Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Guess I'd rather have DeMint than DeWine. 
7/28/05 Senate S.397 Discussion
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
- Status
RealGun
Member
It just occurred to me (duh!) that 30 is the headcount of true gun owner support in the Senate, whether political or not.
armoredman
Member
I still have the cable lock from CZ, so if I take it to the store, they can keep thiers, and not charge me? Just a thought....thankful it doesn't apply to rifles/milsurps.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
The summary of THIS amendment states it applies only to handguns. The bill from last year applied to all firearms.
We don't have any idea what the text of this amendment is yet. Only that Craig objected to it earlier saying it was broader than last year's amendment that passed and he would only waive his objection if the bill was similar to the original Kohl amendment offered last year.
We don't have any idea what the text of this amendment is yet. Only that Craig objected to it earlier saying it was broader than last year's amendment that passed and he would only waive his objection if the bill was similar to the original Kohl amendment offered last year.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
So basically every pro-gun Senator we elected in 2004 voted "No" on this... that's an encouraging trend if we can keep it up!
Hmmm..
Most handguns already have either an "Integrated Lock" like S&W revolvers and Rugers new Vaqueros, as well as Springfield 1911's, or have one of those cable-style locks in the box. I don't see this as a huge impact, unless the gun makers start gouging ahhhh. . .charging $30-$40 extra for a $1.50 lock.
Would rather not have had this amendment, but "ya can't always get what ya want..."
P.S> Hey, Mr. Bowman...do ya think we could trade both Dewine & Voinovich to RealGun for DeMint ? ? ?
Most handguns already have either an "Integrated Lock" like S&W revolvers and Rugers new Vaqueros, as well as Springfield 1911's, or have one of those cable-style locks in the box. I don't see this as a huge impact, unless the gun makers start gouging ahhhh. . .charging $30-$40 extra for a $1.50 lock.
Would rather not have had this amendment, but "ya can't always get what ya want..."
P.S> Hey, Mr. Bowman...do ya think we could trade both Dewine & Voinovich to RealGun for DeMint ? ? ?
KriegHund
Member
Oooh ooh lemme guess-
Kohl is the last name of a child that was killed by a handgun? Do i get the prize?
Actually im probably wrong, but it was fun anyways...
Kohl is the last name of a child that was killed by a handgun? Do i get the prize?
Actually im probably wrong, but it was fun anyways...
armoredman
Member
Just once, I want to see someone with brass dangles the size of cannon balls to propose a repeal of something huge, as anamendment to one of thier bills....
SmershAgent
Member
I agree in part, but I also think the AWB having been gone almost a year is a big factor too. Last time they debated lawsuit preemption, Feinswine and Chuckie were up there braying about how the Senate had only a matter of months to renew a vital public safety measure that has kept military style rapid-fire assault rifles off of the streets, thus thwarting the evil plans of drug dealers and terrorists.
Now, however, the AWB has largely dropped off the mainstream public's radar. Even its staunchest supporters would be hard pressed to take the floor with a straight face and pitch renewal in the same way they were able to get away with last year.
Taking an AWB out of the equation has left the dark side to beg and plead for things like trigger locks (and in Feinswine's dreamland, adding .50 BMG to the NFA).
Craig just said they will consider Levin's amendment, anyone get the text yet?
I don't remember from yesterday what it was supposed to cover.
Edited to add: Was his the one that would exempt LEO suits from this or the children's suits?
I don't remember from yesterday what it was supposed to cover.
Edited to add: Was his the one that would exempt LEO suits from this or the children's suits?
Can we get Larry Craig to introduce this amendment:
Proposed Amendment to S397 #2
Purpose: To allow for the import of repair and replacement parts only
SECTION 1.: Title 18 Chapter 44 Section 925 US Code is amended by:
(a) In section (d) subparagraph 3:
(1) striking the word ‘unlawful’ and replacing it with ‘lawful’
(2) inserting ‘parts,’ between ‘frame,‘ and ‘receiver’
Proposed Amendment to S397 #2
Purpose: To allow for the import of repair and replacement parts only
SECTION 1.: Title 18 Chapter 44 Section 925 US Code is amended by:
(a) In section (d) subparagraph 3:
(1) striking the word ‘unlawful’ and replacing it with ‘lawful’
(2) inserting ‘parts,’ between ‘frame,‘ and ‘receiver’
Johnnybgood
Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2005
- Messages
- 206
Lar-15
I sent your suggestion to Senator Craig. Maybe late in the day but who nows.
I sent your suggestion to Senator Craig. Maybe late in the day but who nows.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Yesterday, Levin was blabbing about how we need to make the language more specific to make clear who is NOT protected. He wants the criminal action to be to SOLE cause of the harm or death.
I think that this is a bad amendment. Let the law be overbroad at first. If we find a problen, we'll revisit to issue in a couple of years.
I think that this is a bad amendment. Let the law be overbroad at first. If we find a problen, we'll revisit to issue in a couple of years.
RealGun
Member
Hey, no deal! I campaigned for DeMint. He replaced ultra liberal Dem Hollings, so I am enjoying the fresh air.
p.s. I lived in Cleveland for 10 years, so don't haunt me.
RealGun
Member
This was definitely represented as a "for the children" amendment, and that will provide some a disingenuous defense of voting for it. Since merely providing the locks would solve nothing, one wise to their ways would have to project where they are headed with it. I don't have to tell you that when it is mandatory for a gun to be disabled when not on ones person, it is useless for self defense. The law will have reached into your bedroom and discouraged you from owning guns. It is pure anti-gun harassment.
NCGUN
Member
Amendment 1623
A. 1623 would solidify the difference between a 3rd party liability vs. Gun Manufacturer liability.
However, we know that gungrabbers will say that all examples of apparent 3rd party liabilty has ties back to GMs. Thus, the only way to debate this is a lawsuit. And, we are back at square one.
Michael
A. 1623 would solidify the difference between a 3rd party liability vs. Gun Manufacturer liability.
However, we know that gungrabbers will say that all examples of apparent 3rd party liabilty has ties back to GMs. Thus, the only way to debate this is a lawsuit. And, we are back at square one.
Michael
RealGun
Member
Levin is dishonest. If Bullseye Shooting Supply was liable for a robbery, the cost or lack of insurance would put them out of business, perhaps the real goal. These things are not as simple as they want to make them sound.
Stickjockey
Member
Do we have a rundown of who voted which way?
Cornyn: One gun mfg, Maverick Arms, employs aprox 150 workers. They cannot withstand the current onslaught of lawsuits against them for making a legal product. They know that rationality is often suspended in these cases as emotions run high, and they may have to pay. Talks about automobile industry. Guns can be used safely and lawfully, or misused. For the same reason a car mfg shouldn't be responsible for criminal acts with their lawful product, so too should gun mfg shouldn't be held responsible. These suits eventually mean that 2nd amendment rights are compromised. We should focus on those criminals who shouldn't have firearms. The effect of this amendment (whatever was up for debate) would undermine S.397
- Status