Warner: Rises to support this amendment. He's trying to bring a measure of relief to doctors, educators, etc. that need help. Levin is reaching back to common law fundamentals. Talks about his amendment which is filed. Is concerned that gun dealers need this protection. (Funny, I don't remember him having these kind words last time this was up for debate). Says his amdt allows litigation against dealers with history of selling crime guns. Gets huffy about Bullseye. He says they would be protected under this legislation. Believes both his and Levin's amdt is germane.
7/28/05 Senate S.397 Discussion
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
- Status
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Warner (R-VA) is speaking in support of the Levin amendment. 
This is a big loophole that will allow bad lawsuits to persist unless the ONLY cause is the criminal act. I hope that the fence sitters don't bail if this huge loophole is not inserted.
This is a big loophole that will allow bad lawsuits to persist unless the ONLY cause is the criminal act. I hope that the fence sitters don't bail if this huge loophole is not inserted.Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Kyl (R-AZ) is pointing out how broad this amendment would be. I hope reason prevails over emotion.
Kyl: This amdt is a poison pill for entire bill. All you have to do is accuse gross negligence, and undercuts the purpose of S.397. Talks about definition of gross negligence. This is a highly regulated industry, and most of the acts that would be gross negligence are already violations of law. Thus, they would not be exempt under this bill. Bottom line, if there really is a problem, no lawsuit is precluded. Urges for vote against Levin amdt.
RealGun
Member
I can offer some I recall hearing.
Coburn - No
DeMint - No
Graham - No
Thune - No
McCain - Aye
Sessions - No
Dole - No
Mikulski - Aye
Kennedy - Aye
Martinez - No
Santorum - Aye
Frist - Aye
Boxer - Aye
Inouye - Aye
Byrd - Aye
Lincoln - Aye
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Graham (R-SC) now speaking truth and reason. Compares to a food company being responsible to follow you home and make sure you don't eat too much.
Back to Levin. Lost sound...
Back to Levin. Lost sound...
Graham: I think this is a defining cultural moment in our country. Generally speaking, the first thing you have to establish in lawsuits of negligence is that they had a duty and failed in such. S.397 doesn't let a seller off the hook for violating law, or a mfg for defective product. This bill prevents establishing a responsibility for an event you can't control, such as intended misuse of weapon in a criminal fashion. If that ever happens, this country has made a major change in the way we relate to each other and the law. There are efforts to hold food mfgs responsible if you buy a product and eat too much of it. They would have mfgs responsible for you after you walk out the door with their product. This bill is important and needs to be passed, lest we undermine our country.
Levin: Of course you shouldn't be responsible if you do everything right. But if you're negligent and it is a proximate cause of injury, why should mfg or dealer be immune then? Of course you shouldn't be held for the wrong doing of other people. You should be held responsible for your OWN negligence. This bill eliminates rights. There is no other industry with this immunity, for the first time in American or tort history. You can perpetrate an act of gross negligence and not be held accountable.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Here is a link to the vote on the Kohl Amendment (also see the Highlights thread tacked in the top of L&P)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00207
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00207
Durbin: Talks about kid walking to school, shot in face by gangster, and died. The reason I bring it up is because Levin's amdt addresses this tragedy. The obvious question is where did gang member get his gun? He got it from American Gun and Lock Company. He walked in with his girlfriend, and said she wanted to buy some guns. So FFL sees this, and decides to charge handling fee. They knew what was going on, and so they sold the gun. Did the gun dealer do anything wrong? (YES, THIS WAS A VIOLATION OF STRAW PURCHASE LAW AND THUS OPEN TO SUIT! MORON!) Talks about how family of boy should be able to go to court and demand responsibility from dealer, but S.397 will never allow that. We're saying sorry, you don't have the right to go to court against this dealer.
Craig: We've heard some fascinating arguments on both sides on Levin amdt. It's clear that if it became part of S.397 and it became law, it would be relatively useless as protection for legal gun mfg and dealers.
Graham: A criminal comes in and purchases a gun through a GF, what would happen? Well if the dealer knew this, they would be liable. You wouldn't want to hold him liable though, if you had no way of knowing these things were about to happen. If a person about to make a sale should have known something was afoot, they can be held responsible. But if you had no knowledge of such, you're not responsible.
Craig: The last number of years the law abiding gun mfgs and dealers performing within confines of FFL have spent over 225 mil defending themselves from the very arguments Levin would like to have continue. There is a duty and responsibility, but if that duty is taken beyond your ability to know it and act for it, you should not be responsible. We have become very litigious, and it has cost us more because we would like to shove the blame on somebody else. So it's gonna cost you more because the producer has to pay legal fees to protect against actions brought by somebody who should have been responsible for themselves. On the course of the next few years, this is going to be argued for a lot of law-abiding citizens/mfgs. Oh my goodness, we can't hold somebody responsible, it's society or their environment. Many of our parents suggested that we would pay the price for our actions. The argument goes on and on. So, we are the only nation that doesn't have gov't weapons factory. If we choose to run them out of America, than all of the guns used by mil and LE and citizens will be made in some other nation. I don't believe that's where our country, or the majority of the Senate wants to go. Calls for opposition to Levin amdt.
Graham: A criminal comes in and purchases a gun through a GF, what would happen? Well if the dealer knew this, they would be liable. You wouldn't want to hold him liable though, if you had no way of knowing these things were about to happen. If a person about to make a sale should have known something was afoot, they can be held responsible. But if you had no knowledge of such, you're not responsible.
Craig: The last number of years the law abiding gun mfgs and dealers performing within confines of FFL have spent over 225 mil defending themselves from the very arguments Levin would like to have continue. There is a duty and responsibility, but if that duty is taken beyond your ability to know it and act for it, you should not be responsible. We have become very litigious, and it has cost us more because we would like to shove the blame on somebody else. So it's gonna cost you more because the producer has to pay legal fees to protect against actions brought by somebody who should have been responsible for themselves. On the course of the next few years, this is going to be argued for a lot of law-abiding citizens/mfgs. Oh my goodness, we can't hold somebody responsible, it's society or their environment. Many of our parents suggested that we would pay the price for our actions. The argument goes on and on. So, we are the only nation that doesn't have gov't weapons factory. If we choose to run them out of America, than all of the guns used by mil and LE and citizens will be made in some other nation. I don't believe that's where our country, or the majority of the Senate wants to go. Calls for opposition to Levin amdt.
Hatch: This amdt would gut the gun liability bill. It would actually expand the number of lawsuits dramatically. This amdt would allow anti-gun lawyers to claim the mfgs know their guns will be used harmfully. This amdt is not needed, as any act of negligence would already be a violation of law. We defeated this amdt soundly last year, I urge them to defeat it again.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Hatch is up and calls a spade a spade. This amendment would gut the intent of the bill (but the antis knew that) and actually expand exposure to liability.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Hatch also points out this amendment got defeated soundly last year and calls for it to go down in flames again.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Quorum call in the lead up for the vote.
NCGUN
Member
its over if this passes.
RealGun
Member
They are not voting for the Levin amendment. They are voting "to table it", as in kill it.
NCGUN
Member
my bad, will the vote record still be recorded at the previous senate.gov URL that Bart provided if it's tabled?
CTRL-ALT-DEL
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2005
- Messages
- 27
Looks like Levin's amendment will go down in flames.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
NCGUN, any recorded vote in the Senate will show up at that link.
Studduck
Member
I Surely Missed Something
I thought the "tree" was full. How was Levin's amdt even considered? Someone 'splain it to me!!!
I thought the "tree" was full. How was Levin's amdt even considered? Someone 'splain it to me!!!
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Amendments can be offered if the Senate Leader approves them. We still need 60 votes to get cloture and letting someone offer an amendment (especially one that got defeated soundly in the same scenario last year) in return for support for cloture can sometimes help.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Yes; but the vote won't be available online for awhile.
- Status