appeared in 10 October www.wnd.com

Status
Not open for further replies.

alan

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,601
Location
sowest pa.
GOP senator's bill seeks protection for gun makers




ASSOCIATED PRESS
After years of fending off lawsuits, firearms makers appear close to getting Congress to protect them from lawsuits seeking to bankrupt them by make them pay damages for gun crimes.
Sen. Larry E. Craig, Idaho Republican, has 44 Republican co-sponsors for his bill to immunize gun manufacturers and distributors from lawsuits arising out of the use of guns in crimes.
Despite a threatened filibuster by some Democrats, the bill also has the support of 10 Democrats, among them Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, who is up for re-election in 2004.
"It is a misuse of the civil justice system to try to punish honest, law-abiding people for illegal acts committed by others without their knowledge or involvement," Mr. Daschle said two weeks ago.
He began promoting the lawsuit-ban after gun supporters agreed to specify that firearms manufacturers and distributors would not be protected from lawsuits involving defective products or illegal sales.
Since 1998, at least 33 municipalities, counties and states have sued gun makers, many claiming that manufacturers, through irresponsible marketing, allowed weapons to reach criminals. None of the suits have yet to result in a manufacturer or distributor paying any damages.
Thirty-three states already have laws on the books exempting gun manufacturers and distributors from such suits. The House in April passed the bill to extend the prohibition on such suits nationwide and President Bush has said he would sign it.
The bill has been blocked by the promise of a filibuster by gun-control advocates among Senate Democrats. To end a filibuster requires the votes of 60 senators, and Mr. Craig said that with 10 Democrats now on his side, he was confident that five of the six Republican senators who are not co-sponsors of the bill will supply the votes he needs to break any filibuster.
"I think I have my 60 votes to proceed when necessary," Mr. Craig said.
Gun-control advocates say they still plan to lobby the issue heavily in the hope of changing a few minds in the Senate.
"Why does the gun industry deserve special protection?" said Dennis Henigan, legal director of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Mr. Henigan is working on lawsuits filed by nine families of Washington-area sniper victims against Bulls Eye Shooter Supply of Tacoma, Wash., which said it lost the .223-caliber Bushmaster AR-15 carbine found with sniper defendants John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo.
They have sued the store and the weapon manufacturer, Bushmaster Firearms Inc. of Windham, Maine, for damages.
Gun rights groups say firearms makers shouldn't be forced to spend millions of dollars fending off lawsuits designed only to bankrupt them for making a legal product.
"We have no problem with people going after those who knowingly violate the law," said Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association. But "in recent years, we've seen the gun-ban groups and the trial lawyers try to litigate this industry out of existence."

Posters note:

The following, is excerpted from the foregoing. " He began promoting the lawsuit-ban after gun supporters agreed to specify that firearms manufacturers and distributors would not be protected from lawsuits involving defective products or illegal sales." It appears that "he" is Senator Tom Daschel, double-talker of the first water.

Having read the text of both House and Senate versions of this legislative proposal, these stipulations were already contained in the text, as memory serves.
 
It appears that "he" is Senator Tom Daschel, double-talker of the first water.
Is he up for election in 2004? He's been pretty quiet for a while, but before that he was listing real hard to port. I suspect he's just trying to move towards the middle a bit for his constituents and this is really a pretty safe bill for him to vote for.
 
Senator Daschle is indeed up for election in 2004. Problem is it is looking bad for his re-election since in 2000 South Dakota went 4 square for Dubya.

'nother factoid is the good senator purchased a nice house in Washington. What that has historically demonstrated is the subject congressman is ready to give up his residency in a state to become a full-time lobbiest in DC.

My state's senior senator, John Edwards, purchased a really nice house befitting a well-heeled ambulance chaser about a year ago. I predicted then he was not going to go for re-election to the senate. Within the last month he has declined to run again in NC.

I'll predict now that Daschle will term limit himself.
 
What I would like to see with this bill is a repeat of the '86 Hughes Amendment but in reverse.:D

For example, at the last minute we could tack on a repeal of the machine gun freeze, repeal the "sporting use" of the '68 SSA or mandate federal preemption of all gun laws.:D
 
Fellow posters, a couple of points:

1. If Daschel is gone from the Senate, nothing lost from the view point of our side. Of course, it all depends on who it is that replaces him.

2. As for federal pre-emption of gun laws, please keep the following in mind. Be careful of what you wish for, you might get it. The National Firearms Act of 1934 is FEDERAL LAW, as is the Gun Control Act of 1968, to mention just a couple of the numerous examples of legislative trash, ala the national legislature, otherwise known as the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate.

3. Those who mistakenly picture Bush as "pro-gun" need to take a closer look at the things he has said. His father never made it to the U.S. Senate, due to the fact that as a Congressman from Houston, he voed for GCA'68, being I believe, the ONLY Texas member to so do. Then as president, there was his most interesting "executive order" re imported firearms (rifles), and all the baloney that came forth from Bill Bennet, his appointee. I have very serious question concerning how far the younger apple fell from the tree. Of course, I could be wrong, I don't think so, in this case..
 
Then as president, there was his most interesting "executive order" re imported firearms (rifles), and all the baloney that came forth from Bill Bennet, his appointee.

It wasn't an executive order, it was a full fledged law, if I'm not mistaken. The Archangel Bill Bennet definitely gets my contempt, though.
 
What I would like to see with this bill is a repeat of the '86 Hughes Amendment but in reverse.
You would have to do that to a bill that the antis really wanted, deserved, and were about to get, I doubt that will happen when the slightly pro gun side is in power.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top