the GOA's pre formed mailer. It takes 15 seconds and is too easy. I also suggest calling because each call is worth several e-mails.

armoredman
February 26, 2004, 11:04 AM
Calls made - Sen Mc Traitor, er, Mc Cain said cloture HAD been passed. The floor calender for today -
Floor Calendar for Thursday, February 26, 2004

The Senate will convene at 9:30am to resume consideration of S. 1805, the Gun Liability bill. Upon taking up the bill, Sen. Daschle will be recognized to offer his perfecting amendment. There will be up to 30 minutes debate in relation to the Daschle amendment. Following the expiration or yielding back of time, Sen. Boxer will be recognized to offer a gun lock amdt. There will be up to 30 minutes debate on the Boxer amendment. Upon the expiration or yielding back or expiration of the 30 minutes, Sen. DeWine will be recognized to offer his relevant 2nd Degree amendment to the Boxer amendment.

Upon the expiration or yielding back of time, there will be stacked Roll Call Votes on the the DeWine 2nd Degree amendment, and the Boxer amendment.


Senators should expect the first Roll Call Vote of today's session to occur at approximately 11:00am.


As stated in the previous order, printed in the front of the Calendar of Business for Feb. 25, 2004, multiple amendments will come to the floor under time agreements, so Senators should expect Roll Call Votes throughout today's session.


Who's DeWine, and what is the 2nd Degree Amendment?

williamcrane
February 26, 2004, 02:31 PM
This is the link you should be watching - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00016

braindead0
February 26, 2004, 04:40 PM
This is the link you should be watching - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...on=2&vote=0001

Perhaps, but what does "On the Motion (Motion To Invoke Cloture On The Motion To Proceed To S. 1805 )" mean?

Doesn't seem to be very informative....yet at least.

alan
February 26, 2004, 04:52 PM
braindead0:

S. 1805 was substituted for S. 659, I don't know why, as so far as I can tell, they both say the same thing.

On 25 February, cloture was voted, means no fillibuster, look at who voted nay.

Today, amendments to be offered, and voted upon, likely roll call votes throughout the day.

Final vote on S. 1805/S.659 scheduled for next Tuesday. Supposedly, a vote on Assault Weapons Ban scheduled for same day. Keep after your Senators.

end

Bartholomew Roberts
February 26, 2004, 06:28 PM
Quick summary of today's events as of now:

Here is an update:

S.Amdt. 2620 was passed 70-27. This is the Boxer gunlock amendment. No text is available for it yet; but it is presumed to look similar to the Kohl bill that amended it.

The text of that bill is here:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67534

S.Amdt. 2617 - Motion to waive Cantwell Unemployment Extension Amendment failed as it needed 60 votes and only got 58.

S.Amdt. 2628 - Frist Amdt. No. 2628; To exempt any lawsuit involving a shooting victim of John Allen Muhammad or John Lee Malvo from the definition of qualified civil liability action that meets certain requirements. - Passed 59-37

S.Amdt. 2627 - Mikulski Amdt. No. 2627; To exempt lawsuits involving a shooting victim of John Allen Muhammad or Lee Boyd Malvo from the definition of qualified civil liability action.-REJECTED

For the very important difference between these two amendments that look the same see Publicola: http://publicola.blogspot.com/

S.Amdt XXXX - Third Frist amendment of the night - says that law enforcement can sue under S.1805 like everyone else - Passed 60-34

S.Amdt XXXX - Corzine amendment - says law enforcement is immune from S.1805. REJECTED 56-38

Right now, two amendments are scheduled to be debated today and two more to be debated on Monday with no votes scheduled until Tuesday - when the big votes, AWB Renewal and Gunshow background check, will go down.

You can read the Senate daily digest here:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_108_2.htm

It includes a list of how Senators voted and the text of amendments (where available) - although the roll call votes seems to be getting swamped and disappeared even though some of them where there earlier...

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_108_2.htm

alan
February 26, 2004, 08:52 PM
Bart Roberts noted, in part, the following:

You can read the Senate daily digest here:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L..._menu_108_2.htm

It includes a list of how Senators voted and the text of amendments (where available) - although the roll call votes seems to be getting swamped and disappeared even though some of them where there earlier...


Roll Call Votes "dissappeared", how convenient, how wonderfully convenient, who was it that observed that "In the U.S. we have the best Congress (House and Senate) that money can buy". Guess which side has the benefit of a bunch of those "heavy hitters"?

Do I sound bitter?

By the way, respecting exempting the victims of the D.C. Sniper from the provisions of the proposal, could anyone explain to me, by what stretch of ones imagination, other than operating a LEGAL BUSINESS, was Bushmaster, in any eway at all, culpable? I get rather curious as to that sort of thing. By the way, if some drunk driver has run through a bunch of people, killing several, would the Chevrolette Division of General Motors be responsible? Funny, the things I get curious about, isn't it?

braindead0
February 26, 2004, 09:05 PM
By the way, respecting exempting the victims of the D.C. Sniper from the provisions of the proposal, could anyone explain to me, by what stretch of ones imagination, other than operating a LEGAL BUSINESS, was Bushmaster, in any eway at all, culpable? I get rather curious as to that sort of thing. By the way, if some drunk driver has run through a bunch of people, killing several, would the Chevrolette Division of General Motors be responsible? Funny, the things I get curious about, isn't it?

This is exactly why I think this legislation is bunk. If we're going to do anything it should hold all manufacturers of any product not liable if their product is used in an illegal act (drunk drivers, random loonies, parents not monitoring 5 gallon plastic buckets, etc). (Landowners as well).

This law is creating a special class of manufacturer with legal protections beyond what any other manufacturer has.. simply because our legal system isn't dismissing these lawsuits right off the bat (as they should).

Bartholomew Roberts
February 26, 2004, 09:08 PM
alan - Roll call votes were back last time I looked, I think it was more a function of heavy server traffic than a deliberate effort to hide the votes.

MikeHaas
February 26, 2004, 09:10 PM
See thread

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67592

NRA determined to pass a clean S.1805

braindead0
February 26, 2004, 09:18 PM
NRA determined to pass a clean S.1805
Since when was the NRA passing laws? :evil:

alan
February 27, 2004, 12:58 AM
braindead0:

I noticed that you quoted part of my comment, please excuse the odd typo, as I grow older, my typing grows worse, as measured on a logarithmic scale.

In any event, respecting your objections to the proposals, S.659/1805, correct me if I'm wrong, you complain of the creation of a "special class of manufacturer". You also made mention of the fact that the law (courts)aren't dismissing these suits as quickly as they should. You might well have a point there, and in my opinion, the courts aught to levy costs against the parties bringing these frivilous suits. I hadn't noticed any doing that, nor do I know if such as that is doable. It might well be that all the trial judge can do is to dismiss a frivilous suit, with prejudice, which means that it cannot be brought later on. He or she might be able to censure an attorney, but I expect that that would be a real stretch.

Do to the state of the law and the courts, the enactment of S659/1805 might actually do a lot more than create the "special class of manufacturer" that you spoke of, for later on, down the road, in other actions, the courts might well extend the protection offered to others not mentioned in present proposals, others, who like gun makers now, are the victims of actions brought to drive them out of business if possible, that goal has been voiced, rather than simply recovering money damages arising from the demonstrably culpable business practices of the defendant.

So sir, I suggest that you carefully consider aspects of this issue that might have escaped your attention. Anyhow, thanks for reading what I offered.

Shooter 2.5
February 27, 2004, 08:22 PM
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

TheOtherOne
February 27, 2004, 10:13 PM
Right now as the bill stands, if it passes on Tuesday, it will exempt gun manufacturers from lawsuits where their product was used illegally AND it will force me (gun owners) to use locks that must be included with all new guns sold?

alan
February 28, 2004, 12:10 AM
TheOtherOne:

I don't think that you have it quite right. First thing is that ANY differences between House passed version and whatever the Senate ends up passing will have to be ironed out, if possible, not always the case.

Second, there are at least a couple of amendments pending, to be voted on next tuesday, as I understand. One by Senator Ben Nighthorse Cambell, that would allow retired leo's to carry concealed throughout the country. This isn't anti-gun, however since it does NOT allow licensed citizens, other than retired LEO's, to do the same, it is less than acceptable. Also, Senator Kennedy is, once again, proposing to ban "armor piercing ammunition", which by his lights include most if not all "sporting rifle" rounds, for instance the 30-06, which blows through most, if not all "body armor" without even slowing down.

Third, as for that gun safety lock business, as I understand it, the gun maker has to provide one, you the gun purchaser, do not have to use the fool thing. There was also an amendment accepted by the Senate, to establish an exception for leo's, that is they could sue a gun maker, based on a bad guy's criminal use of a firearm. You, Mr. Ordinary Joe, couldn't. Re the machinations of the anti-gunners, such as this essentially guts S. 1805, it's a killer amendment.

As I mentioned at the outset, re differences between House passed version and Senate passed version, any differences must be ironed out. Failing this, no legislation is enacted. If you read S. 659 and S. 1805, then read the House passed legislation, you will note that they all say the same thing. Amendments adopted by The Senate change the story, and could well spell the end of the whole thing.

The Senate SHOULD hsave passed a clean bill. They chose to play the amendment game, a problem that appears to lay directly in the laps of Republican leadership, most especially Bill Frist. The foregoing reflects my, perhaps faulty understanding of the thing. Check it out for yourself.

Sparker
February 28, 2004, 10:54 AM
bjengs

"Why is everyone so upset? I am very confident that President Bush will veto this bill. He is, after all, pro-RKBA."



Karl Rove will not allow President Bush to even hold that veto stamp let alone put ink on it!

Sparker
February 28, 2004, 11:23 AM
"The author of S.1805 and S.1806 (Sen. Larry Craig) is an NRA Board of Directors member and one of the original authors of S.659 also."

The fine Senator also attached a senate amendment (SA 2625 to SA.1805) authorizing a 'study' of armor piercing ammunition that appears will be the guidline to determine if American citizens will be allowed to posses centerfire ammunition.

Remember the seatbelt study and how it was used under threat States loss of Highway Funds to become national law?

I think the same will occur in two years using the 'study' of piercing ammunition and the protection of all LEO's who wear vests. Senator Kennedy was waving a 30-30 round in the air speaking about how deadly the round was.

NRA Director/Sen. Larry Craig and Seanator Frist have back stabbed every NRA member and every American who own a centerfire rifle, or who possibly could want to own one.

It won't matter if you or I wish to continue our lawful past history, just owning a centerfire rifle will be evidence that you and I have future intentions that are illegal.

It costs me about $1.00 to make a call to Washington to voice my opinion. This is a much more effective than sending an email. Perhaps other THR members will consider spaending $5 or $10 on Monday with phone calls.

alan
February 28, 2004, 12:20 PM
Interested parties might look at POSTERS NOTE.

Sparker wrote, which is interesting, the following:

"The author of S.1805 and S.1806 (Sen. Larry Craig) is an NRA Board of Directors member and one of the original authors of S.659 also."

The fine Senator also attached a senate amendment (SA 2625 to SA.1805) authorizing a 'study' of armor piercing ammunition that appears will be the guidline to determine if American citizens will be allowed to posses centerfire ammunition.

Remember the seatbelt study and how it was used under threat States loss of Highway Funds to become national law?

I think the same will occur in two years using the 'study' of piercing ammunition and the protection of all LEO's who wear vests. Senator Kennedy was waving a 30-30 round in the air speaking about how deadly the round was.

NRA Director/Sen. Larry Craig and Seanator Frist have back stabbed every NRA member and every American who own a centerfire rifle, or who possibly could want to own one.

It won't matter if you or I wish to continue our lawful past history, just owning a centerfire rifle will be evidence that you and I have future intentions that are illegal.

It costs me about $1.00 to make a call to Washington to voice my opinion. This is a much more effective than sending an email. Perhaps other THR members will consider spaending $5 or $10 on Monday with phone calls.


POSTERS NOTE:

Regarding the matter of calling D.C., where lurk yoiur senatorsd, the follwing phone numbers (2) are TOLL FREE!!!! "I cannot afford long distance calls" is not an excuse.

1-800-648-3516
1-800-839-5276

rhedley
February 28, 2004, 12:38 PM
NRA Response to Attacks on S. 1805 (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act)

Recent internet alerts from some "pro-Second Amendment" groups have suggested that the National Rifle Association has either accepted a compromise that would include reenactment of the 1994 Clinton Gun ban and/or the McCain-Reed gun show restrictions, or will not actively fight against their passage in the Senate. Not only are these claims completely false and ridiculous but they are also extremely counterproductive to our legislative strategy and agenda. Gun control groups are spreading the same rumors in hopes of confusing pro-gun senators as to our position in hopes of gaining their support.

The National Rifle Association led the fight in opposition to this ill-conceived ban in 1994, led the efforts to repeal the ban two years later, and is leading the fight to ensure the Clinton gun ban expires on time on September 13. From public speeches, articles in NRA publications, communications to lawmakers and the development of a website (www.ClintonGunBan.com), the National Rifle association has been vocal and unambiguous about our position on this issue.

It is our hope that supposed "friends of the Second Amendment" will cease to provide ammunition to the enemy by disseminating this false information. Unfortunately, some of these groups seem intent on finding or creating any excuse to defeat S. 1805, perhaps because its passage has been a priority of the NRA for four years. The anti-gunners are seeking to undermine the Second Amendment and the legislative process by seeking to bankrupt firearms and ammunition manufacturers or get gun control restrictions through the courts through dozens of pending municipal lawsuits -- blaming the gun industry for the acts of criminals -- initiated by anti-gun big city mayors and greedy trial lawyers. A single judgement by a rogue judge or jury could wipe out the entire firearms industry making our gun rights worthless. Passage of S. 1805 is critical -- but not worth allowing legislation going to the President including either an extension of the Clinton gun ban or restrictions at gun shows. There will be no compromise. The only choice is a "clean" bill or no bill to the President.

The legislative process in Congress is complex and far from perfect. Fortunately, Congress is a bicameral (two house) legislative body and both the House and Senate must agree on the same bill before enactment. While we are uncertain of the outcome of several pending anti-gun amendments in the Senate, the House is strongly pro-gun and it (or a conference committee) will not accept any anti-gun Senate-passed amendment as part of the final product to be sent to the President.

Pro-gun grassroots activists who want to advance our cause should not be distracted by misinformation and disinformation by our "friends." Instead, gun owners and sportsmen must keep our focus on the real action and contact -- by calls, e-mails, and faxes -- their two U.S. Senators urging them to vote for S. 1805 and against any and all anti-gun "poison pill" killer amendments including, but not limited to, the Clinton gun ban and gun shows. Use the "Write Your Representatives" (www.capwiz.com/nra/home) tool at www.NRAILA.org to contact your Senators and call them at 202-224-3121. We appreciate your active support in our cause to defend the Second Amendment and freedom itself.

Sparker
February 28, 2004, 01:12 PM
alan, my reason for not calling the toll free numbers on close call or high importance Bills is I ask the person (receptionist) answering the phone in the Senators or Congressmans offce who is handling the matter for the legislator.

Then I ask to speak with this person or their secretary if they are unavailable. I have had many good discussions this way with the "horses mouth" and been able to accurately convey my opinion and the reasons for it.

A few time I have been asked what particular wording I would like omitted or changed. This has led to return calls on similar Bills to ask my opinion before the Bill becomes public.

(Being informed and politeness are imperative during these discussions!)

The toll free numbers are answered by clerks who merely gather information. The legislator has to request it from the call center, it is not automatically forwarded. Kind of like a 'feel good' number for voters to give their opinions to.

alan
February 28, 2004, 01:26 PM
Sparker:

No pissing contest desired, but your experience with the toll free numbers I listed, and mine are different.

The ladies who pick up the call responds with "Capitol" or "Capitol Switchboard". The caller tells them which senate or congressional office they wish to speak with, and the call is put through to that office.

Once there, you can leave a messaage with whomever it is that answers in the "elected things" office, always speak politely, or you can ask to speak with a particuilar staffer, for instance, the one involved with firearms matters. Sometimes yoiu get through to that person, sometimes you speak with an answering machine. I've done it both ways, and have had calls returned, though not all that often.

If your approach has had success, keep at it. It seems however, that my experience might not be the same as yours. I believe however, that even if it's only a relatively low level person in the congressman's or senators office that "takes a message", calling is worth while.

Sparker
February 28, 2004, 02:06 PM
It's been quite a while, 10 years or so since I've even tried the 800 numbers. Might be time to see if I can't reduce the phone bills. I appreciate the update.

"I believe however, that even if it's only a relatively low level person in the congressman's or senators office that "takes a message", calling is worth while."

On this we certainly agree. Use what works is a good motto.

general
February 28, 2004, 09:05 PM
Oh My...
I think I may be an Idiot. Yes, with a capital "I".
All this time - I had a modem capable of sending faxes... all I had to do was upgrade grab a driver and put in a patch and v'iola...
A fax machine right under my snout!
And here's the first one I used it for....

To Senator Bill Frist

If this “study” as mentioned in SA 2625 is anything like the seatbelt study it will redefine armor piercing to mean anything that can pierce body armor. Well, knives can pierce body armor, so can a sharp stick. If this Amendment sticks to this bill, shooting enthusiasts and those who value the right to self-defense will be darn lucky to have either. I don’t understand a lot about your methods up there in Washington but I will say this; there is a lot of chatter about this little item being the death knell for centerfire rifle ammunition and S. 1805. If this is just some way to get it through the Senate and then strip it and send it back, we have no way of knowing. We feel revulsion at the mere mention of anything further restricting our freedoms and to be honest it makes us a bit nervous out here in fly over country. The current thought among the voters I have been talking to and who are closely following this legislation is this; If it is not a clean bill, we do not want it.
Sincerely,
FAXMAN!!!!!
Anyway... What kind of fool am I... dada da da....
Any one who wants to should be able to do this also... I went HERE (http://downloads-zdnet.com.com/3120-20-0.html?qt=fax&tg=dl-20) For THIS (http://downloads-zdnet.com.com/3000-2109-897968.html?tag=lst-0-4)
:eek: I am in buisness now....:what: :evil:

Bartholomew Roberts
February 29, 2004, 10:41 PM
The fine Senator also attached a senate amendment (SA 2625 to SA.1805) authorizing a 'study' of armor piercing ammunition that appears will be the guidline to determine if American citizens will be allowed to posses centerfire ammunition.

Sparker, I have seen the amendment language and I would have to disagree with your interpretation of it. What part of the amendment language makes you think the above will happen?

Here is the language concerning the study:

"(1) STUDY.--The Attorney General shall conduct a study to determine whether a uniform standard for the uniform testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible.

(2) ISSUES TO BE STUDIED.--The study conducted under paragraph (1) shall include--

(A) variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or centerfire rifle from which the projectile is fired; and

(B) the amount of powder used to propel the projectile.

(3) REPORT.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a report containing the results of the study conducted under this subsection to--

(A) the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate; and

(B) the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives."

Sparker
March 1, 2004, 01:08 AM
"Sparker, I have seen the amendment language and I would have to disagree with your interpretation of it. What part of the amendment language makes you think the above will happen?
____________________________________________________________
1st, I do not trust any legislator that hasn't previously brought out for a public discussion the subject matter of a Bill that they are attempting to have attached to a larger Bill.

To me this is a sign of deceit towards his/her voters.

If this was such an important matter, it should have been mentioned by the Director/Senator months ago. It should have had numerous articles authored and published concerning it. 911 occured in 2001, 29 months ago, not two months ago.

___________________________________________________________
"(1) STUDY.--The Attorney General shall conduct a study to determine whether a uniform standard for the uniform testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible. "

This is to determine what power, weight & fps, round will penetrate a 'bullet proof vest'. There will also be the concern of whether or not the rounds that will be authorized to civilians will still allow for the hunting of wild game, ie., deer etc. in order to control the wild game herds.

Of course, this could result in better vests for the LEO's.

When such items as "length of the barrel of the handgun or centerfire rifle" and "the amount of powder used to propel the projectile.", I see this as a heading towards the last days of civilian reloading.

You might ask what brought this attitude out in me. Hopefully you know the answers already but I will type them here if you wish.

artherd
March 1, 2004, 02:54 AM
(3) REPORT.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a report containing the results of the study conducted under this subsection to--


I can make that report now, nearly every centerfire rifle with a minimum 16" barrel as required by federal law, can perforate both sides of a soft ballistic vest.

They know it, you know it, and I know it.


So, what are they trying to acomplish here? What is the purpose?

Yeah, it dosen't look good, does it?

Bartholomew Roberts
March 1, 2004, 10:07 AM
1st, I do not trust any legislator that hasn't previously brought out for a public discussion the subject matter of a Bill that they are attempting to have attached to a larger Bill.

To me this is a sign of deceit towards his/her voters.

If this was such an important matter, it should have been mentioned by the Director/Senator months ago.

Sparker, I don't know if you have been watching the ongoing Senate debates; but if not, one thing you would have noticed is that for every amendment proposed by the antis, Senator Craig has proposed his own amendment to address those concerns. In several cases that amendment has been the equivalent of "What is current law will remain current law".

The bill calling for a study was in response to Kennedy's amendment that would ban centerfire rifle ammunition. So far, every time Craig has proposed an alternate amendment, Craig's amendment passed and we won. The only time we lost is when no alternate amendment was proposed (gunlocks).

Since the agreement to allow Kennedy's amendment to be included was part of the unanimous consent agreement made late Wednesday night, there is no realistic way that Sen. Craig could have proposed the amendment months ago as you suggest. My guess is that if Kennedy hadn't chosen to rant and rave on the Senate floor, we wouldn't have seen any amendment at all.

artherd:
So, what are they trying to acomplish here? What is the purpose?

I think its obvious that the purpose they are trying to accomplish is to make sure the Kennedy's bill banning centerfire ammo doesn't get enough support to get attached to S.1805 by giving Senators an alternative bill to support that isn't anti-gun but let's them show their less-informed constituents they "did something" about "evil AP ammo".

Maybe it would have failed on its own merits without Craig's alternative; but are you willing to risk that when you can be sure it will by authorizing a study?

Sparker
March 1, 2004, 10:55 AM
"I think its obvious that the purpose they are trying to accomplish is to make sure the Kennedy's bill banning centerfire ammo doesn't get enough support to get attached to S.1805 by giving Senators an alternative bill to support that isn't anti-gun but let's them show their less-informed constituents they "did something" about "evil AP ammo".

Maybe it would have failed on its own merits without Craig's alternative; but are you willing to risk that when you can be sure it will by authorizing a study?"

I well understand your argument and it does have merit. However, the President asked for a clean Bill and the Craig/Frist amendment, while fighting the Kennedy amendment doesn't give President Bush what he asked the Republicans for.

We need to castrate the RINO's but I doubt that will ever happen either. Evidence=Sen. McCain

I would much have preferred that the entire Bill be locked in Committee until after the election. That would put the weight of the Bill on the Senators backs and not the President. They would be the ones concerned with their re-elections and the Bill would probably stay in Committee for another year. (hopefully)

alan
March 1, 2004, 12:41 PM
Bartholomew Roberts, re data you posted.

The Senate website that described amendments to S. 1805, as follows.

Re the LEO' exemption to 1805, one by Corzine was rejected.

Another, Amendment # 2630, by Frist, this from a staffer at Specter's D.C. office, with whom I spoke this A.M., was accepted. Supposedly, while this amendment would allow suits by LEO's, subject to conforming to requirements in certain sections of 1805, Corzine's amendment would not have made such a requirement, she said. Her claim is that S. 2630 was NOT anti gun, which seems questionable to me. I have criticized Specter and Santorum for their votes in support of Amendment 2630, based on information from the above mentioned site. Did I misread it?

It looked to me as if voting for either would be an anti gun vote, though I haven't seen the TEXT of either amendments, just a short summary included in the site showing results of roll call votes on various amendments. Where might one find the TEXT, for as usual, the devil resides in the details, or so it seems.

Thanks for the courtesy of a response.

Bartholomew Roberts
March 1, 2004, 12:58 PM
Another, Amendment # 2630, by Frist, this from a staffer at Specter's D.C. office, with whom I spoke this A.M., was accepted. Supposedly, while this amendment would allow suits by LEO's, subject to conforming to requirements in certain sections of 1805, Corzine's amendment would not have made such a requirement, she said. Her claim is that S. 2630 was NOT anti gun, which seems questionable to me.

The staffer was correct. Senator Craig selling this as an alternative is nothing short of brilliance in my mind. His amendment says basically "If you are a law enforcement officer and meet the requirements of S.1805 you can sue in a civil suit". So essentially, he gave them nothing. If you could have sued under S.1805 before, then you still can. If you could not have, you still can't, even if you are an LEO.

Here is the text of the entire amendment, which was read on the floor during the Thursday debates and can be found in the Congressional transcript of the Senate sessionfor that day (section S.1666)

"The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To protect the rights of law enforcement officers who are victimized by crime to secure compensation from those who participate in the arming of criminals) On page 9, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:

(E) LAW ENFORCEMENT EXCEPTION.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the right of an officer or employee of any Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency to recover damages authorized under Federal or State law in a civil action that meets 1 of the requirements under clauses (i) through (v) of subparagraph (A)."

So essentially, the law says if you meet S.1805 criteria, you can still sue as an LEO.

alan
March 1, 2004, 07:39 PM
Bartholomew Roberts:

Re the following, from your post, "The staffer was correct. Senator Craig selling this as an alternative is nothing short of brilliance in my mind. His amendment says basically "If you are a law enforcement officer and meet the requirements of S.1805 you can sue in a civil suit". So essentially, he gave them nothing. If you could have sued under S.1805 before, then you still can. If you could not have, you still can't, even if you are an LEO.

Here is the text of the entire amendment, which was read on the floor during the Thursday debates and can be found in the Congressional transcript of the Senate sessionfor that day (section S.1666)

"The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To protect the rights of law enforcement officers who are victimized by crime to secure compensation from those who participate in the arming of criminals) On page 9, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:

(E) LAW ENFORCEMENT EXCEPTION.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the right of an officer or employee of any Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency to recover damages authorized under Federal or State law in a civil action that meets 1 of the requirements under clauses (i) through (v) of subparagraph (A)."

So essentially, the law says if you meet S.1805 criteria, you can still sue as an LEO."

Re the above, the following comes to my minds. With this amendment, it seems that we are back to where we were BEFORE THE AMENDMENT. The House passed version, as well as S. 659 and 1805 provided for civil suits under certain circumstances. So does the Frist Amendment, Amemdment # 2630, given the same circumstances, which was accepted.

I may be simply thick headed, as a result of to many years spent with my head under a hard hat, but in the engineering business, the machine either worked or it didn't. If it wasn't "broke" there was no need to "fix" it. I never cease to wonder as to exactly what there is about our elected things, that they find it so difficult to speak in plain, clear English. Given that the thing isn't "broke", why on earth do they seemingly find it necessary to "fix" the thing, as this amendment seemingly does.

Is it really necessary or advisable to bend over backwards, to make "nice" to the anti gunners, which is what this amendment business gets to sound like, for such antics seem only to encourage them? It seems to me that given the opportunity to "kill" them, that is exactly what we should do.

I have been following this business since about 1964, and I've seen our side take what strikes me as one hell of a beating, over all. Did the anti's once, stop to "make nice" to us. Not that I had ever noticed, for having won something, they were always back for "more". Seems to me that they were never "reasonable" nor were they ever "gentlemanly".

The ultimate goals of the antis, long ago and often since had from their own mouths, are The Total Proscription of Firearms. It is our side that seemingly lacks an ongoing, tactical as well as strategic set of goals, and the planning necessary to see the attainment thereof. How come, I wonder, how come, or is it that I'm missing some salient points.

END

Boats
March 1, 2004, 10:28 PM
Of all the threads to float on The High Road, why this one?:rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "The Senate needs to act, gun owners need to speak on this one - S. 659" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!