Congress Passes "Gun Industry Shield"

[fletcher]

Didn't see it posted yet (came out ~10 minutes ago), but this looks quite good.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051020/ap_on_go_co/congress_guns

WASHINGTON - Congress gave the gun lobby its top legislative priority Thursday, passing a bill that would protect the firearms industry from massive lawsuits brought by crime victims. The White House says President Bush will sign it into law.

ADVERTISEMENT

The House voted 283-144 to send the bill to the president after supporters, led by the National Rifle Association, proclaimed it vital to protect the industry from being bankrupted by huge jury awards. Opponents, waging a tough battle against growing public support for the legislation, called it proof of the gun lobby's power over the Republican-controlled Congress.

"This legislation will make the unregulated gun industry the most pampered industry in America," said Kristen Rand, director of the Violence Policy Center.

Under the measure, about 20 pending lawsuits by local governments against the industry would be dismissed. The Senate passed the bill in July.

The bill's passage was the NRA's top legislative priority and would give Bush and his Republican allies on Capitol Hill a rare victory at a time when some top GOP leaders are under indictment or investigation.

"Lawsuits seeking to hold the firearms industry responsible for the criminal and unlawful use of its products are brazen attempts to accomplish through litigation what has not been achieved by legislation and the democratic process," House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., told his colleagues.

Propelled by GOP election gains and the incidents of lawlessness associated with the passing of Hurricane Katrina, support for the bill has grown since a similar measure passed the House last year and was killed in the Senate.

Horrific images of people without the protection of public safety in New Orleans made a particular impression on viewers who had never before felt unsafe, according to the gun lobby.

"Americans saw a complete collapse of the government's ability to protect them," said Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president.

"That burnt in, those pictures of people standing there defending their lives and defending their property and their family," he added, "where the one source of comfort was a firearm."

With support from four new Republicans this session of Congress, the bill passed the Senate for the first time in July. House passage never was in doubt because it had 257 co-sponsors, far more than the 218 needed to pass.

The bill's authors say it still would allow civil suits against individual parties who have been found guilty of criminal wrongdoing by the courts.

Opponents say the strength of the bill's support is testament to the influence of the gun lobby. If the bill had been law when the relatives of six victims of convicted Washington-area snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo sued the gun dealer from which they obtained their rifle, the dealer would not have agreed to pay the families and victims $2.5 million.

"It is shameful that Republicans in Congress are pushing legislation that guarantees their gun-dealing cronies receive special treatment and are above the law," said Rep. Robert Wexler (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.

Bush has said he supports the bill, which would prohibit lawsuits against the firearms industry for damages resulting from the unlawful use of a firearm or ammunition. Gun makers and dealers still would be subject to product liability, negligence or breach of contract suits, the bill's authors say.

Democrats and Republicans alike court the NRA at election time, and the bill has garnered bipartisan support. But the firearms industry still gave 88 percent of its campaign contributions, or $1.2 million, to Republicans in the 2004 election cycle.

Gun control advocates, meanwhile, gave 98 percent of their contributions, or $93,700, to Democrats that cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

___

The bill is S. 397.

 

[NCP24]

Whats the catch?

 

[El Tejon]

Hoozah!!!

Immunity for the gun makers; strict liability for the media!

Now we need a bill holding the media accountable! Strict liability for the media in cases of criminals using information gathered from the media in their crimes. Do it for the children!

 

[TexasRifleman]

Whats the catch?

Well, in one version there was a lock requirement for sales of guns, don't know if that survived into the final version.

My favorite is:

If the bill had been law when the relatives of six victims of convicted Washington-area snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo sued the gun dealer from which they obtained their rifle, the dealer would not have agreed to pay the families and victims $2.5 million.

And why should the dealer have had to pay? He broke no laws in the sale of that rifle, and had no part
in the shooting. These idiots answer their own question without even knowing it.

Should we sue the bus dealer that sold the bus that caught fire during the Houston evacuation?
Of course not.

This is not about guns, this is about lawsuit reform. Hopefully other businesses will be able to get similar things passed for their industries.

 

[Silver Bullet]

The White House says President Bush will sign it into law.

I hope the folks in another thread who are advocating Hillary for 2008 "for gridlock" will take note of this.

And, those folks who claim there is no significant difference between the parties. Would Kerry have signed this ?

 

[woerm]

H.r.3058

it also appears that the house forwarded the stuff to kill the DC gun ban but I can't find a reference in the text.

where is the part about the dc gunban in the legislation?

does anyone here know. my misrep's staff was clueless.

r

edit grr found it myself:
32. H.AMDT.425 to H.R.3058 Amendment prohibits funds from being used to enforce section 703 of the District of Columbia Firearms Control Act which requires certain firearms to be unloaded and disassembled.
Sponsor: Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] (introduced 6/30/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 6/30/2005 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Souder amendment (A032) Agreed to by recorded vote: 259 - 161, 1 Present (Roll no. 349).

appears that this is being considered by the senate now:
Latest Major Action: 10/19/2005 Senate floor actions. Status: Considered by Senate.
House Reports: 109-153; Senate Reports: 109-109
Note: District of Columbia appropriations were inserted as Division B in H.R. 3058 on 10/18/2005 by S.Amdt. 2071. S. 1446 was the District of Columbia appropriations bill in the Senate.

r

 

[JohnBT]

"And why should the dealer have had to pay? He broke no laws in the sale of that rifle,..."

I believe the rifle was stolen and they didn't even know it.

JT

 

[boofus]

Guess what? When W signs it, the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right. Argument over. We win, grabbers lose. Suck it brady, clinton, kennedy, kerry, schumer, feinstein, mccarthy, lautenberg, obama, mckinney, jackson-lee, boxer, waters, sugarman, moore, o'donnell, sarandon and the rest of those liberal slime. Booyah!

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

(a) FINDINGS.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

Now we can see if John Roberts and Miers will clean house in the 9th Circus court where some activist judges still defiantly and in violation of US federal law claim that the 2nd amendment is a 'collective' right of the state government.

 

[Yanus]

If W's handlers are smart, the signing of this bill will be a major media event. This will help conservatives FAR MORE than you can imagine. It will also help W's numbers.

Yanus

 

[Rob1035]

I'm excited about this, but "the battle for liberties is never won", so we can't rest on our butts....

 

[rick_reno]

(a) FINDINGS.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

"shall not be infringed" - Is there ANYONE here who doubts that our rights with respect to arms are infringed? Why don't they fix some of the infringements?

 

[Third_Rail]

Holy moly, boofus! That's right, we win THAT argument at least!

 

[Camp David]

This will help conservatives FAR MORE than you can imagine...

I hope they realize it... some of these alleged conservatives are beating the leader of the party up over his latest pick for the Supreme Court that they've ignored all else! This Bill is great! Bravo!

 

[greyhound]

Gun makers and dealers still would be subject to product liability, negligence or breach of contract suits, the bill's authors say.

Gee, I never hear the opponents of the bill mention this. By most accounts I thought it was total immunity from everything for the "Republicans' gun-dealing cronies".

 

[Kurush]

I checked Thomas, they passed the Senate version with the anti-gun amendments. Ugh.

 

[Bobarino]

The Catch:

SEC. 5. CHILD SAFETY LOCKS.

(a) SHORT TITLE- This section may be cited as the `Child Safety Lock Act of 2005'.

(b) PURPOSES- The purposes of this section are--

(1) to promote the safe storage and use of handguns by consumers;

(2) to prevent unauthorized persons from gaining access to or use of a handgun, including children who may not be in possession of a handgun; and

(3) to avoid hindering industry from supplying firearms to law abiding citizens for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting.

(c) FIREARMS SAFETY-

(1) MANDATORY TRANSFER OF SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:

`(z) SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided under paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun to any person other than any person licensed under this chapter, unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device (as defined in section 921(a)(34)) for that handgun.

`(2) EXCEPTIONS- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

`(A)(i) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, the United States, a department or agency of the United States, a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, of a handgun; or

`(ii) the transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a handgun for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off duty); or

`(B) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State of a handgun for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);

`(C) the transfer to any person of a handgun listed as a curio or relic by the Secretary pursuant to section 921(a)(13); or

`(D) the transfer to any person of a handgun for which a secure gun storage or safety device is temporarily unavailable for the reasons described in the exceptions stated in section 923(e), if the licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer delivers to the transferee within 10 calendar days from the date of the delivery of the handgun to the transferee a secure gun storage or safety device for the handgun.

`(3) LIABILITY FOR USE-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun, and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device with the handgun, shall be entitled to immunity from a qualified civil liability action.

`(B) PROSPECTIVE ACTIONS- A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.

`(C) DEFINED TERM- As used in this paragraph, the term `qualified civil liability action'--

`(i) means a civil action brought by any person against a person described in subparagraph (A) for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of the handgun by a third party, if--

`(I) the handgun was accessed by another person who did not have the permission or authorization of the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun to have access to it; and

`(II) at the time access was gained by the person not so authorized, the handgun had been made inoperable by use of a secure gun storage or safety device; and

`(ii) shall not include an action brought against the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun for negligent entrustment or negligence per se.'.

(2) CIVIL PENALTIES- Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking `or (f)' and inserting `(f), or (p)'; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

`(p) PENALTIES RELATING TO SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE-

`(1) IN GENERAL-

`(A) SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF LICENSE; CIVIL PENALTIES- With respect to each violation of section 922(z)(1) by a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer, the Secretary may, after notice and opportunity for hearing--

`(i) suspend for not more than 6 months, or revoke, the license issued to the licensee under this chapter that was used to conduct the firearms transfer; or

`(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty in an amount equal to not more than $2,500.

`(B) REVIEW- An action of the Secretary under this paragraph may be reviewed only as provided under section 923(f).

`(2) ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES- The suspension or revocation of a license or the imposition of a civil penalty under paragraph (1) shall not preclude any administrative remedy that is otherwise available to the Secretary.'.

(3) LIABILITY; EVIDENCE-

(A) LIABILITY- Nothing in this section shall be construed to--

(i) create a cause of action against any Federal firearms licensee or any other person for any civil liability; or

(ii) establish any standard of care.

(B) EVIDENCE- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, evidence regarding compliance or noncompliance with the amendments made by this section shall not be admissible as evidence in any proceeding of any court, agency, board, or other entity, except with respect to an action relating to section 922(z) of title 18, United States Code, as added by this subsection.

(C) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to bar a governmental action to impose a penalty under section 924(p) of title 18, United States Code, for a failure to comply with section 922(z) of that title.

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE- This section and the amendments made by this section shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.



SEC. 6. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.

(a) Unlawful Acts- Section 922(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking paragraphs (7) and (8) and inserting the following:

`(7) for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, unless--

`(A) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;

`(B) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the purpose of exportation; or

`(C) the manufacture or importation of such ammunition is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General;

`(8) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver armor piercing ammunition, unless such sale or delivery--

`(A) is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;

`(B) is for the purpose of exportation; or

`(C) is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General;'.

(b) Penalties- Section 924(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(5) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided under this subsection, or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries armor piercing ammunition, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses armor piercing ammunition, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime or conviction under this section--

`(A) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 15 years; and

`(B) if death results from the use of such ammunition--

`(i) if the killing is murder (as defined in section 1111), be punished by death or sentenced to a term of imprisonment for any term of years or for life; and

`(ii) if the killing is manslaughter (as defined in section 1112), be punished as provided in section 1112.'.

(c) Study and Report-

(1) STUDY- The Attorney General shall conduct a study to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible.

(2) ISSUES TO BE STUDIED- The study conducted under paragraph (1) shall include--

(A) variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or center-fire rifle from which the projectile is fired; and

(B) the amount of powder used to propel the projectile.

(3) REPORT- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a report containing the results of the study conducted under this subsection to--

(A) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and

(B) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.
Passed the Senate July 29, 2005.

 

[Third_Rail]

(A) variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or center-fire rifle from which the projectile is fired; and

(B) the amount of powder used to propel the projectile.

This could be used to say "all rifles are now illegal, as are all pistols/revolvers with a barrel over X inches, and all cartridges using over X grains of powder". Ouch.

 

[fletcher]

`(8) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver armor piercing ammunition, unless such sale or delivery--

`(A) is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;

`(B) is for the purpose of exportation; or

`(C) is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General;'.

Does that mean no more steel core 7.62x54r?

 

[Kharn]

Fletcher:
The AP ammo amendment was just restating current US law (with more severe penalties for using AP during crime) and requiring the DOJ to do an AP study (which the NIJ branch of the DOJ has been doing since the early 1970s), the ban is not expanded, no new ammo has been banned.

Kharn

 

[dasmi]

"It is shameful that Republicans in Congress are pushing legislation that guarantees their gun-dealing cronies receive special treatment and are above the law," said Rep. Robert Wexler (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.

Right.
And let's sue Ford because I smacked into a lady last month in the parking lot at work. Ford ought to pay to have her Jeep fixed, not me.

 

[Fletchette]

"Freedom is Slavery"

ref: Reafferming the Second Amendment whilst simultaneously outlawing weapons.

 

[rick_reno]

The Chinese lock industry should be happy, and I'm glad they took care of the "state" in that armor piercing section.

 

[Camp David]

"(B) the amount of powder used to propel the projectile."

This could be used to say "all rifles are now illegal, as are all pistols/revolvers with a barrel over X inches, and all cartridges using over X grains of powder". Ouch.

I assume "reloading ammunition", or "reloaded ammunition", is exempt. Does anyone know for sure? I'm curious...

 

[Fletchette]

Remember that the "Pro-Gun" Republicans passed this bill with the AP ban clauses in it, when they control the House, Senate AND Presidency!...with enough votes to stop a filibuster!

Why have any anti-gun BS in it at all?

 

[Yanus]

Remember that the "Pro-Gun" Republicans passed this bill with the AP ban clauses in it, when they control the House, Senate AND Presidency!...with enough votes to stop a filibuster!

Why have any anti-gun BS in it at all?

CYA for the next election. They can have it both ways on the issue.

Yanus