7/28/05 Senate S.397 Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reed: Talks about letter from S&W on the critical nature of this bill. Says they believe it is uncertain whether there will be an adverse effect from these cases. They're saying they don't think any of the cases will hurt them financially. They went on to say that they only incurred 4500 bucks in court costs for 9 months. Says S&W is reducing the reserves they have to deal with these claims. Shows chart showing decline in litigation against them. There is no flood of cases. (Yeah, but it only takes only lucky hit to sink the ship) These suits are not an epidemic, only 57 of 10 mil suits were against gun industry. Claims that hundreds of mil are being spent in defense has no factual data in support.

Durbin (I hate this man so much): Waaah, wahh, we set aside the Defense bill, we're hurting orphans and soldiers, vets, and Guard/Reserve. What was on the floor when Repubs moved to this special interest bill?

Reed: Talks about amdts to Defense bill. (Ya know Dems, if you were so damned concerned, maybe you wouldn't have dragged your feet on all this)
 
Looks like another drama play between Durbin and another Dem. Ya know, it reminds me of those informericals, with the fake conversations talking about the product and deal at hand, trying to convince the viewer.

"Ok, how much does it cost, Reed? 50, 100 dollars?"

*crowd boos*

"No Durbin! If you act now, you can get all this for just 15 easy payments of $49.95!"
 
Durbin - dumbass hypotheticals

Same tired, disingenuous, well-refuted arguments. They sound desparate.
 
Durbin: So if somebody owned a daycare, and hired an employee with a long record of sex offenses with no background check, and said employee harmed a child at center, I think many would argue the daycare was negligent. Then we have mfg who hired felons, who stole guns which were then used to harm people. This bill would say you can sue the daycare, but not the mfg.

Reed: That's my understanding. The gun industry is very unregulated. "Act now, and I'll throw in this egg slicer... AT NO ADDITIONAL COST!"

*crowd oohs and aahs*
 
The nice thing about Durbin and Reed doing their regurgitation act on stuff that has been addressed repeatedly before is that I don't have to bother typing it all out. You've heard before, earlier in these debates, and even last time this bill was up for debate. :)
 
Tonight, when the Democrats are whining about the Amendments, I wonder if they will remember this Drama they are having now that is wasting time.
 
Nightfall,
I hope you don't mind, I used your roleplay of Mr. and Mrs Reed-Durbin on my website, with proper reference back to you of course :)
 
damn, after hearing all this bs, if there was a law making it perjury to lie on the floor of the House or Senate, the dems would have much less to say about this issue. :banghead:
 
DeWine: I opposed this bill last time because it denied gun crime victims their day in court. It singled out a group of victims, and set them apart. Unfortunately S.397 is no better today. In fact, it's worse. This bill also prevents fed and state agencies from shutting down FFLs who violate the law. I have great respect for legitimate FFLs. These dealers are responsible, insuring that guns aren't lost. This bill would not help them. Responsible dealers don't need this bill. Cases filed against those who have done no wrong are already tossed out. Who will benefit from S.397? Dealers and mfg who are irresponsible. Talks about DC sniper cases, Bullseye, etc. Their suit was successful, the dealer who would have been proven negligent had to settle for millions. If this bill had been in effect, the victims would have had no recourse. Talks about Kahr case. Says perp bragged about walking out with sterile guns easily. If S.397, the victim of one of these guns will be out of court. It guts civil liability law.
 
does anybody have details of the Kahr case? feel free to pm me if you have info but don't want to jack the thread (too much)

also, isn't it pretty simple for the ATF to revoke an FFL? If there was any wrongdoing (and the ATF was doing its job), wouldn't the FFL be revoked?
 
Nightfall,
I hope you don't mind, I used your roleplay of Mr. and Mrs Reed-Durbin on my website, with proper reference back to you of course
Click to expand...
No prob, quote all you'd like friend.
 
DeWine: Talks about studying law, and the difference between criminal and civil law. Under this bill, victim cannot sue a dealer without showing he violated the law. This is a fundamental change for this one group of defendants. A plaintiff would have to demonstrate that a dealer broke criminal law. Why not just pass this law for everybody? That any civil suit must show a violation of criminal law? I don't see anybody in favor of doing that. Yet they want to do it for one set of victims. There is new provision in S.397 that may curtail BATFE abilities to enforce on the book laws. Quotes forum ATF directors saying S.397 would likely prohibit ATF proceedings to revoke FFL, even when he provides weapons to criminals. What in the world are we thinking? We all agree it's important to enforce laws on the books, so why are we making it harder for ATF to shut down dangerous dealers? It shields a certain group from liability, and overturns hundreds of years of common law, and would fundamentally change our justice system. Why are we about to do this? I can count, I know how this vote is going to turn out. It still doesn't make it right, it doesn't mean it is the right bill for our country, our people, or the victims. I say this again. I predict this bill will get rid of some frivolous lawsuits. But mark my words, if this bill passes, than in the future there will be a case so egregious, so bad, it will sicken your stomach, and Senators will read about it and say "I didn't intend to do that."
 
DeWine: This bill is retroactive, it would kick existing cases out of court. How dare we do that? Did we really get elected that crime victims have frivolous cases dismissed without even hearing them? There will be talk during the Roberts nomination of division of powers. But what about legislative restraint? We get mad when the SC tells us we didn't have the power to pass a bill. We should remember what our role is. Nobody elected us to the Senate to bar their ability to go to court. But to say we can't go into, we should think long and hard before we do this. It kicks people out who have already survived dismissal efforts. The courts and juries should decide these cases. I don't think it's my job to judge these cases. It's not my job to determine if somebody is negligent or not, or if a victim has a right to present a case to judge and jury. This bill creates two classes of victims in this country. After this bill, if you're injured by the gun industry, you're out of luck. Other industries face lawsuits they don't like. But they aren't here petitioning us to pass a law of someone to sue them. I support the 2nd, I support individual rights to own guns, I support gun mfg/dealers, and tort reform. I understand there are system abuses. But what we're about to do is wrong, this bill keeps victims out of court all together. It creates a horrible precedent. What's to stop us in the future from protecting another group?
 
'Sheets" Byrd is up and quoting poetry and the Bible!!!!!!!!!!

My head is about to explode! AIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
 
...shoveling........snow.... :D

seriously though, why do the Senate rules allow rambling like this? He's been talking for 15 minutes and hasn't said a damn thing that's relevant to any bill.
 
What in the heck is "Grand Wizard" Robert Byrd talking about up there???

He sounds like he's doing a Garrison Keillor parody..... :banghead:
 
oh. my. God.

I can't believe he just stood there talking for half an hour and never said anything even remotely relevant to the bill! :what: Seriously, what is wrong with that man?
 
Well, they aren't passing any amendments that way so no complaints from me. Though I'd like to read that and a roll call vote on cloture for S.1042 back to the Dems every time they complain about how they stopped working on S.1042 to pursue this bill and how urgent S.1042 is.
 
Warner offers an amendment that Craig says is similar to the Levin Amendment that was just disposed of and objects to the amendment at this time.
 
Craig and Reed both talking about hoping to get this done before Sat, how all amendments are in and being considered.

Warner: Asks for unanimous consent that his amdt be considered.

Craig: My concern is that Warner's amdt is similar to Levin's amdt. While there are differences, it is important that in their similarities it is noted the Senate rejected this by a large margin. I object to laying aside the pending amdt.
 
Warner: I'm fully aware of the situation. I have grave reservations relating to the dealers. I have here an amdt that is clearly germane (he just inquired and was told such). I supported Levin's goal, but my bill is quite different. His amdt would cause the industry to suffer death by a thousand cuts, but my amdt does not gut the bill. I recognize that 99% of dealers don't want to be involved in any way with a firearm used in a crime. My amdt focuses on those dealers who have lost firearms. If a dealer has a record of firearms winding up in the hands of criminals, than they should not have the benefits of S.397. My amdt doesn't effect the protections except for that narrow category of dealers with mismanaged businesses with missing weapons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
7/27/05 Senate | S. 397
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Replies
200
Views
9K
Bartholomew Roberts
B
B
  • Locked
Daily Highlights of S.397 Debate
Replies
4
Views
1K
Bartholomew Roberts
B
B
  • Locked
7/29/05 - Senate S.397 Discussion
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Replies
257
Views
15K
Stickjockey
S
B
  • Locked
S.397 Being Debated Right Now!
2 3 4 5
Replies
122
Views
5K
Bartholomew Roberts
B
L
  • Locked
Question on S 397
Replies
3
Views
337
LAR-15
L
Back
Top