Congress Passes "Gun Industry Shield"

[RealGun]

I've read it and I haven't seen GOA suggesting which Senators were willing to do the deal for less but refused to do so because the NRA just caved in and gave them more than they wanted.

I can't answer your challenge...who could? I do have some data though, since I analyzed the Senate vote on s397 in July. The following is sorted vote, party, and state. The X indicates those not voting:

Vote Senator State Party
N Boxer CA D
N Dodd CT D
N Lieberman CT D
N Biden DE D
N Carper DE D
N Akaka HI D
N Inouye HI D
N Harkin IA D
N Durbin IL D
N Obama IL D
N Bayh IN D
N Kennedy MA D
N Kerry MA D
N Mikulski MD D
N Sarbanes MD D
N Levin MI D
N Stabenow MI D
N Dayton MN D
N Corzine NJ D
N Lautenberg NJ D
N Bingaman NM D
N Clinton NY D
N Schumer NY D
N Wyden OR D
N Reed RI D
N Leahy VT D
N Cantwell WA D
N Murray WA D
N Feingold WI D
N DeWine OH R
N Chafee RI R
X Feinstein CA D
X Roberts KS R
X Sununu NH R
X Smith OR R
Y Lincoln AR D
Y Pryor AR D
Y Salazar CO D
Y Nelson FL D
Y Landrieu LA D
Y Baucus MT D
Y Conrad ND D
Y Dorgan ND D
Y Nelson NE D
Y Reid NV D
Y Johnson SD D
Y Kohl WI D
Y Byrd WV D
Y Rockefeller WV D
Y Jeffords VT I
Y Murkowski AK R
Y Stevens AK R
Y Sessions AL R
Y Shelby AL R
Y Kyl AZ R
Y McCain AZ R
Y Allard CO R
Y Martinez FL R
Y Chambliss GA R
Y Isakson GA R
Y Grassley IA R
Y Craig ID R
Y Crapo ID R
Y Lugar IN R
Y Brownback KS R
Y Bunning KY R
Y McConnell KY R
Y Vitter LA R
Y Collins ME R
Y Snowe ME R
Y Coleman MN R
Y Bond MO R
Y Talent MO R
Y Cochran MS R
Y Lott MS R
Y Burns MT R
Y Burr NC R
Y Dole NC R
Y Hagel NE R
Y Gregg NH R
Y Domenici NM R
Y Ensign NV R
Y Voinovich OH R
Y Coburn OK R
Y Inhofe OK R
Y Santorum PA R
Y Specter PA R
Y DeMint SC R
Y Graham SC R
Y Thune SD R
Y Alexander TN R
Y Frist TN R
Y Cornyn TX R
Y Hutchison TX R
Y Bennett UT R
Y Hatch UT R
Y Allen VA R
Y Warner VA R
Y Enzi WY R
Y Thomas WY R

I see a partisan vote, i.e. a caucus agreement on how to treat the bill. Only four Republicans voted against. 14 Democrats voted for passage. The bill passed 65-31. Take away the placated Democrats, and it still passes.

 

[Kharn]

RealGun:
Republicans need 61 votes to get anything done in the Senate, or 40 Democrats will filibuster. Thus the concessions.

Kharn

 

[RealGun]

RealGun:
Republicans need 61 votes to get anything done in the Senate, or 40 Democrats will filibuster. Thus the concessions.

Kharn

There are only 22 obstructionist Democrats in the Senate, who oppose anything the GOP supports. We don't actually know why 14 Democrats voted fro s397 passage. None of the Democrats are pro-gun according to GOA ratings, but note that s397 is not gun control. It is tort reform.

 

[pcf]

There are only 22 obstructionist Democrats in the Senate, who oppose anything the GOP supports. We don't actually know why 14 Democrats voted fro s397 passage. None of the Democrats are pro-gun according to GOA ratings, but note that s397 is not gun control. It is tort reform.

I can't believe that you just wrote that.

 

[RealGun]

I can't believe that you just wrote that.

Well, of course, the amendments certainly are gun control.

 

[Rabid Rabbit]

Fast food resturants got the same protection also.

The fast food industry protection bill was passed the same week, 120 voted against the bill that says you can't sue resturants because you are fat. I'd like to compare the nay votes for the guns and burgers and see who the hardcore stupid congress critter are.

 

[RealGun]

The fast food industry protection bill was passed the same week, 120 voted against the bill that says you can't sue resturants because you are fat. I'd like to compare the nay votes for the guns and burgers and see who the hardcore stupid congress critter are.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/votes/?votenum=533&chamber=H&congress=1091&tally=1

Note that this is a House vote, so you will need to get the vote on S397 for the House.

 

[wahsben]

You only do the chopping if there is no other choice and there was another choice. You and people like you are the ones that will cause us to lose the most with your continuous compromises. S 397 passed the senate by a vote of 65-31 therefore it should be obvious that not all Democrats voted nay. Now maybe without the amendments they would have but you don't know that and if you do I would like to know how you do. When there is a better choice available and HR 800 was the better choice you go with that first and only if it fails do you consider compromise. Also you have no idea how fast things may go when the makeup of the congress changes so therefore no matter how many cuts we may have suffered the next one may be the final one. If we were smart, strong, and unified we would not have to suffer any more cuts and could maybe even have some healing of the previous cuts. You don't seem willing to compromise this discussion but your sure willing to compromise our rights. We did not chop the arm off of the anti-gun groups in fact we barely scratched them, they really don't think much of S 397 because they plan to challenge it and keep on with their lawsuits because unfortunately there are alot of liberal judges that will allow them to proceed even with this new legislation. As I said before the anti's do not compromise anything and neither should we. Also they would challenge HR 800 too if it passed but at least there would'nt be any extra's in it that they could more easily use against us.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I can't answer your challenge...who could?

Well, I thought you might be able to since you apparently seem pretty certain that the NRA could have had H.R. 800. Are you just basing that on GOAs assessment? If so, then shouldn't we have some idea what GOA is basing their assessment on? I didn't see much in their press release explaining WHY they thought there was a better deal to be had.

Take away the placated Democrats, and it still passes.

Not all of the antis are Democrats, even though the Dems have most of them. Also, you seem to be confusing passing a bill (50 votes) with getting a successful cloture vote (60 votes). As I pointed out earlier, a not insignificant number of the people you listed were happy enough to vote for poison pill amendments to kill S.1805. I'm interested in hearing exactly why GOA, you or anybody else thinks that they are suddenly willing to go for a clean bill now.

wahsben, I don't really find your arguments compelling or coherent. If you think it isn't significant to have protection from frivolous lawsuits for gun manufacturers, protection from civil liability for gun owners, a plainly stated Congressional intent to incorporate the Second Amendment under the 14th Amendment, and yet another reinforcement of the Second Amendment as an individual right, then we are on wavelengths so different we probably shouldn't even bother talking.

As I said before the anti's do not compromise anything

Really? I guess that is why they accepted a ten-year sunset on the AWB right? Because they wanted it, not because they compromised to get it?

The rest of your arguments I have already addressed at least once, and in some cases more than once. Feel free to reread my prior posts and ask questions on anything I didn't adequately explain for you.

 

[RealGun]

I'm interested in hearing exactly why GOA, you or anybody else thinks that they are suddenly willing to go for a clean bill now.

I won't speak for GOA, although I have read all the email alerts. I will offer that there was a punishing election since S1805. Something to consider.

 

[wahsben]

Granted they may have compromised then but can you name any other time. Also I will have to do some research but if memory serves me correctly the AWB could have been defeated at the beginning but the NRA did some compromising. Why didn't the all powerful NRA-ILA stop it back then? There was plenty of evidence that assault weapons were not the criminals weapon of choice as the lying anti-gun groups were claiming and that the legislation was usless and a waste of time and taxpayers money. Of course I'm for stopping the lawsuits and also against compromise that will infringe our rights that's why I wanted HR 800 and would have only gone for S 397 if HR 800 failed. We should try for the best first not just throw in the towel cause we're afraid we'll lose if we don't compromise.
We have known all along that the 2nd is an individual right but that hasn't stopped people from infringing upon it so incorporating it into the 14th and stating again that it is an indvidual right won't make a difference to those people who make a living out of violating the Constitution. If you think that compromise will get us what we want in the long run than yes we are on different wavelengths. It is due to all the compromise of the past that we have to fight so hard now.

 

[44Special]

We've been had

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.

The NRA actually asked us to urge passage of this? To protect big gun manufacturers, we give up all militarily useful ammunition. Not just handgun ammo.

 

[pcf]

Wahsben,
When in the last 11 years has no compromise been a healthy campaign strategy for the anti-gunners?
Other than the healthy anti-gun majority in the Congress, the anti-gun administration in the Whitehouse, and the majority of states that have been repealing and striking down pro-CCW and pro-selfdefense legislation. No compromise has been the panacea to anti-gunners' problems.

Since no compromise has been so effective for anti-gunners, do you think its in the best interest of gun owners to adopt the same strategy?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

To protect big gun manufacturers, we give up all militarily useful ammunition. Not just handgun ammo.

Why is it that people can't bother reading the posts in a thread before they repeat stuff that has already been discredited? You don't have to give up any kind of ammunition to get the protection.

I will offer that there was a punishing election since S1805. Something to consider.

A punishing election where none of the people I referenced were punished. Maybe it changed their attitude; but I'm skeptical on it.

 

[hillbilly]

Bartholomew Roberts wrote:

"Why is it that people can't bother reading the posts in a thread
before they repeat stuff that has already been discredited? You
don't have to give up any kind of ammunition to get the
protection."


Here's your answer, BR.

People don't bother reading because it's easier and whole heck of a lot more fun to take a big toke off that GOA No-Compromise Ganga-weed and then rant and rave and beat your chest on an internet bulletin board site to prove what a freedom-loving, hardcore, no-compromising, tough-guy hero you are.

hillbilly

 

[RealGun]

The problem here is there is no information to indicate that a compromise was really necessary. It's all speculation with no evidence that any real resistance was offered. In fact, there is nothing to prove that the amendments weren't actually an NRA suggestion. That has happened before, where NRA proactively created compromise. Compromise may sometimes be the best option, but where was it necessary here? Seems to me all that happened was that the bill's manager and Bill Frist ALLOWED amendments, while others were blocked. If there was a practical reason, I haven't heard what it is beyond speculation. We are arguing about something none of us can prove. Eating our young is not going to help.

 

[wahsben]

Real gun has it right. As I said before but some choose to ignore, We should only compromise if there is no other choice that has a chance. HR 800 had a chance and that is what we should have gone with first.
An article of interest about this was written on www.keepandbeararms.com titled Did the Gun Industry Sell out its Best Customers.

 

[woerm]

bill signed?

per my misreptile's office George the Duce signed off on the 'protection of lawful commerce act' earlier today

r

I hope this is a good thing

while I was at it I said thanks for the efforts and
pointed them toward the BATFE's nonexistant standards on weapons testing and the veterans heritage firearms act too.

Well, I can dream right?

r