[Bud Wiser]

Good info from GOA.

I don't share the "Oh boy we defeated that there AWB renewal today" attitude some seem to have.

The object here was to pass a law that would stop Frivolous Law Suits against Gun manufacturers.

Feinstein, Schummer, and assorted others loaded up the Bill with all kinds of Poison Pills & killed it.

The Stinking Democrats moved in force to Kill it.

The Stinking Republicans let it die.

Are the Stinking Republicans now going to do right by Gun Owners and try to sneak the Gun manufacturers law suit protection Bill through at some other date & time? 3 a. m. in the morning just before the entire Senate adjourns for the next public holiday would be a great time. And why not? There will be only a handful of Senators around at that time to object. The Stinking Democrats pull this Cr*p all the time and get away with it.

And to the 'Heroes' at the NRA: You Klowns are ????????! You couldn't pass your way out of a paper bag let alone pass a Bill in Congress! Morons! I'll remember their Failure today in the Senate the next time they phone and hustle me for cash...

Other than that, GOA reports on what went down....

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

Great News!
-- Feinstein semi-auto ban is dead, as Senate shoots down gun control bill
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585
Tuesday, March 2, 2004

It got quite ugly today in the U.S. Senate.

First, the U.S. Senate voted to renew the Feinstein semi-auto ban. Then it voted for the McCain gun show ban. All this in addition to the "Lock Up Your Safety" requirement that Senators tacked on to the lawsuit protection bill last week.

You will remember that Gun Owners of America had warned senators last week to oppose S. 1805 if it was loaded down with gun control provisions. Thankfully, pro-gun senators heeded the call to kill the bill once it was turned into an anti-gun abomination. These senators were joined by their anti-gun counterparts who opposed the underlying bill because they still want to bankrupt the gun makers.

The final vote on defeating S. 1805 was 90-8.

You can see how your Senators voted on the control amendments. The following describes the critical provisions that were tacked on to the lawsuit protection bill before it was soundly defeated:

Lock Up Your Safety Requirement. Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI) offered this gun control amendment last week. It would require all handgun purchasers to pay an implicit "gun tax" by requiring them to buy a trigger lock when they purchase their handgun, irrespective of need. In addition, the amendment would create a broad and implicit cause of action against gun owners who fail to actually use the storage device to lock up their firearms. Of course, a locked gun then becomes unavailable for self-defense. The Senate passed the Kohl amendment 70-27.

Feinstein Semi-auto Ban. The Senate voted 52-47 in favor of the Feinstein semi-auto amendment. This amendment would extend the ban that was signed into law by President Clinton in 1994 -- a ban which outlaws certain magazines and more than 180 types of semi-automatic firearms. Unless Congress authorizes such an extension, the ban will sunset in September 2004.

McCain Gun Show Ban. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) offered this amendment to outlaw the private sale of firearms at gun shows, unless the buyer agrees to submit to a background registration check. The language could effectively eliminate gun shows because every member of an organization sponsoring a gun show could be imprisoned if the organization fails to notify each and every "person who attends the special firearms event of the requirements [under the Brady Law]." Thus, if the person responsible for handing out "Brady pamphlets" took a break to go to the bathroom, everyone responsible for the event could be sent to prison. The McCain amendment passed 53-47.

Ammunition Restriction Study. This amendment, offered by Senators Bill Frist (R-TN) and Larry Craig (R-ID), passed the Senate 85-12. Among other things, the language of this provision would commission the Attorney General to determine whether the ban on so-called "cop killer" ammunition should include superior performance bullets in popular hunting calibers such as the 30-06.

The good news is that the attempt to renew the Feinstein semi-auto ban is dead... for now. Of course, there are still semi-auto ban bills pending in the House and Senate, and we can expect Feinstein to again offer her gun ban as an amendment to some other "must pass" bill.

The bad news is that the prospects for getting any kind of legislation to the President's desk this year to protect gun makers is very slim.

Today's vote makes it very difficult for a pro-gun senator to offer this bill as an amendment to another bill. After all, anti-gunners can demand that any provision to protect the gun industry now be offered as a "package" with the anti-gun amendments that were attached to the bill over the last couple of days.

It would have been far better for Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to have brought this Senate bill to the floor in such a way that NO gun control amendments could have been offered. Doing so would have involved using parliamentary tactics that are somewhat difficult to detail in an e-mail alert. But the Senate has often used these tactics in the past. A vote to pass a "clean bill" could very well have succeeded, as almost 60 Senators had cosponsored the underlying legislation.

GOA wants to thank all of its members and activists for calling and e-mailing their Senators over the last several days. The outpouring of opposition from grassroots gun owners kept phones ringing off the hook in Senate offices, and to be sure, contributed to pulling several "fence sitters" to our side on the Feinstein amendment.

Again, you can see that vote along with all the others.

****************************
Question: What fights like a pit bull, but looks good in a suit and tie?

Answer: A Gun Owners of America lobbyist.

Just ask Rep. John Hostettler, Republican Congressman from Indiana:

"Gun Owners of America is the pit bull of the Second Amendment. They are relentless and never give any ground whatsoever to the gun grabbers."

Have You Joined GOA?
Your Membership in GOA Gives You:
A no-compromise voice in Washington, D.C.
Pre-written letters and postcards to help you lobby your Congressmen
Experienced spokesmen to defend your rights in the media
In-depth research and analysis
Valuable discounts
Please join GOA today!

Simply go to http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm and join with hundreds of thousands of other Americans who have already sided with the nation's only national, no-compromise gun lobby.


http://www.gunowners.org/a030204.htm

[Daedalus]

10 rotten stinking republican traitors put the AWB amendment on OUR legislation. The Republicans let the democrats defile OUR legislation. The result was a bill so crappy, noonr wanted it. And it is a victory for us that when push comes to shove we roll over and go back to business as usual? Whatever.
A waste of a week of senate debate and my tax dollars and my time popping antacids watching the gun ban brigade on cspan.

[Gewehr98]

Did you want the AWB to be extended another 10 years? Did you want a private gun sale at a gunshow to undergo government scrutiny? So why was it a bad thing to kill a poisoned piece of legislation? Would the additional two bad riders being passed offset the one good anti-lawsuit bill being passed? :scrutiny:

[Bud Wiser]

98, You're missing the point. The Dems were going to try to kill this Bill and they did.

The Repubs were not interested in keeping it clean to begin with. If the Repubs and the Traitors at the NRA really wanted to pass this Bill they would have sent it over to the House of Representatives where a similar Bill giving Protection to Gun Manufacturers from Law Suits has already been passed. That's right a Bill has been passed in the House giving protection to Gun Manufacturers from Frivolous Lawsuits has already passed, and with Flying Colors.

This damn Bill should have been sent over to the House where all the Poison Pills put in by Feinstine and Schummer could quietly be removed and be made clean again.

But Oh NO! That was all too complicated for the NRA and the Republicans in the Senate! :cuss:

Here's what Neal Knox had to say about it on Monday:
____________

March 1 Neal Knox Update -- The anti-gun crowd’s sole focus right now is
killing S. 1805, the renumbered S. 659 gun industry liability protection
bill.

So why on Earth are so many panicky gun rights defenders (or people
claiming to be) doing everything they can to help the enemy?

Yes, S. 1805 is in danger of being loaded up with anti-gun amendments in
the Senate. But anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that
the Senate is overloaded with anti-gunners and has been for several
years.

The only way to get the bill passed is to get it back to the House, where
it can be cleaned up or killed.

The identical House version, H.R. 1036, passed last April 285-140.

The Senate bill has 55 co-sponsors -- five more than necessary for
passage. Last week the Schumer-Lautenberg, et al, filibuster failed by
75 votes -- fifteen more votes than the two-thirds necessary to bring it
to the floor.

The day the voting started, the White House sent Congress a Statement of
Administration Policy calling for a "clean bill" -- one without
amendments. That's what President Bush has said he will sign -- which
greatly improves the chances of a cleaned Conference Committee bill
getting through the Senate.

Sen. Schumer fumed the Bush position will cost 10 or eleven Republican
votes against his and Dianne Feinstein's amendments. Let's hope he's
right, but I doubt it. Three or four might be enough.

With everything stacked against them, the only way the anti-gunners can
kill the bill is to load it down with a bunch of killer amendments --
causing the gun rights people to do what the anti-gun crowd can't do.
Kill it -- like our Nervous Nellies are already clamoring to do.

Schumer's "useful idiots" -- some of our people -- are in a panic because
Sen. Larry Craig and other pro-gunners signed a "Unanimous Consent
Agreement" allowing a series of anti-gun (and pro-gun) amendments to be
considered without a string of filibusters.

That's the only way the Senate ever can consider a controversial bill --
but many of those screaming about "Unanimous Consent" think it means the
pro-gun side has consented to evil amendments. They haven't.

Sen. Barbara Boxer added an amendment requiring all dealer-sold handguns
to be delivered with a safety lock, as most already are.

The Internet is being flooded with emails from people I never heard of --
forwarded by people who should know better -- demanding that S. 1805 be
killed because it "contains gun control."

Let me assure you: S. 1805 WILL CONTAIN A LOT MORE GUN CONTROL --
probably including the Feinstein "Assault Weapon" ban and the McCain gun
show-killer bill -- before the Senate's final vote.

But I want the Senate to hold their noses and send it back to the House,
warts and all.

The letters going out right now from misled gun owners to their Senators,
telling them to vote against S. 1805, were probably drafted in the
offices of "Americans for Gun Safety" and Handgun Control Inc.

If not, they might as well have been.

As most of you know, I have been personally involved in every Federal gun
rights battle since 1966 -- as founding editor of Gun Week, editor of
Handloader and Rifle, Executive Director of NRA-ILA, legislative
columnist for Guns & Ammo, Shotgun News and other publications, and Vice
President of NRA for three years, until Charlton Heston beat me 38-34.

In short, I've been around this block twice. I have never seen such a
well-orchestrated campaign to kill a pro-gun bill.

Every Senator who voted FOR the Boxer/Schumer/Feinstein /Kennedy
amendments will vote AGAINST the bill. I want to see every Senator who
voted AGAINST those amendments to vote FOR an anti-gun bill, and we
should let them know that we'll never hold that vote against them.

Because that's the only way we can get the bill to the House, where those
amendments can be stripped -- so the United States Arms Industry can
survive, and prices on the guns they produce won't continue to skyrocket.

Am I absolutely certain that every anti-gun amendment can be stripped off
in the House-Senate Conference? Or else knocked off in House votes?

No, I'm not.

But I AM certain that if they aren't WE CAN KILL THE BILL IN THE HOUSE.

And from what I've been personally told, NRA will lead the effort to kill
their own bill if the corruption remains.

Yes, it's dangerous. Passing legislation when the Senate is against us
is always dangerous -- and it's difficult, but with the House and White
House on our side, it's doable.

Let's show a little courage, friends.


http://nealknox.com/alerts/msg00194.html

[Moon]

Consider this. All of us used to have the right to buy the firearms restricted by the AWB, but those rights were taken away. After today's events, it would appear that we may once again enjoy gun rights that should never have been abrogated.

No individual or business entity has ever enjoyed immunity from lawsuits involving the criminal use of firearms. As worthy and appealing as that policy may be, the fact of the matter is that this is a theoretical concept that gun owners/manufacturers have been able to survive without so far.

Given the above, what would you rather live without? A freedom that you once enjoyed that was taken away, or an immunity that you never enjoyed but wanted?

That is a heady question, but my personal preference is the restoration of my firearm ownership rights.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I guess the NRA can't win no matter what it does - if it kills the bill before a conference committee then it gets blamed as above. If it tries to move the bill to conference committee then it is part of the much reported NRA/GOP sellout.

I just wish all the NRA haters would at least have the decency to get on the same page so that the NRA would at least have the chance to try and please them.

[Knight]

this is what someone on ar-15.com posted. Does this seem right as far as the current status of the awb?



"The Senate voted 52-47 in favor of attaching the AWB extension (another 10 years) to S. 1805 (the so-called "Gun Liability Bill"). They also voted in favor of attaching a bill to close the so-called "gunshow loophole", as well as a host of other crap. Senator Craig then got on the floor of the Senate, and advised everyone to vote against S.1805 (the entire bill, AND amendments attached to it). He said that it was a good piece of legislation, that had been turned into a monster with all the amendments.

The Senate then voted 90-8 AGAINST approving the bill. S.1805, and all its amendments, died right there. Good news, the AWB and "gunshow loophole" didn't get thru (this time anyway). Bad news: the truly GOOD legislation to protect gun manufacturers and sellers from junk lawsuits got shot down too."

[El Rojo]

Chalk up a semi-victory for the rest of America if the AWB dies. The PRK is still screwed. Go figure.

[Lord Grey Boots]

The manufacturer's immunity can be brought back later. The AWB extension will be real hard to bring back from the dead.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The manufacturer's immunity can be brought back later. The AWB extension will be real hard to bring back from the dead.

I keep hearing this sentiment, but I don't understand it. Why is it now so much more dificult to pass AWB #2? They weren't serious about extending the AWB today. They only attached the AWB ammendment to get the bill's supporters to defeat their own bill.

Feinstein can push her new ban all she likes from now until September or beyond. Unless I'm missing something, todays events make that no more difficult than it's ever been

[4v50 Gary]

Let the AWB sunset and then let's tackle the mfg liability issue. We'll have a better chance that way.

[dinosaur]

A good thing is a bunch of RINOs got outted and a few Dems showed themselves worthy. Gun owners have driven elections before, there`s no reason it can`t be done again.

[kentucky bucky]

You guys who bad mouth the NRA make me sick. You ramble on about how the NRA sold out the gun owners....and the truth is they are the ones getting things done and it kills you wannabees. If it weren't for a last minute effort by the NRA, Schumer,McCarty, and the rest of the "usual suspects" (along with 9 traitor Republicans) would have had their "Assault Weapons" ban AND their "Gun Show Loophole" Crap passed attached to the "Anti-Lawsuit" bill!!!!! You need to call La Pierre And thank him! They were contacting the law makers on their palm held message boards in the final minutes and SQUASHED this abomination to the horror of the anti gun crowd.

[ClonaKilty]

I'm with Bud on this. Looking at it objectively, this is a victory for anti-self-defense goons. Why? Because 1) They proved they could squash pro-gun legislation (and tort reform in general). 2) They proved they have the Senatorial support to extend the "AWB." And 3) They were able to give the finger to Bush and create a very un-clean bill.

Also, Headless Thompson Gunner (and I thought I had an interesting THR name ;) ) wrote:

I keep hearing this sentiment, but I don't understand it. Why is it now so much more dificult to pass AWB #2? They weren't serious about extending the AWB today. They only attached the AWB ammendment to get the bill's supporters to defeat their own bill.

I'm with ya, Headless, and I've been asking the same question. The answer so far seems to be that it is simply harder for the minority party to bring a bill to the floor. Perhaps I don't know Parliamentary procedure well enough, but it doesn't seem that difficult to do so. If someone has better knowledge than me about this I'm willing to learn.

[Sergeant Bob]

So, nothing got done in the Senate today. Is that a bad thing?
And who is the NRA?
We are.

[Viking6]

The"Anti-Lawsuit" bill would have been a good thing but in reality a gun company should stand on its merits. The problem is that juries have gone nuts in a lot of liability cases. I'm not trying to be one of the "first kill all the lawyers" types but in many cases they have a vested interest in getting huge settlements. This is in no way meant to say that all lawsuits aren't justified. The one that comes to mind was the minivan where the children were killed but they hadn't even been seat-belted in. The jury found Chrysler I think liable. I agree with other posters that one good thing about the whole fiasco was that some supposed friends were outed. my 2 centavos.

[Mark Tyson]

We think the house is on our side, but given the support the AWB extention found in the Senate the NRA didn't want to risk it. I think it was the right decision to kill the bill there rather than risk a second nasty surprise from the house.

Why are you so worked up over manufacturer's immunity anyway? It would have been nice, but it's not the holy grail of gun rights. Be reasonable.

[Brett Bellmore]

No individual or business entity has ever enjoyed immunity from lawsuits involving the criminal use of firearms.

That's literally true, but misses the point. Nobody had enjoyed such immunity as a matter of explicit law, but everybody had enjoyed it as a matter of simple fact, because until recently, nobody ever filed such lawsuits, and if they had the courts would have thrown them out as frivolous, and probably even sanctioned the lawyers who brought them.

After all, we don't have a law explicitly prohibiting suing garlic growers for the third party effects of the bad breath eating raw garlic induces. But we don't (yet) need one, because nobody is filing such suits.

The sad thing is that a law IS needed to restore the former status quo.

The reason why it will be much harder after this to bring the renewal of the '94 ban up, is that by coupling it to a piece of pro-gun legislation, they partially cancelled the anti-gun aspect of it out. Some members could rationalize that while part of the bill was anti-gun, part of it was pro-gun, and thus the whole bill was a justifiable tradeoff. But as a stand alone bill, nobody could rationalize it as not being anti-gun, and they lose some of the marginal supporters.

[Swamprabbit]

Actually folks, this was a political fight that ended in a draw. The pro-gun side tried to get the gun manufacturers protected from the Mayor Daley's of this country. If you want to be upset about spending of tax dollars, here is your case. These cities spend all the public money tying up the Colts and Springfield Armories with lawsuits that the cities can't hope to win other than draining the companies down on cash. On the other hand, the only cards the antis had to play against that was the AWB and background checks on private sales. The two were put together and it sent all the pieces of legislation down.

The antis, with a lot of political support from the trial lawyers, really didn't want the protection bill to go through. Enough so, they were willing to spend the AWB to kill it. Just proves that they really didn't want the AWB to protect the children, just used it for political capital.

This was just the political process in the works. I don't hold the NRA, or any other group, responsible for the defeat of the protection bill. Politics at this level is pure hard-ball.

[publius]

How did that Trojan Horse bill "protect" the firearms industry anyway? It's the job of judges to toss out frivolous suits, and if they don't do it to our liking, does that automatically give Congress the responsibility and authority to do it for them?

Good riddance, S 1805

[braindead0]

I agree, S1805 was poorly conceived. I believe it was actually started in order to become a horse for riders. I don't think it would stand up in court, so eventually the Supremes might strike it down as unconstitutional (equal protection perhaps), but the riders would live on.

We have a major problem with the legal system, I'm not sure where it started but when they started lawsuits against tobacco companies, McD's for hot coffee..etc.. somewhere along the line the legal system has run wildly over logic.

[Leatherneck]

Why is it now so much more dificult to pass AWB #2? They weren't serious about extending the AWB today.
I think things are far different today than they were ten years ago when the Clinton AWB passed. We were blind-sided then and hardly realized what was happening until the fat lady got up to sing.

Today, we have dozens of active forums about guns and gun rights effectively using the internet to discuss, alert, warn, and motivate huge numbers of people. That alone will make it a challenge for the antis to "slip it in" with some other legislation. Not impossible, but much harder.

They bear watching at all times, and we've got to stay alert while Congress is in session.

TC
TFL Survivor

[whoami]

I'm with ya, Headless, and I've been asking the same question. The answer so far seems to be that it is simply harder for the minority party to bring a bill to the floor. Perhaps I don't know Parliamentary procedure well enough, but it doesn't seem that difficult to do so. If someone has better knowledge than me about this I'm willing to learn.

Actually, it's simple process that does it. There aren't any other bills in the pipe that they could tack the legislation onto as an amendment, so the only hope of passing the AWB is with a stand-alone bill. The reason why this is not going to happen is that the legislation needs to pass both the House and the Senate. We know now it can pass the Senate, but several AWB bills have been introduced in the House and they are ALL languishing in committee...they'll never reach a floor vote, and even if they did it's doubtful they'd pass. That's why it will be more difficult to pass.

This damn Bill should have been sent over to the House where all the Poison Pills put in by Feinstine and Schummer could quietly be removed and be made clean again.

Would it? Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that all the amendments would have been stripped? I recall hearing that it wouldn't be Delay but Hastert who would pick the members of the committee, and he's made rumblings of not agreeing with Delay's position on the AWB. Two or three foul picks for the committee and we'd be under the AWB for another ten years.

And as I've said before, the whole "the house'll strip 'em all out" mindset is VERY similar to the "the supremes'll just declare it unconstitutional" mindset that gave us campaign finance 'reform'.

[antsi]

--------- quote ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is it now so much more dificult to pass AWB #2? They weren't serious about extending the AWB today. They only attached the AWB ammendment to get the bill's supporters to defeat their own bill.

Feinstein can push her new ban all she likes from now until September or beyond. Unless I'm missing something, todays events make that no more difficult than it's ever been
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It will be more difficult for Feinstein to introduce a totally new piece of legislation than tacking it on as an add-on ammendment. For one thing, the Republicans control both houses and thus control the committees and they are not going to let a new AWB #2 out of committee. Also, even some wishy-washy Democrats would rather not deal with the issue in an election year. They'd be reluctant to vote against an AWB if it was on the table, but they'd much rather it stay off the table until after the elections.

But you are right as far as after September. If Feinstein gets a Democrat controlled Congress and Kerry in the White House, AWB #2 will be first thing on their agenda and you can bet it will be bigger and meaner and nastier than AWB #1 ever thought about being.

[Thumper]

The AWB is dead, largely with the help of the NRA.

If you somehow try to convolute that into an NRA failure, either your judgement is poor or your motives are questionable.

[benEzra]

This damn Bill should have been sent over to the House where all the Poison Pills put in by Feinstine and Schummer could quietly be removed and be made clean again.
I vehemently disagree. Feinstein and Boxer were hopeful that by hook or by crook, they could get it attached to the House's bill. Maybe they were overoptimistic, but it was definitely possible.

Passing this bill as it stands would be (in chess terms) gambling your queen to win a pawn. Forget it.

[Baba Louie]

Depends on how you spin it.
For a lark, read the Brady groups spin on how THEY defeated the NRA :D
http://www.bradycampaign.org/
Maybe you agree. Maybe you don't.
Then there's the NRA's version of wanting and only supporting a "Clean Bill" which is what I heard GWB wanted as well...
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=3496
So maybe, in a Machiavellian manner, by allowing Feinstein and McCain et al to attach their rider clauses, then killing the whole thing, something positive was accomplished or delayed.
I don't see anyone crowing about defeating the AWB like the Brady's are about the Lawsuit bill, possibly because we still have 7 months till September's AWB sunset.
Stay tuned, write to the congresscritters who helped, thanking them, and ask them to keep you notified if Feinstein/Schumer/McCain try to attach the same amendments to anything else prior to that September sunset (plan on it).

[ClonaKilty]

whoami: you say...

The reason why this is not going to happen is that the legislation needs to pass both the House and the Senate. We know now it can pass the Senate, but several AWB bills have been introduced in the House and they are ALL languishing in committee...they'll never reach a floor vote

which basically means that the House Committes are our Safeguard against the AWB renewal. But then you say...

I recall hearing that it wouldn't be Delay but Hastert who would pick the members of the committee, and he's made rumblings of not agreeing with Delay's position on the AWB. Two or three foul picks for the committee and we'd be under the AWB for another ten years.

Seems to be a contradiction...if the committees are the safeguard but Hastert may OK a AWB renewal, the renewal can very well still pass this year. Am I wrong? I'm not arguing here, just want to learn.

[Augustwest]

While I don't think they've taken a strong enough stand in the past, I don't hate the NRA.

But I am curious why they're being given so much credit for what happened yesterday. The 50+ Senators who voted to amend S1805 with a renewal of the AWB suddenly looked down at their Palm Pilots and decided to act according to Wayne LaPierre's wishes?

I think not. My guess is that it had much more to do with Larry Craig requesting that the Bill go down, and the fact that there was something bad for everyone in it that defeated it.

Again, nothin' against the NRA, but seems like they're be given way more credit than is reasonable by some here.

[kingfisher]

We wouldn't even be having this discussion if ten republicans had voted their constituents wishes. Instead they took the RNC money and stuck a knife in our backs. Was this all planned in advance? I can't answer that question. I've never found a tinfoil hat that fit.

In my mind the big question is our leadership or lack of it in the Senate. Mr. Frist needs to take some of these boys for a visit to the woodshed. IMO the line between Republican and Democrat has become so indistinct, that the voter must know how the candidate is going to vote on issues that are important before he goes to the voting booth. Party doesn't mean squat anymore. Representatives on both sides of the isle recieve votes because they look sharp and can lie convincingly. Character and spine are a thing of the past.

[Glock-A-Roo]

Regarding Senate support for a new, "clean" AWB bill, I think some here are missing an important point.

I think the reason so many senators voted for the AWB extension on yesterday's bill is that they could cover their butts w/ the lawsuit prevention side of the vote. They could say "yes, I voted to extend the AWB but look how supportive I was of the lawsuit provision...".

A clean, nothing-but-gun-control AWB will be much harder to defend by the very same senators. This is not to say that the FineSwine's won't try to attach an AWB extension to yet another popular bill, but I think it is very valid to say that a new, pure, clean AWB bill won't get near the senate support that yesterday's bill got.

[Hank Zudd]

It makes me dizzy sorting out the political & other aspects of this fight. I guess ya'll have got 4 months or 4 more years (till the dems regain more control?) to enjoy buying what you could'nt have. One thing puzzles me is if Di Fi (feinstien) represents ********** (which has extremely limited gun availablity re: restrictions) why does she need to be pushing this AWB? I know ,I know, but logically she should be sponsoring legislation representing the interests of **********ns. The gun manufactures lawsuit problem mainly keeps the price of guns high to pay for these lawsuits. Oh well, I guess one thing we can do is to make sure idots & other various criminal knuckleheads don't get anything in their hands that would let them do stupid & immoral things that would raise the public outcry (led by the media) against any gun ownership.

[USAFNoDAk]

I think people may have mentioned this already. If so, my apologies for being redundant.

I think the Democrats had to look at this S.1805 from two different perspectives, and that determined what they were willing to sacrifice and do.

Perspective #1. They knew in their hearts that none of the ammendments that they offered would really do anything at all as far as protecting children, families, the police, etc. These were nothing but left leaning, political-points-scoring, vehicles for the campaign season. They would be ecstatic if they could get all of these ammendments put into law, but only for political reasoning and to further their gun control agenda. They know these methods don't reduce crime, even though they WANT to believe that they would. Thus, these were wish lists, but not their number one priority.

Perspective #2. The junk lawsuits ban was a direct attack on one of their biggest financiers and backers, the trial lawyer guild. There was no way the democrats wanted to look weak and allow this to pass. It would have left political scars on their behinds that would have taken years to heal. This was the Dems holy grail. They had to do whatever it took to derail this thing, given the support it had on its own in the Senate. Thus, they went back to perspective #1 and decided it was worth the horse trade to give up the perspective #1 ammendments to make sure that they didn't lose on perspective #2.

So, we win a couple of short term victories for now, in hopefully allowing the AWB to sunset, no gun show loophole bill, and no hidden gun tax in the trigger lock ammendment. In payment, we leave the gun manufacturers still vulnerable to attack in the courts and their pocket books, which affects our pocket books.

A hidden win for the dems may be that by allowing more junk lawsuits to go forward, they can increase the cost of AWB's (and all guns for that matter), in order to reduce the number of new ones put into circulation.

Fineswine is thinking, in the terms of Ahhnold, the Governator, "Ahhllll be baaack". She will attempt this again when ever she gets a chance. Bet on it.

[dwkennedy]

I think the blame for yesterday's fiasco rests ultimately with the people who elected those rotten, freedom-hating Senators who voted for ridiculous, unconstitutional amendments.

My Senators from Oklahoma are 100% correct in their gun voting. One OK Senator is leaving office this year, and there are a dozen career politicians scrambling to capture his seat. I think the best thing I can do to preserve our gun rights is to make sure we send another 100%, A++ rated Senator to Washington.

You guys in California and New York might as well immigrate to another state that is more borderline, if you ever hope to make a difference in the Senate.

[ClonaKilty]

One thing puzzles me is if Di Fi (feinstien) represents ********** (which has extremely limited gun availablity re: restrictions) why does she need to be pushing this AWB? I know ,I know, but logically she should be sponsoring legislation representing the interests of **********ns

Look guys, being Anti-gun in Kalifornistan is the way to get elected there. In other words, most people in **** HATE GUNS. Also, the Left (i.e. Feinstein & Boxer) sees every political office as a way to enforce their views on the rest of America. Yes logically Senators are suppoosed to represent their own states, and this law would be moot in ****. But neither Feinstein nor Boxer see their roles as limited to governing ****. Nor, dare I say, do much of the **** electorate -- they're just as eager to turn the US into a welfare state for you as well as for themselves. After all, a welfare state doesn't work unless all are forced to comply.

That's how the Left works!

[joonya187]

I think Feinstein knows that a pure awb bill wouldn't get through.

As far as 1805, if it were targeted at manufacturers in general rather than just gun makers, it would have had a better chance of getting through. Then, if the dems tack anti-gun legislation to it, they'd look like single-issue haters.

[sturmruger]

Here is my take on what happened yesterday. For most gun owners the two big issues were the Gun MFG Liability, and the AWB Renewal. Both are topics that we feel very strongly about, but both have different time lines. I am sure all of the manufacturers would love to have relief from the crazy lawsuits that they are being subjected to and the sooner the better for them. Then there is the AWB it is due to sunset in 193 days. This is obviously more of a time critical issue. I believe the Sen. Craig and the GOP did the right thing in killing this bill. Why gamble on the House being able to take out all of the rotten amendments? Is it worth gambling this important issue? The antis have surprised us before I would hate to be surprised again.

I am so sick of the hearing people complain about the NRA. My job is such that I am able to listen to State and Federal legislative feeds on the internet. I was listening to, MO, WI, and MN whenever there was a critical vote or debate going on concerning CCW legislation. The last week I have been listening with rapped attention to what has been going on in the Senate. Besides the antis stupid whining the one thing that I heard from each and every state was the how much the antis hate the NRA. They talk about the NRA with a tone of inferiority, and fear. They know that the NRA is one of the most powerful lobbies in the country. Have I agreed with everything the NRA does? NO, but they are the best thing that has ever happened to the gun owners.

[El Rojo]

no hidden gun tax in the trigger lock ammendment.I find this quote amusing. Most guns already come with a gun lock at no cost and even if they did add it in there, I don't know how you would call it a tax. The money isn't going to the government unless you count the extra $.04 of sales tax added onto a $5 lock. The cost of the lock is going directly the the manufacturer. Now a $.05 tax on every round of ammunition, that is a gun tax.

You guys in California and New York might as well immigrate to another state that is more borderline, if you ever hope to make a difference in the Senate. DwKennedy. I know you probably mean well, but that your comment is exactly what is wrong with firearms owners perceptions towards my state. I am so tired of hearing it on this board. You are telling me to move to to Nevada or Arizona so I can make a difference in the senate. How in the hell am I going to do that? All four of those senators voted no on the AWB rider. I wouldn't be making a difference, I would just be able to feel better about myself and brag to all of my buddies that my senators are doing a good job.

The problem is all of the good people have left California. Now this is a commi, liberal state where we don't have much chance of getting a good conservative or heck a horrible conservative in office. And you want more of us to move out? I would think this Feinstein rider and her attitude would finally convince some of you know it alls out there that you need to have pro-gun, conservative voters take the likes of Feinstein and Boxer out of the senate. You sure as heck aren't going to get that to happen if all of us move out of California. And now you understand that one bad apple from my state can screw you guys over well. And a brilliant point was brought up, the extension of the AWB has nothing to do with her state. We already have it worse here. She is doing it just because she thinks she knows what is best for the rest of you. And to counter her you want to keep her in office by having me move out of the state and vote for senators that are already pretty much safe in their conservative districts?

PEOPLE OF THR! HEAR ME! YOU DON'T WANT THE GOOD PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA TO MOVE OUT! YOU WANT THEM TO STAY AND YOU WANT MORE GOOD PEOPLE TO MOVE IN. OTHERWISE, LOOK FORWARD TO MORE WONDERFUL YEARS OF FEINSTEIN AND BOXER!

And I'll be damned if I shed any tears for you guys if you ever have to live with any of these draconian gun laws. My response will be, "You need to move out of the United States and make a difference in a better country." :fire:

[Nestor]

If we the clean bill had passed, how long would it have be in force when the 9th declared it unconstitutinal on equal protection grounds

and as for cleaning it up in confernce - remember that NO man is safe while congress is in session

[Bruce H]

The ammemdment vote on S 1805 gives us a record of votes. Senators are on record as having voted a certain way. They will have a hard time spinning their vote with proof like this. I really don't care if no legislation gets passed before the elections. Lets sunset the AWB.

[Master Blaster]

What really needs to be passed is looser pays tort reform.

Not one of the third party liabaility suits against the gun manufacturers has been won to date. The fact is that you cant hold some one responsible for amn action in which they were not involved in any way. Thats why the suits have been thrown out of court. As far as product liabaility goes every manufacturere of any legal product has been sued over the misuse of that product by a third party, from an electric drill used by a drunk person to drill a hole in his own leg, to the idiot who spilled a hot cup of coffeee on themselves. Loser pays would put a stop to most of this nonsense.

Some folks will cry that loser pays will prevent contingency fee based suits from being brought on behalf of average americans. If the suit has merit there is some lawyer willing to risk it cuase there is alot of money to be made. Under the current system if a contingecy fee based suit is lost by the plaintiff the attorneys who brought the suit are out all of their costs, which can run into the millions. Loser pays will only up the anty slightly and result in some of the borderline suits not being brought.


The gun manufacturers need to agressively counter sue the municipalities bringing these frivolous suits, if they do and the municipalities lose that will put an end to this nonsense.

Even if 659 passed and was upheld by Federal courts, the trial attorneys could still allege crimminal action by the manufacturer, and that there was a product defect that contributed to the injury suffered by the plaintiff, even if there is no merit to the arguement.

The AWB is more important than 659 by a great deal, because it affects the consitutionaly protected God given rights of all Americans.

[ClonaKilty]

Even if 659 passed and was upheld by Federal courts, the trial attorneys could still allege crimminal action by the manufacturer, and that there was a product defect that contributed to the injury suffered by the plaintiff, even if there is no merit to the arguement.

This is a good point. In the Dix v. Berreta case -- the one about the Berkeley teen who shot his friend thinking the gun was empty -- the argument from Plaintiff was precisely that there was a gun defect.

Now, it was a ludricous assertion, but note that 1805 or 659 wouldn't have prevented the case.

[whoami]

Seems to be a contradiction...if the committees are the safeguard but Hastert may OK a AWB renewal, the renewal can very well still pass this year. Am I wrong? I'm not arguing here, just want to learn.

Call it an unintentional misstatement. It is not the committees, or more to the point the joint committees, that are the safeguard, but the House proper. There will not be (this session) another bill upon which the AWB can be attached to, and thus the only way to press the issue is for the AWB to come up as it's own legislation. Were that to happen in the Senate, judging by the AWB amendment vote, there's a good chance of it passing in the Senate. If that happens, the bill goes to the House, to the appropriate committee, for reading and discussion. It has been quite clearly stated by DeLay that no AWB will ever escape committee while he's around (and none of the bills in existence have as of yet), so there's no way a new bill could pass the House.

When I referred to the 'committee' in the second section of my post, I was speaking (and should have been more explicit on this point for the sake of clarity) of the joint Senate/House committee that would be formed had S 1805 passed. When a bill is passed in one house of Congress, but passed with amendments in the other, a committee of members of both houses is formed to discuss the bill, and decide on what form the bill will take if it reaches the President's desk. If a compromise is reached, that compromised bill is forwarded. If no compromise can be reached, the bill usually dies. There was a danger in letting an amended S 1805 go to that sort of committee....there is no formal committee to deal with such things, and the members are usually hand picked. In this case, it would be Dennis Hastert who would be selecting members from the House to join this committee, and he has in the past shown himself at odds with DeLay's position on the AWB. It could have created a situation where S 1805 would end up on the President's desk with the AWB still attached. And taking George Bush at his word, it would most likely have been signed.

As of right now, there is NO WAY, barring the truly unconscionable, for the AWB renewal to happen. There have been a number (at least 4 or 5) AWB bills introduced into the House this session, and they have all been languishing in Judiciary. They will not be coming out, because neither Sensenbrenner (head of Judiciary) nor DeLay will allow them to come to a vote. That pretty much locks down the normal legislative process for AWB legislation.

[dwkennedy]

PEOPLE OF THR! HEAR ME! YOU DON'T WANT THE GOOD PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA TO MOVE OUT! YOU WANT THEM TO STAY AND YOU WANT MORE GOOD PEOPLE TO MOVE IN. OTHERWISE, LOOK FORWARD TO MORE WONDERFUL YEARS OF FEINSTEIN AND BOXER!

And I'll be damned if I shed any tears for you guys if you ever have to live with any of these draconian gun laws. My response will be, "You need to move out of the United States and make a difference in a better country."

El Rojo,

I appreciate all you and other gun supporters are doing in CA to further the cause. We are all in this together. I don't seriously expect people to move from their home in one state, to another state that's teetering on the edge of electing a anti-gun senator, in the hope that a few more pro-gun votes will tip the balance. There is a more to deciding to uproot and move than that. Jobs, family ties, and lots of other inertia to overcome. I just thought I'd clear that up.

I didn't move away from California due to gun laws, rather family reasons, but living here in the land of relative freedom I'm not really keen on moving back. It was tempting back a few years ago when the high-tech recruiters were calling every day with job offers, but I valued my gun freedom and adequate job more than a high paying (and now vaporized) job with limited freedom. I do believe half of my net worth is in a form that wouldn't make it over the border, if you know what I mean...

Our forebearers made the choice to bail out of where ever they came from, and make a go at it here in America. But we are running out of places to escape. Unless you'd like to colonize Antarctica or the Moon, we're going to have to fight this right here. I don't think the US can long exist with urbanized gun-free zones on either coast, and people free to buy, sell, and possess guns in between. Something's going to give sooner or later.

The real root of our problems is an irrationally magnified fear of weapons in the hands of honest citizens. Until we stamp out the culture of ignorance that lets politicians get away with such performances as we've seen over that last few days, we'll all be hiding in an increasingly shrinking corner. Even Oklahoma has sent a couple of foolishly anti-gun representatives to Washington, and thank goodness a majority of us had the sense to kick them out. (one guy I'm thinking of never moved back, but stayed in DC... well, not DC, since our nation's capital is a violent slum, but in that area.)

The ultimate answer is to recruit: take people shooting, change their attitudes toward owning guns. Convince them to reject the doctrine of making themselves safer by trying to take away everyone else's guns. The spread of legalized concealed carry and continuing popularity of guns seems to indicate we're heading this direction.

[Sam Adams]

Here's my perspective:

It is interesting to note that only 8 traitors voted for the final bill. More interesting is who among the other traitors in the Senate did NOT vote for it: Feinstein, Schumer and Kerry. Gee, let's see: the authors of the AWB amendment to this bill, which was attached to the legislation, still didn't vote for it. Neither did the obvious Presidential candidate for the Thundering Herd of Jackasses, despite having voted for not only the AWB provision, but also McStain's gun-show-killing amendment. If these people had REALLY wanted these provisions in the law, they and their fellow travelers would have voted for it. The fact that they didn't says that they attached all of these amendments for one reason - to kill the underlying legislation. They want to kill the firearms industry, by hook or by crook, so desperately that they are willing to even sacrifice a gun ban for it. This says to me that they must think that they are losing, that this one tactic (death by lawsuit) is the only one that will allow them to win. That analysis makes me feel very much better than I felt yesterday morning, after the AWB and the gunshow provisions got attached. Now it not only appears that the AWB is on the way out, but the antis have revealed their true feelings - that they are scared.

Look, I don't like these absurd suits any more than anyone else. I, like you, pay more for guns and ammo because of the potential for (or reality of) baseless lawsuits. The judges are clearly NOT doing their jobs. But there have been no awards that have stuck on appeal. There will be none, because the moment a gun manufacturer is found liable for the criminal actions of someone not under their control, 10,000 lawyers are going to sue GM, Ford and every other car company for selling cars to drunk drivers. It won't - it CAN'T - happen, because if it does the economy goes down the crapper as commerce grinds to a halt. Thus, until a clean liability law IS passed (how about next year, after another 2-4 Senate Dems get promotions to the private sector), the only real cost will be the litigation cost. That's not nothing, and I certainly am not attempting to minimize it, but it is bearable.

What I would REALLY like to see is something similar to the unamended S.1805 that would protect ALL industries against suits arising from the criminal use of any product by anyone not controlled by any potential defendant. This would not only be far more just and nip a problem in the bud, but it would have the vocal (and financial) support of EVERY industry that produces tangible products. Let's see the Dems shoot that one down.