Feinstein is going to attach a rider to the Lawsuit Protection Bill. AWB 2 in march.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Knife_Sniper

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2003
Messages
130
Location
Texas
Hello everyone, I bear bad news.

The U.S. Senate will soon vote on S.659—a bill that will outlaw the baseless lawsuits against lawful firearms manufacturers that have cost our industry millions to defend. This bill will be voted on in early march. As you know this bill is a very benificial bill for the firearms community as a whole, but your evil wench DIFI has other plans.

She will make this bill ride S.659

If we do nothing and the senate passes this bill, its over. Bush will sign it and their will be no sunset. Their is of course a chance that it is shot down emmediatly, but this is also a setback... the firearms community needs the lawsuit protection.


108th CONGRESS
1st Session

S. 1034

To repeal the sunset date on the assault weapons ban, to ban the importation of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 8, 2003
Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mrs. BOXER, and Mr. REED) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To repeal the sunset date on the assault weapons ban, to ban the importation of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes.


"S.659, the bill that limits junk lawsuits against the firearm industry, will be coming to the floor of the Senate in a month or so. It is almost a certainty that Sen. Feinstein & Co. will attempt to amend the bill with a renewal of the so-called "assault weapons" ban. While it is likely that this "poison pill" amendment, if passed, will not make it through the House/Senate conference committee nor survive a final vote in the House (potentially killing the junk lawsuit bill), we have an opportunity to STOP the ban renewal in the Senate.

A vote on this issue in the Senate would be very close, but could go either way. We need every single vote we can get. Please take just a moment to call both of your Senators, urging them to oppose S.1034 (the standalone bill that renews and slightly expands the 1994 "Assault Weapons" Ban) or any attempt to amend a ban renewal to S.659, the junk lawsuit preemption bill. Even if one or both of your Senators are known to be anti-gun, it doesn't hurt to remind them of how unpopular this issue is."



Wake up and write please. This is OUR bill, not theirs!
 
Of all the nasty, dirty, low down things to do . . .

I've got 2 letters sitting waiting to be mailed supporting S 659. Now I've got to tear them up and type new ones! I am beginning to get really, really angry with those people.
 
Well, it looks like Dean Speir's scenario is coming true...

http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-21.html

Argh. I know many of our so-called "allies" will run to support a bill with DiFi's rider attached - they appear to the public to be supporting gun owners while "restricting criminals' access to assault weapons."

Most sheeple support the AWB, unfortunately.
 
I have little knowledge of your system but I have got to say - that is absolutely shocking. You guys need to get on this one hard, fast and clever.
 
didn't a repeal of the AWB pass the house and senate just to be vetoed by Klinton? If thats the case, could another repeal make it through? I doubt Bush would veto it.

If a repeal could make it through, then this could be a win-win because Dems would support this thinking they are beating us?
 
I stand corrected :)


But let's think positive ... we got it through the house once, maybe we can do it again!
 
This is an UGLY UGLY roadblock. Listen, this could crush everything...
Everyone of you can feel it in the pit of your stomach and can see the situation for the immediate and long lasting effects it will have. No president will ever pass a repeal of an assault weapons ban; it's just not going to happen in our PC lifetime. Look at what we have lost already and stand up! Our enemies are going to play dirty, so should we. DIFI has pushed too much of her bull???? upon us and will continue to do so. This is it. They want to run this country into the ????ing ground and eat away at its foundation? Well, im going to make damn sure they never have a job around my area.

Look at these.

NFA 34

86 MG ban

Permanent AWB

We need to urge our Congressmen and Senators to start pushing RIDERS of OUR own. It's a double edged blade and I would sure as hell like to see our edge carved and bloodied more. We need to wet it... we need to play dirty.

What about getting a libertarian like Ron Paul or (Insert RKBA friendly here) to place a rider on the budget? Something that MUST be signed by the President and must be passed. :fire:

???? it, we need to get the NRA to take a long look at this and act accordingly as well as type and write our own asses off and voice our opinion about this bill and rider. We have ONE month.

It will be an small victory and a larger defeat if it passes.
Dont let it pass, the AWB should be our number one prioity.
 
> Please take just a moment to call both of your Senators, urging them to oppose S.1034

I hear ya, Sniper, but guess who my senators are.

Tim
 
Yep. I've written Feinstein multiple times - the most I've gotten is a form letter (which helped light my barbeque.)

Still gonna write more though.
 
"I hear ya, Sniper, but guess who my senators are."

Tim

Even if one or both of your Senators are known to be anti-gun, it doesn't hurt to remind them of how unpopular this issue is.
 
Whoa there fellas! Even IF the Senate passes this with a AWB rider, it's got to go to a compromise committee or whatever it's called to hash out diferences between the House and Senate versions. There is no way the House members of said committee will stand for this.

Obviously, calling your Senators and letting them know that passage with an AWB rider is unacceptable is what is needed at this point.

from Senate.gov

The Amending Process

Floor consideration of a measure usually begins with opening statements by the floor managers, and often by other Senators. The managers usually are the chair and ranking minority member of the reporting committee or pertinent subcommittee.

The first amendments to be considered are those recommended by the reporting committee. If the committee has proposed many amendments, the manager often obtains unanimous consent that these amendments be adopted, but that all provisions of the measure as amended remain open to further amendment. After committee amendments are disposed of, amendments may be offered to any part of the measure in any order. If the committee recommends a substitute for the full text of the measure, the substitute normally remains open to amendment throughout its consideration.

The Senate may dispose of each amendment either by voting on it directly or by voting to table it. The motion to table cannot be debated; and, if the Senate agrees to it, the effect is the same as a vote to defeat the amendment. If the Senate defeats the motion, however, debate on the amendment may resume.

While an amendment is pending, Senators may propose amendments to it (called second-degree amendments) and to the part of the measure the amendment would change. The Senate votes on each of these amendments before it votes on the first-degree amendment (the amendment to the measure). Many additional complications exist. When a complete substitute for a measure is pending, for example, Senators can propose six or more first- and second-degree amendments to the substitute and the measure before any votes must occur.

If an amendment is considered under a time limitation, Senators may make no motions or points of order, or propose other amendments, until all the time for debating the amendment has been used or yielded back. Sometimes, however, the Senate unanimously consents to lay aside pending amendments temporarily in order to consider another amendment to the measure.

The amending process continues until the Senate orders the bill engrossed and read a third time, which precludes further amendment. Then the Senate votes on final passage.

Resolving Differences with the House
A bill cannot become a law of the land until it has been approved in identical form by both houses of Congress. Once the Senate amends and agrees to a bill that the House already has passed—or the House amends and passes a Senate bill—the two houses may begin to resolve their legislative differences by way of a conference committee or through an exchange of amendments between the houses.

Conference Committees

If the Senate does not accept the House’s position (or the House does not agree to the Senate’s position), one of the chambers may propose creation of a conference committee to negotiate and resolve the matters in disagreement between the two chambers. Typically, the Senate gets to conference with the House by adopting this standard motion: "Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its amendments (or "disagree to the House amendments" to the Senate-passed measure), request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes thereon, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees." This triple motion rolled into one–to insist (or disagree), request, and appoint–is commonly agreed to by unanimous consent. The presiding officer formally appoints the Senate’s conferees. (The Speaker names the House conferees.) Conferees are traditionally drawn from the committee of jurisdiction, but conferees representing other Senate interests may also be appointed.

There are no formal rules that outline how conference meetings are to be organized. Routinely, the principals from each chamber or their respective staffs conduct pre-conference meetings so as to expedite the bargaining process when the conference formally convenes. Informal practice also determines who will be the overall conference chair (each chamber has its own leader in conference). Rotation of the chairmanship between the chambers is usually the practice when matched pairs of panels (the tax or appropriations panels, for example) convene in conference regularly. For standing committees that seldom meet in conference, the choice of who will chair the conference is generally resolved by the conference leaders from each chamber. The decision on when and where to meet and for how long are a few prerogatives of the chair, who consults on these matters with his or her counterpart from the other body.

Once the two chambers go to conference, the respective House and Senate conferees bargain and negotiate to resolve the matters in bicameral disagreement. Resolution is embodied in a conference report, signed by a majority of Senate conferees and House conferees. The conference report must be agreed to by both chambers before it is cleared for presidential consideration. In the Senate, conference reports are usually brought up by unanimous consent at a time agreed to by the party leaders and floor managers. Because conference reports are privileged, if any Senator objects to the unanimous consent request, a nondebatable motion can be made to take up the conference report. Approval of the conference report itself is subject to extended debate, but conference reports are not open to amendment.

Almost all of the most important measures are sent to conference, but these are only a minority of the bills that the two houses pass each year.


Exchange of Amendments between the Houses

Differences between versions of most noncontroversial bills and some major bills that must be passed quickly are reconciled through the exchange of amendments between the houses. The two chambers may send measures back and forth, amending each other’s amendments until they agree to identical language on all provisions of the legislation. Generally, the provisions of an amendment between the houses are the subject of informal negotiations, so extended exchanges of amendments are rare. But there is also a parliamentary limit on the number of times a measure may shuttle between the chambers. In general, each chamber has only two opportunities to amend the amendments of the other body because both chambers prohibit third-degree amendments. In rare instances, however, the two chambers waive or disregard the parliamentary limit and exchange amendments more than twice. The current record is nine exchanges.

At any stage of this process a chamber may accept the position of the other body, insist on its most recent position, request a conference to resolve the remaining differences, or refuse to take further action and allow the measure to die.

The Senate normally takes action on an amendment of the House only when there is an expectation that the amendment may be disposed of readily, typically by unanimous consent. In the absence of such an expectation, the Senate will generally proceed to conference in order to negotiate a resolution to any serious disagreements within the Senate or with the House rather than attempt to resolve them on the floor.
 
Knife_Sniper,

86 MG ban

...

We need to urge our Congressmen and Senators to start pushing RIDERS of OUR own.

If you do a little research, you'll find that there was no law called the "1986 Machine Gun Ban", only a great piece of pro-gun legislation, backed by the NRA, called The Firearms Owner's Protection Act (or "FOPA", for short) of 1986. At the last minute this bill (which reined in BATF abuses, allowed the importation of military surplus weaponry, and closed down the national ammunition registry) had a little rider attached to it. Just a tiny rider, really; not enough to earn the ire of the NRA, and below the radar of the duck-hunting public; something about machine guns... :uhoh:
 
Has anyone else gotten the postcards from the NRA-ILA? The latest ones are to let your reps know that you don't want any kind of anti-gun legislation tacked onto the junk lawsuit bill. I sent mine to the President and my congress critters last Friday, no telling if they actually read the things but at least it gives them some indication that people have their eyes on them. :scrutiny:
 
Lets attach an anvil to Mizz Feinstein and pass her out of a plane door half way to Hawaii. That would make an excellent rider.
 
Here's the ticket
At any stage of this process a chamber may accept the position of the other body, insist on its most recent position, request a conference to resolve the remaining differences, or refuse to take further action and allow the measure to die.
Let's rally our representatives, boys n' girls: stop that amendment in its tracks!

TC
TFL Survivor
 
If you do a little research, you'll find that there was no law called the "1986 Machine Gun Ban", only a great piece of pro-gun legislation, backed by the NRA, called The Firearms Owner's Protection Act (or "FOPA", for short) of 1986. At the last minute this bill (which reined in BATF abuses, allowed the importation of military surplus weaponry, and closed down the national ammunition registry) had a little rider attached to it. Just a tiny rider, really; not enough to earn the ire of the NRA, and below the radar of the duck-hunting public; something about machine guns...
It just irks me more and more every time I hear that story. :( Even more so when I hear the part about how the bill was suppose to make registration illegal, but then we still got 4473 registration about a decade later.

I'm afraid that's exactly what's going to happen with this Pro-Gun Lawsuit bill. The AWB renewal WILL slip through with it. How do I know this? Because I've actually been optimistic for the past little while that the AWB will not renew.... murphy's law is about to kick in.
 
I emailed my Senators (whole lot of good that will do...) asking that they allow the AW ban to expire. If you want to mention S.659, just say "the originial, rider-less S.659," that will get your point across.

Kharn
 
Wait a minute: an identical version of the bill has to pass House and Senate, so if this rider gets tacked on at the last minute in the Senate it's got to go back to the House again, right? Can we allow the amendment to die without killing the junk lawsuit bill as well?

Call/write/cajole your congressmen now - don't let this thing through. Let'em know how you feel!

yell.gif
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top