ctdonath
Member
What's needed is an amendment - one that forbids the prohibitions of this kind.
Like...maybe...the 2nd Amendment?
Like...maybe...the 2nd Amendment?
GOA: Feinstein Planning to Offer Semi-auto Ban as an Amendment Soon
- Thread starter Harry Tuttle
- Start date
- Status
La Pistoletta
Member
That one is nice, but I was thinking about one that specifically forbids the prohibition of firearms characteristics. The 2nd amendment says you can bear arms. Does it say what kind it has to be? Whether you can bear all arms or be content with bolt-actions? According to what I've seen of it, as long as you can bear some kind of firearm the 2nd amendment is in rule. And of course, that's not enough.
itgoesboom
member
I don't know.....
"Shall not be infringed" seems pretty clear to me.
I.G.B.
"Shall not be infringed" seems pretty clear to me.
I.G.B.
ctdonath
Member
According to what I've seen of it, as long as you can bear some kind of firearm the 2nd amendment is in rule. And of course, that's not enough.
What do you mean "of course that's not enough"???
Why are you so adamant about limiting a right?
What do you mean "of course that's not enough"???
Why are you so adamant about limiting a right?
El Rojo
Member
Sorry boys and girls, Dianne is my senator. The question I have is how many of you here constantly cap on California for being so horrible and how everyone should move out of California? Yes my personal pet peeve. However, a thread about how bad you hate my senator brings me some evil satisfaction. Your encouraging good people to leave my state is the reason you have Dianne FeinStein. Congratulations. You get what you wish for.
La Pistoletta
Member
Ctdonath, what do you mean?
By not enough, I'm saying that the right to bear arms is not enough. It has to be extended so that you can bear any small arm. Otherwise you may very well be standing there with a .22 pistol as your only legal option and still have the right to bear arm(s). Hey, you can always have two of them, right? No, the right needs more protection.
By not enough, I'm saying that the right to bear arms is not enough. It has to be extended so that you can bear any small arm. Otherwise you may very well be standing there with a .22 pistol as your only legal option and still have the right to bear arm(s). Hey, you can always have two of them, right? No, the right needs more protection.
CZ-100
Member
Why do prople in CA keep electing this Witch 
First off, the House is not dead set against the ban.
DeLay is opposed, but he's only the majority leader. Hastert controls what gets voted on & he's left the door open to a vote on an AWB renewal.
Going by GOA's ratings (which I find more objective than the NRA's) the F & D rated reps come within 10 votes or so of passing any gun control law. They have a pool of about 50 or so C rated reps (if I remember correctly) to try to win over. I'm thinking there'd be more than 10 C rated reps who'd vote for an AWB renewal or expansion.
So we're not out of the woods in the house. (damn if that don't seem like a mized metaphor)
The senate.. y'all know the deal there. They have eough votes to pass an AWB renewal. We might have enough senators to launch a filibuster but there are certain variables...
If the bill is attached to something everyone wants - say an appropriations bill, then there won't be a filibuster of the entire package. Course an appropriations bill would have originated in the House & thus have to go back to the house if any amendments were attached in the senate, but as I said the house is not our firned in this. There are other bills which might garner enough support to kill any attempts at a filibuster.
Course there could be a filibuster of the vote to amend another bill with an AWB renewal but this is risky. There simply might not be enough senators with the conviction to maintain a filibuster.
& of course there's the cloture thing. It's basically a deal where a filibuster is avoided by dealing on what will be voted on for a particular bill. It was cloture that allowed the AWB renewal to be voted on in March. I don't have faith that a deal wouldn't be cut to allow & vote in the hopes it will be voted down or it will be cleaned up in the house (assuming the bill in question originated in the house.
So there is a chance that it won't come out of the senate, & there's a chance that the house will kill any AWB renewal, but the chance is slim. It's more likely that if it gets voted on by both houses it'll be law.
That being said it's important to call your congresscritters even if they're die hard anti gun & let them know you're opposed to any gun control. It may not change their mind but if they hear from their pro-gun constitutents then word may get out & shake up some of their not so ideological friends in congress.
When it comes to a vote of any kind I & other will let you know. That'll be when you need to start speed dialing all your congrees critters & ayone else who might listen & make a difference.
The NRA will most likely be on our side if it's about a straight renewal, but be prepared to call them too if any sort of deal is offered (say an AWB renewal minus the mag cap restrictions).
It ain't over yet & the hard part is still ahead of us. So get ready for a more intense repeat of what happened last March.
La Pistoletta,
If you can define "arms" as meaning only a subest of what's generally defined as "arms" then you might have a point. But "arms" means any weapon used for offensive or defensive purposes.
There are some that do argue that as long as some arms are available then the 2nd amendment has not been violated, but this centers more around what constitutues infringement than what defines "arms".
But for strict constructionists the explanatory clause (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state) would indicate that martial arms are the object of protection. Further, U.S. v. Miller set up an idea that only arms suitable for militia use are protected. these both have their flaws, but there's no way anyone can reason that only 5 shot .22 revolvers are protected & as long as people have them then anything else can be banned. It's quite the reverse: the 5 shot revolver could possibly be banned while the M16 (yes, a full auto M16) & a .45 semi auto pistol could not be.
The way the argument has been going you could argue that arms doesn't include sporting guns (i.e. the 5 shot revolver in .22LR) but it does include machine guns & real assault rifle as well as large caliber pistols. You couldn't argue the reverse (although it's been done through legislation) so most anti gunners argue that it's either not an indivdual right or that it's an outdated amendment cuase we'd have no chance against a standing army.
There doesn't need to eb an amendmentr to clear up what the 2nd amendment means, although I would listen to a proposed amendment that deals out a harsh & strict enforcement against those who violate it.
Unfortunately there is no amendment that could be worded so as to prevent people form trying to get around it. That's just the nature of government.
CZ-100,
From what I've heard the GOP has failed to put up any candidate that could effectively oppose her. I'm not hip to the details but chances are they think her seat is undisputable so they don't push for candidates that have a good chance against her &/or they don't sink a lot of money into that race. It's still no excuse but from what I understand those are the reasons behind her being elected & re-elected.
DeLay is opposed, but he's only the majority leader. Hastert controls what gets voted on & he's left the door open to a vote on an AWB renewal.
Going by GOA's ratings (which I find more objective than the NRA's) the F & D rated reps come within 10 votes or so of passing any gun control law. They have a pool of about 50 or so C rated reps (if I remember correctly) to try to win over. I'm thinking there'd be more than 10 C rated reps who'd vote for an AWB renewal or expansion.
So we're not out of the woods in the house. (damn if that don't seem like a mized metaphor)
The senate.. y'all know the deal there. They have eough votes to pass an AWB renewal. We might have enough senators to launch a filibuster but there are certain variables...
If the bill is attached to something everyone wants - say an appropriations bill, then there won't be a filibuster of the entire package. Course an appropriations bill would have originated in the House & thus have to go back to the house if any amendments were attached in the senate, but as I said the house is not our firned in this. There are other bills which might garner enough support to kill any attempts at a filibuster.
Course there could be a filibuster of the vote to amend another bill with an AWB renewal but this is risky. There simply might not be enough senators with the conviction to maintain a filibuster.
& of course there's the cloture thing. It's basically a deal where a filibuster is avoided by dealing on what will be voted on for a particular bill. It was cloture that allowed the AWB renewal to be voted on in March. I don't have faith that a deal wouldn't be cut to allow & vote in the hopes it will be voted down or it will be cleaned up in the house (assuming the bill in question originated in the house.
So there is a chance that it won't come out of the senate, & there's a chance that the house will kill any AWB renewal, but the chance is slim. It's more likely that if it gets voted on by both houses it'll be law.
That being said it's important to call your congresscritters even if they're die hard anti gun & let them know you're opposed to any gun control. It may not change their mind but if they hear from their pro-gun constitutents then word may get out & shake up some of their not so ideological friends in congress.
When it comes to a vote of any kind I & other will let you know. That'll be when you need to start speed dialing all your congrees critters & ayone else who might listen & make a difference.
The NRA will most likely be on our side if it's about a straight renewal, but be prepared to call them too if any sort of deal is offered (say an AWB renewal minus the mag cap restrictions).
It ain't over yet & the hard part is still ahead of us. So get ready for a more intense repeat of what happened last March.
La Pistoletta,
If you can define "arms" as meaning only a subest of what's generally defined as "arms" then you might have a point. But "arms" means any weapon used for offensive or defensive purposes.
There are some that do argue that as long as some arms are available then the 2nd amendment has not been violated, but this centers more around what constitutues infringement than what defines "arms".
But for strict constructionists the explanatory clause (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state) would indicate that martial arms are the object of protection. Further, U.S. v. Miller set up an idea that only arms suitable for militia use are protected. these both have their flaws, but there's no way anyone can reason that only 5 shot .22 revolvers are protected & as long as people have them then anything else can be banned. It's quite the reverse: the 5 shot revolver could possibly be banned while the M16 (yes, a full auto M16) & a .45 semi auto pistol could not be.
The way the argument has been going you could argue that arms doesn't include sporting guns (i.e. the 5 shot revolver in .22LR) but it does include machine guns & real assault rifle as well as large caliber pistols. You couldn't argue the reverse (although it's been done through legislation) so most anti gunners argue that it's either not an indivdual right or that it's an outdated amendment cuase we'd have no chance against a standing army.
There doesn't need to eb an amendmentr to clear up what the 2nd amendment means, although I would listen to a proposed amendment that deals out a harsh & strict enforcement against those who violate it.
Unfortunately there is no amendment that could be worded so as to prevent people form trying to get around it. That's just the nature of government.
CZ-100,
From what I've heard the GOP has failed to put up any candidate that could effectively oppose her. I'm not hip to the details but chances are they think her seat is undisputable so they don't push for candidates that have a good chance against her &/or they don't sink a lot of money into that race. It's still no excuse but from what I understand those are the reasons behind her being elected & re-elected.
Librarian
Member
Sigh.
According to my NRA email this evening:
"Yesterday, vehemently anti-gun Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced S. 2498, legislation that would reauthorize the Clinton gun ban. The bill is being held on the Senate floor and could come up at any time."
It's not available in http://thomas.loc.gov/ yet, nor is it on Feinstein's web site http://www.senate.gov/~feinstein/press_office.html#pressreleases
Odd. It's not at new York Times, Washington Post, SFGate, AP via NYT, LA Times or Yahoo news. Feinstein not grabbing headlines? Something's wrong here...
According to my NRA email this evening:
"Yesterday, vehemently anti-gun Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced S. 2498, legislation that would reauthorize the Clinton gun ban. The bill is being held on the Senate floor and could come up at any time."
It's not available in http://thomas.loc.gov/ yet, nor is it on Feinstein's web site http://www.senate.gov/~feinstein/press_office.html#pressreleases
Odd. It's not at new York Times, Washington Post, SFGate, AP via NYT, LA Times or Yahoo news. Feinstein not grabbing headlines? Something's wrong here...
Librarian
Member
Here it is, without the graphics:
June 4, 2004
Home | Current Legislation | Get Involved Locally | Register To Vote
Contribute | Update your profile/unsubscribe.
NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 11, No. 22
1-800-392-8683
www.nraila.org
Please forward this information to your family, friends, and fellow gun owners!
If you would like to receive this in a text only format, go to Update Profile/Unsubscribe and change your Email type to "Text".
WILL YOU BE THAT ONE VOTE?
Not In Town On Election Day?
Want To Vote Early?
NRA Can Help!
History is replete with examples where a single vote, or a small percentage of votes, spelled the difference between victory and defeat in an election or on piece of legislation. Consider the following:
*In 1778, ONE VOTE gave America the English language instead of German;
*In 1845, ONE VOTE brought Texas into the Union;
*In 1878, ONE VOTE gave Rutherford B. Hayes the Presidency of the United States;
*In 1941, ONE VOTE saved Selective Service just weeks before Pearl Harbor was attacked;
*In 1994, a race for the U.S. House was originally decided by FOUR VOTES;
*In 1998, a U.S. Senate race was decided by 400 VOTES out of 400,000 cast;
*In 2002, an anti-gun candidate in a state primary race in Arizona won by FIVE VOTES;
*In February 2004, Wisconsin Governor Doyle`s (D) veto of Right-to-Carry was sustained by only ONE VOTE; And of course...
*In the 2000 presidential election, 537 VOTES in Florida ensured the election of George W. Bush over Al Gore!
These examples clearly prove that every vote matters. And once again, as this year`s elections are expected to be extremely close, it is critical that every NRA member and pro-Second Amendment supporter exercises his right to vote in order to protect our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Even if you can`t vote in person on November 2, your voice can still be heard!
Most states allow voters to cast their ballot early (either in-person or by mail). And every state allows absentee voting if you plan to be away on Election Day--November 2. To make sure the vote of every Second Amendment supporter is counted this year, NRA is providing a free service that will make voting easier in the 2004 general election. Working with HelpingAmericansVote.Org?, a non-partisan service, we are providing you with information about early voting and absentee voting options that will make your participation easier.
In addition to the information you will need to vote early or via absentee ballot, you can also use this service to register to vote, or to update your voter registration to reflect a recent change in residence. To access this site, go to http://NRA.HelpingAmericansVote.org and select your state.
Please forward this link to your family, friends, and fellow firearm owners, and encourage them to take advantage of this service to ensure that the voices of America`s 65 million gun owners are heard loudly and clearly in this year`s critically-important elections!
With so many examples of elections and issues being decided by ONE VOTE, we can`t take even a single pro-gun vote for granted this year. Please visit http://NRA.HelpingAmericansVote.org and make sure your vote is cast to support your gun rights.
FEINSTEIN INTRODUCES "ASSAULT WEAPONS" REAUTHORIZATION BILL
Yesterday, vehemently anti-gun Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced S. 2498, legislation that would reauthorize the Clinton gun ban. The bill is being held on the Senate floor and could come up at any time.
This is the start of a sustained political battle we`ll be waging over the next few months. Our opponents will continue to work at every turn to try and accomplish their anti-gun goals, and we need to be prepared. Please visit NRA-ILA`s informative website-- www.ClintonGunBan.com --and learn the facts about this debate, which has too long been driven and dominated by falsehoods and emotion. And please forward this website to others who need to know both the history and the truth about this issue. Then, please contact your Senators and urge them to oppose S. 2498 or any other legislation seeking to extend the so-called "assault weapons" ban. You can find contact information for your elected officials by using the "Write Your Representatives" tool at www.NRAILA.org, or you can call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121.
NOTORIOUS NINTH CIRCUIT AT IT AGAIN
Apparently, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is determined to maintain its paradigm of dispensing political activism under the guise of unbiased legal judgement.
Last fall, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based court reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit against the firearm industry that had been previously tossed out by a Los Angeles federal judge before it went to trial. The suit, Ileto v. Glock, seeks to blame Glock and others for the horrendous criminal actions of deranged white supremacist Buford Furrow. In 1999, Furrow shot and killed postal worker Joseph Ileto, and wounded three children at a Jewish Community Center in Grenada Hills, California, after illegally acquiring firearms. What is not often reported is that, while a Glock pistol was used in Furrow`s heinous crime, the gun was originally sold to a police department, which subsequently sold it to a licensed dealer, who in turn sold it to a collector, who finally sold it to Furrow. Glock is being targeted but did nothing illegal.
Following last fall`s decision, Glock asked that the full court reconsider the ruling. Last week, the full court voted to allow the suit to proceed. Significantly, eight of the judges dissented. In writing the dissent, Judge Consuelo Callahan said, "The potential impact of the panel`s decision is staggering. Any manufacturer of an arguably dangerous product that finds its way into California can be hauled into court in California to defend against a civil action brought by a victim of the criminal use of that product." Drawing an obvious conclusion, Judge Callahan went on to say, "Thus, General Motors would be sued by someone who was hit by a Corvette that had been stolen by a juvenile."
This case dramatically underscores the urgent need for passage of a comprehensive federal lawsuit protection bill. Allowing these types of suits to continue unabated will be disastrous for the American firearm industry, and for your right to lawfully own firearms. That is why NRA-ILA remains committed to enacting a federal lawsuit preemption law that does not in any way compromise our Second Amendment rights.
BALLISTIC "FINGERPRINTING" NOT EFFECTIVE
A June 3 AP article appearing on Newsday.com reported that New York state`s much-lauded ballistic "fingerprinting" database, designed to match handguns in New York to crime scene evidence, has not solved a single crime in the more than three years since its debut.
These results are consistent with the findings of several studies that have already determined that existing ballistic imaging systems are flawed and have not been effective law enforcement tools. Despite these findings, anti-gun extremists continue to promote these ballistic "fingerprinting" schemes--which are little more than an attempt to impose a nationwide registration system for all law-abiding gun owners.
A LOOK AT THE STATES
ILLINOIS
Last week, the Illinois Senate voted to concur with the House on SB 2165, which seeks to provide an affirmative defense for a gun owner if he uses a firearm prohibited by local ordinance in defense of himself or others. The bill`s fate is now in the hands of Governor Rod Blagojevich (D), who has threatened to veto this common sense measure. Also awaiting a threatened veto is another common sense bill, SB 2386, which seeks to prohibit civil suits against a gun owner who uses a firearm to defend himself or others. Both SB 2165 and SB 2386 passed with enough votes to override the governor`s threatened veto, but you should still call Governor Blagojevich at (217) 782-6830 and urge him to sign SB 2165 and SB 2386, and remind him that both passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. And while Illinois families spent this past Memorial Day Weekend honoring the ultimate sacrifice made by those who have served in our nation`s service to protect our rights, anti-gun extremists schemed to mount another assault on one of those very rights--our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Anti-gun State Senator John Cullerton (D-6) chose the traditional date for the observance of Memorial Day, May 30, to introduce SB 3383, a bill that seeks to establish a ban on certain semi-automatic firearms at the state level. This legislation could be taken up during the time it takes to resolve the current impasse over the budget, although it may not see any action until the veto session in November. We will keep you posted as to any developments on this front, but please be sure to keep in touch with your state lawmakers and urge them to oppose this gun ban if it is brought up for consideration. The Senate can be reached by calling (217) 782-4517, and the House can be reached at (217) 782-8223. For additional contact information, please use the "Write Your Representatives" tool at www.NRAILA.org.
KANSAS
Senator Stan Clark (R-40), passed away over Memorial weekend. As a strong Second Amendment supporter, Senator Clark carried HB 2798, the "Personal and Family Protection Act," on the Senate floor. His death is a great loss to all NRA members. Memorial contributions may be made in Clark`s name to The Gideons International.
NEW YORK
Although the State Senate has rejected Governor George Pataki`s plan for renewable pistol licenses and new state fees contained in budget bills S. 6056/A. 9556, the budget process won`t be over until it`s finally adopted by the Legislature. It is, important to encourage lawmakers to continue standing firm in opposing the Governor`s plan, as these bills will be considered soon. For contact information for your lawmakers, please use the "Write Your Representatives" feature located at www.NRAILA.org.
OKLAHOMA
HB 1185 and HB 1410, both containing Right-to-Carry (RTC) reforms, passed final concurrence votes. HB 1185, allows for commissioned law-enforcement officers (reserve or full-time), who have gone through the appropriate background checks and training prior to their employment, to be issued a concealed carry permit for their off-duty time without further requirements. The fee for active duty law-enforcement concealed carry permits will be $25, plus the cost of photographs, etc. HB 1410, requires that law-enforcement return legitimate RTC holder`s firearms, if taken, unless they have committed a disqualifying offense or are believed to be a danger. HB 1410 allows instructors licenses and permits to be automatically renewed without a fee. Permit holders will also be able to travel with loaded long guns in their vehicle without repercussions. And finally, those appealing denials will have 60 calendar days to do so. Both HB 1185 and HB 1410 are now headed to the Governor`s desk.
Please do not reply to this email as you will not receive a response. This email is a broadcast email generated by an automated system. To contact NRA-ILA call 800-392-8683.
Address: 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030
Home | Current Legislation | Get Involved Locally | Register To Vote
Contribute | Update your profile/unsubscribe.
June 4, 2004
Home | Current Legislation | Get Involved Locally | Register To Vote
Contribute | Update your profile/unsubscribe.
NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 11, No. 22
1-800-392-8683
www.nraila.org
Please forward this information to your family, friends, and fellow gun owners!
If you would like to receive this in a text only format, go to Update Profile/Unsubscribe and change your Email type to "Text".
WILL YOU BE THAT ONE VOTE?
Not In Town On Election Day?
Want To Vote Early?
NRA Can Help!
History is replete with examples where a single vote, or a small percentage of votes, spelled the difference between victory and defeat in an election or on piece of legislation. Consider the following:
*In 1778, ONE VOTE gave America the English language instead of German;
*In 1845, ONE VOTE brought Texas into the Union;
*In 1878, ONE VOTE gave Rutherford B. Hayes the Presidency of the United States;
*In 1941, ONE VOTE saved Selective Service just weeks before Pearl Harbor was attacked;
*In 1994, a race for the U.S. House was originally decided by FOUR VOTES;
*In 1998, a U.S. Senate race was decided by 400 VOTES out of 400,000 cast;
*In 2002, an anti-gun candidate in a state primary race in Arizona won by FIVE VOTES;
*In February 2004, Wisconsin Governor Doyle`s (D) veto of Right-to-Carry was sustained by only ONE VOTE; And of course...
*In the 2000 presidential election, 537 VOTES in Florida ensured the election of George W. Bush over Al Gore!
These examples clearly prove that every vote matters. And once again, as this year`s elections are expected to be extremely close, it is critical that every NRA member and pro-Second Amendment supporter exercises his right to vote in order to protect our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Even if you can`t vote in person on November 2, your voice can still be heard!
Most states allow voters to cast their ballot early (either in-person or by mail). And every state allows absentee voting if you plan to be away on Election Day--November 2. To make sure the vote of every Second Amendment supporter is counted this year, NRA is providing a free service that will make voting easier in the 2004 general election. Working with HelpingAmericansVote.Org?, a non-partisan service, we are providing you with information about early voting and absentee voting options that will make your participation easier.
In addition to the information you will need to vote early or via absentee ballot, you can also use this service to register to vote, or to update your voter registration to reflect a recent change in residence. To access this site, go to http://NRA.HelpingAmericansVote.org and select your state.
Please forward this link to your family, friends, and fellow firearm owners, and encourage them to take advantage of this service to ensure that the voices of America`s 65 million gun owners are heard loudly and clearly in this year`s critically-important elections!
With so many examples of elections and issues being decided by ONE VOTE, we can`t take even a single pro-gun vote for granted this year. Please visit http://NRA.HelpingAmericansVote.org and make sure your vote is cast to support your gun rights.
FEINSTEIN INTRODUCES "ASSAULT WEAPONS" REAUTHORIZATION BILL
Yesterday, vehemently anti-gun Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced S. 2498, legislation that would reauthorize the Clinton gun ban. The bill is being held on the Senate floor and could come up at any time.
This is the start of a sustained political battle we`ll be waging over the next few months. Our opponents will continue to work at every turn to try and accomplish their anti-gun goals, and we need to be prepared. Please visit NRA-ILA`s informative website-- www.ClintonGunBan.com --and learn the facts about this debate, which has too long been driven and dominated by falsehoods and emotion. And please forward this website to others who need to know both the history and the truth about this issue. Then, please contact your Senators and urge them to oppose S. 2498 or any other legislation seeking to extend the so-called "assault weapons" ban. You can find contact information for your elected officials by using the "Write Your Representatives" tool at www.NRAILA.org, or you can call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121.
NOTORIOUS NINTH CIRCUIT AT IT AGAIN
Apparently, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is determined to maintain its paradigm of dispensing political activism under the guise of unbiased legal judgement.
Last fall, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based court reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit against the firearm industry that had been previously tossed out by a Los Angeles federal judge before it went to trial. The suit, Ileto v. Glock, seeks to blame Glock and others for the horrendous criminal actions of deranged white supremacist Buford Furrow. In 1999, Furrow shot and killed postal worker Joseph Ileto, and wounded three children at a Jewish Community Center in Grenada Hills, California, after illegally acquiring firearms. What is not often reported is that, while a Glock pistol was used in Furrow`s heinous crime, the gun was originally sold to a police department, which subsequently sold it to a licensed dealer, who in turn sold it to a collector, who finally sold it to Furrow. Glock is being targeted but did nothing illegal.
Following last fall`s decision, Glock asked that the full court reconsider the ruling. Last week, the full court voted to allow the suit to proceed. Significantly, eight of the judges dissented. In writing the dissent, Judge Consuelo Callahan said, "The potential impact of the panel`s decision is staggering. Any manufacturer of an arguably dangerous product that finds its way into California can be hauled into court in California to defend against a civil action brought by a victim of the criminal use of that product." Drawing an obvious conclusion, Judge Callahan went on to say, "Thus, General Motors would be sued by someone who was hit by a Corvette that had been stolen by a juvenile."
This case dramatically underscores the urgent need for passage of a comprehensive federal lawsuit protection bill. Allowing these types of suits to continue unabated will be disastrous for the American firearm industry, and for your right to lawfully own firearms. That is why NRA-ILA remains committed to enacting a federal lawsuit preemption law that does not in any way compromise our Second Amendment rights.
BALLISTIC "FINGERPRINTING" NOT EFFECTIVE
A June 3 AP article appearing on Newsday.com reported that New York state`s much-lauded ballistic "fingerprinting" database, designed to match handguns in New York to crime scene evidence, has not solved a single crime in the more than three years since its debut.
These results are consistent with the findings of several studies that have already determined that existing ballistic imaging systems are flawed and have not been effective law enforcement tools. Despite these findings, anti-gun extremists continue to promote these ballistic "fingerprinting" schemes--which are little more than an attempt to impose a nationwide registration system for all law-abiding gun owners.
A LOOK AT THE STATES
ILLINOIS
Last week, the Illinois Senate voted to concur with the House on SB 2165, which seeks to provide an affirmative defense for a gun owner if he uses a firearm prohibited by local ordinance in defense of himself or others. The bill`s fate is now in the hands of Governor Rod Blagojevich (D), who has threatened to veto this common sense measure. Also awaiting a threatened veto is another common sense bill, SB 2386, which seeks to prohibit civil suits against a gun owner who uses a firearm to defend himself or others. Both SB 2165 and SB 2386 passed with enough votes to override the governor`s threatened veto, but you should still call Governor Blagojevich at (217) 782-6830 and urge him to sign SB 2165 and SB 2386, and remind him that both passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. And while Illinois families spent this past Memorial Day Weekend honoring the ultimate sacrifice made by those who have served in our nation`s service to protect our rights, anti-gun extremists schemed to mount another assault on one of those very rights--our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Anti-gun State Senator John Cullerton (D-6) chose the traditional date for the observance of Memorial Day, May 30, to introduce SB 3383, a bill that seeks to establish a ban on certain semi-automatic firearms at the state level. This legislation could be taken up during the time it takes to resolve the current impasse over the budget, although it may not see any action until the veto session in November. We will keep you posted as to any developments on this front, but please be sure to keep in touch with your state lawmakers and urge them to oppose this gun ban if it is brought up for consideration. The Senate can be reached by calling (217) 782-4517, and the House can be reached at (217) 782-8223. For additional contact information, please use the "Write Your Representatives" tool at www.NRAILA.org.
KANSAS
Senator Stan Clark (R-40), passed away over Memorial weekend. As a strong Second Amendment supporter, Senator Clark carried HB 2798, the "Personal and Family Protection Act," on the Senate floor. His death is a great loss to all NRA members. Memorial contributions may be made in Clark`s name to The Gideons International.
NEW YORK
Although the State Senate has rejected Governor George Pataki`s plan for renewable pistol licenses and new state fees contained in budget bills S. 6056/A. 9556, the budget process won`t be over until it`s finally adopted by the Legislature. It is, important to encourage lawmakers to continue standing firm in opposing the Governor`s plan, as these bills will be considered soon. For contact information for your lawmakers, please use the "Write Your Representatives" feature located at www.NRAILA.org.
OKLAHOMA
HB 1185 and HB 1410, both containing Right-to-Carry (RTC) reforms, passed final concurrence votes. HB 1185, allows for commissioned law-enforcement officers (reserve or full-time), who have gone through the appropriate background checks and training prior to their employment, to be issued a concealed carry permit for their off-duty time without further requirements. The fee for active duty law-enforcement concealed carry permits will be $25, plus the cost of photographs, etc. HB 1410, requires that law-enforcement return legitimate RTC holder`s firearms, if taken, unless they have committed a disqualifying offense or are believed to be a danger. HB 1410 allows instructors licenses and permits to be automatically renewed without a fee. Permit holders will also be able to travel with loaded long guns in their vehicle without repercussions. And finally, those appealing denials will have 60 calendar days to do so. Both HB 1185 and HB 1410 are now headed to the Governor`s desk.
Please do not reply to this email as you will not receive a response. This email is a broadcast email generated by an automated system. To contact NRA-ILA call 800-392-8683.
Address: 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030
Home | Current Legislation | Get Involved Locally | Register To Vote
Contribute | Update your profile/unsubscribe.
Librarian
Member
Oh, yes - 2498 does appear in the Congressional Record for Thursday:
Pretty bare-bones, but number and subject match the NRA report.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r108:42:./temp/~r108KUIKby::
Pretty bare-bones, but number and subject match the NRA report.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
I believe the bill has to be read a second time before it can proceed to a vote under Senate rules - and if there is any objection (which there will most surely be) the bill has to lay over at least three calendar days (out of the 30 calendar days remaining before September 14).
mountainclmbr
Member
I sent my GOA postcards. My two CO Senators are good guys, but my representative is a left wing scum bag. GOA keeps misspelling his name on the postcards. It should not be Mark Udall, it should be Marx Udall! I keep correcting it with a big black pen.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
I'm a bit rusty on some details: Isn't it mandatory that a newly-introduced bill make its way through Committee and possibly sub-Committee?
I do know that it's common practice that such be referred to Committee.
Art
I do know that it's common practice that such be referred to Committee.
Art
BR & Art,
It got its second reading on friday. Now it's on the "legislative calender under general orders". I'm not up on my senate rules but I assume this means the bill is fair game as either a stand alone or an attachment.
If you'll recall in March none of the gun control amendments proposed to the Lawful Commerce in Arms act had to go through a committee. So I would assume that she can propose a vote on this bill by itself or as an amendment to another bill (the more likely scenario) at anytime she wishes.
In any case this bears serious watching.
It got its second reading on friday. Now it's on the "legislative calender under general orders". I'm not up on my senate rules but I assume this means the bill is fair game as either a stand alone or an attachment.
If you'll recall in March none of the gun control amendments proposed to the Lawful Commerce in Arms act had to go through a committee. So I would assume that she can propose a vote on this bill by itself or as an amendment to another bill (the more likely scenario) at anytime she wishes.
In any case this bears serious watching.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
I'm still learning the legislative procedure and all the exceptions myself; but one thing I do know is the Senate is much more lenient than the House when it comes to surprises and non-germane amendments.
Yet another reason to replace the four retiring anti-gun Senators from Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina and North Carolina with pro-gun Senators and toss Tom Daschle out on his ear. That will give us the kind of majority where we don't have to lie awake at night wondering what obscure Senate procedure might be used to shaft us.
I believe, "Placed on the Legislative Calendar under General Orders" means it has skipped the committee process for whatever reasons (possibly because any earlier committe report on previous bills still applies) and can be brought to a floor vote with little notice.
Yet another reason to replace the four retiring anti-gun Senators from Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina and North Carolina with pro-gun Senators and toss Tom Daschle out on his ear. That will give us the kind of majority where we don't have to lie awake at night wondering what obscure Senate procedure might be used to shaft us.
I believe, "Placed on the Legislative Calendar under General Orders" means it has skipped the committee process for whatever reasons (possibly because any earlier committe report on previous bills still applies) and can be brought to a floor vote with little notice.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
OK, according to Riddick's Rules of Senate Procedure (http://www.gpo.gov/congress/senate/riddick/253-267.pdf)
The bill does not have to go through committee because it is substantially identical to an earlier bill that the committee has already reported on (the 2619 amendment to S.1815).
The bill having been read twice and placed on the general calendar can now come up for a vote at any time. If there is any objection though, the bill must lie over for at least one day.
At best then, we will have about 24hrs. notice when the bill comes up for a vote or is proposed as an amendment to something else.
Luckily, the Senate process relies heavily on unanimous consent agreements to get things moving. We need to encourage our Senators, especially the ones we know will fight for us, to stand up and fight that bill at every step and object every time an opportunity comes up. We need to let them know that we will support them and encourage them to filibuster.
The bill does not have to go through committee because it is substantially identical to an earlier bill that the committee has already reported on (the 2619 amendment to S.1815).
The bill having been read twice and placed on the general calendar can now come up for a vote at any time. If there is any objection though, the bill must lie over for at least one day.
At best then, we will have about 24hrs. notice when the bill comes up for a vote or is proposed as an amendment to something else.
Luckily, the Senate process relies heavily on unanimous consent agreements to get things moving. We need to encourage our Senators, especially the ones we know will fight for us, to stand up and fight that bill at every step and object every time an opportunity comes up. We need to let them know that we will support them and encourage them to filibuster.
- Status
