Gun bills may trigger split

[GSB]

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040223-121730-5000r.htm

Gun bills may trigger split


By Brian DeBose
THE WASHINGTON TIMES




The Senate will begin another debate on federal gun laws this week, and at least one issue may put it at odds with Republicans in the other chamber.

A Republican-led bill to immunize gun makers from wrongful-death claims is expected to hit the floor tomorrow, but Democrats and liberal Republicans will propose an amendment to extend the federal assault-weapons ban, possibly setting up a showdown with the House.
President Bush supports the assault-weapons proposal as well as the overall immunity bill.

"With regard to the assault-weapons ban, he supports the extension of the current ban," White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said. "On immunity, he doesn't believe manufacturers of a legal product should be held liable for the illegal use of that product."

The assault-weapons ban, signed in 1994 by President Clinton, outlawed the sale, import or manufacture of semiautomatic firearms with certain combinations of military-style features, such as bayonet mounts and flash suppressors.

The ban is set to expire Sept. 13, and a split could arise between the White House and House Republicans backed by some of the conservative movement's most powerful interest groups.

The president wants the extension to make good on his 2000 campaign promise to continue the "common sense" legislation. But he also wants to protect the gun industry from trial lawyers, a position supported by the National Rifle Association.

"Our position is very clear. This is not about extending the Clinton gun ban and it shouldn't muddy the waters," said Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president.

"The issue is, do we want to save the American gun industry or kill it ... and we oppose any expansion of the Clinton semiautomatic gun ban," Mr. LaPierre said.

House Republican leadership has vowed to see the ban expire. And the friction between House and Senate Republicans over legislative compromises on the energy and Medicare bills could worsen if the bill for gun makers' immunity enters the House chamber with unwanted amendments.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said last year that there weren't enough votes in the House to reauthorize the ban, and he has vowed not to fight for votes to push the legislation.

But Senate Democrats will not let the immunity proposal pass without extending the ban and may hold the overall bill hostage using amendments.

Howard Gantman, spokesman for Sen. Dianne Feinstein, said the California Democrat "has said that she would offer this bill [as an amendment] to the Republican gun-liability bill."

Mrs. Feinstein introduced a bill last year to extend the ban. It had several co-sponsors, including Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, and has the support of federal and local law enforcement agencies.

"We've urged President Bush to push this," Mr. Gantman said.

There also are bills to strengthen the assault-weapons ban by adding to the list of weapons defined as prohibited, although the chance of passing is slim in the Senate and practically nil in the House.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, New York Democrat, introduced a bill in May to place more guns on that list. A similar bill in the Senate, sponsored by Sen. Frank R. Lautenburg, New Jersey Democrat, is expected to hit the floor this week.

Scott Roliston, a spokesman for Mrs. McCarthy, said his boss would bring more amendments to the gun bill.

"Congresswoman McCarthy ran for office for stricter gun laws. The president said he would sign an assault-weapons ban if it got to his desk. He has 208 days to do this, and it is going to be an issue," Mr. Roliston said.

A final wrinkle in the debate will be a bill from Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, for tighter regulation of the private sale of firearms at gun shows. Federal laws and those of numerous states require licensed gun dealers to conduct thorough criminal background checks of buyers, but guns sold by individuals at shows require no extensive checks.

Lobbyists say the proposed regulation, also opposed by gun-rights groups, has the votes to pass the Senate, either on its own or as an amendment to the gun makers' immunity bill. Its prospects in the House are less clear.

 

[GSB]

This is related to another thread, so if the mods wish to merge it, that's fine. As it was a mainstream news article with quite a bit of info, I thought I'd give it its own post, but that's just a judgement call.

 

[Harry Tuttle]

"With regard to the assault-weapons ban, he supports the extension of the current ban," White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said

i thought he said:

"if it reached his desk, he would sign it"

 

[GSB]

That's parsing it a bit fine. Of course, he said he thought the CFR was unConstitutional, and he signed it, so I guess he could oppose the ban and still sign it, which gets us to exactly the same place.

This isn't looking very good at the moment.

 

[Boats]

It only looks as bad as it does because you are reading the way it was presented to you.

If the Senate immunity bill passes, even with an AWB extension attached, it would have to go to conference with the House, who'd undoubtedly move to strip out the offending amendment. The conference bill could then go back to the Senate for an up and down vote, which will be much more pressurized by the NRA and others, since there will be nothing to duck behind.

Either that or the immunity bill is dead for this year. There is always next time for that legislation, especially if the Senate becomes more Republican, as anticipated.

 

[Bob Locke]

"With regard to the assault-weapons ban, he supports the extension of the current ban," White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said.

Yeah, but he's SO much better than Kerry, who supports expanding the ban. Bush only wants to extend the status quo.

"The issue is, do we want to save the American gun industry or kill it ... and we oppose any expansion of the Clinton semiautomatic gun ban," Mr. LaPierre said.

You tell 'em, Wayne. Oh, wait. He says they oppose any expansion of the Clinton ban, not reauthorizationin its current form.

Film at 11.

 

[c_yeager]

"With regard to the assault-weapons ban, he supports the extension of the current ban," White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said

Being the WHITE HOUSE SPOKESWOMAN means that she speaks with the president's voice. This IS his opinion.

Personally id be happy seeing both the immunity and the awb sink like stones. The Ban is a no-brainer and, personally i think making gun manufactures immune from wrongful-death suits ENTIRELY goes way too far. If i buy a remington that is so out of wack that it grenades in my face i think they should be held accountable.

 

[twoblink]

I'd love to put the ban to a vote here in THR..

If we had a one hour meeting on it; what would we do with the other 59 minutes 59 seconds?

 

[greyhound]

I thought Scott McClellan(sp?) was the White House press secretary?

I've never heard of her, though that does not mean she doesn't speak for the President.

Lean hard on your Reps if they are wavering, folks, the place to beat renewal is in the House. The Senate is real close so its hard to trust the fence sitters.

 

[Spot77]

"Personally id be happy seeing both the immunity and the awb sink like stones. The Ban is a no-brainer and, personally i think making gun manufactures immune from wrongful-death suits ENTIRELY goes way too far. If i buy a remington that is so out of wack that it grenades in my face i think they should be held accountable"

Although I haven't read the bill, I was under the impression that it would apply to the misuse of a firearm (such as the whole DC "wannabe sniper" thing....people are suing Bushmaster over this).

I hope it doesn't actually apply to product liability such as you described. I wouldn't want my Ruger blowing my hand off either with no recourse......although I suppose I know that's a risk I take as part of the shooting hobby.

Somebody want to post the actual bill?

 

[milton]

Read what the dumb old Governator Dumbkopf in CA said sunday if you want a real clue to what the GOP really thinks about the AWB.

 

[Mark Tyson]

i think making gun manufactures immune from wrongful-death suits ENTIRELY goes way too far. If i buy a remington that is so out of wack that it grenades in my face i think they should be held accountable

If I'm not mistaken, S 659 will prevent frivolous lawsuits. It will not grant them immunity if they make an unsafe product or if they break the law.

It just occurred to me that the gun industry will owe us a hell of a lot if we can pass this bill. I expect them to reciprocate. No more compromises. No more disgraceful sell-outs. They will owe us BIG TIME.

 

[Michigander]

You will still be able to sue manufacturers for faulty products. The bill protects the manufacturers from suits arising from the mis-use of a properly functioning firearm in the comission of a crime.

Otherwise it would be like suing Ford Motor Company because someone used a Ford in a bank robbery get-a-way or to run someone over on purpose. In this case, if the gas tank exploded because of some manufacturing defect or engineering oversight, you could still sue the manufacturer.

evil:Michigander has devilish thought: Hmm, it might be a good thing to have Bush sign the extension of the AWB? Many THR's (and I'm sure many others who are not THR's) have said that if he does sign for the AWB that they would not be voting for him come November. Most of those also said that they would NEVER vote for a Democrat. So, either they do not vote or they vote for a third party, hopefully Libertarian)

Sorry, I just snapped out of it! I certainly do not wish for the AWB to be signed, renewed, extended or made permanent! But that devilish thought I had sure makes me think!

 

[WvaBill]

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1806
To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others.




(5) QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTION-

(A) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified civil liability action' means a civil action brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include--

(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;

(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;

(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly and willfully violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought;

(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product; or

(v) an action for physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended.

(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- In subparagraph (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment' means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person and others.


Search for S. 1806 here

 

[Standing Wolf]

I've got a hunch the Republicans don't want my vote this November.

 

[Thumper]

Read what the dumb old Governator Dumbkopf in CA said sunday if you want a real clue to what the GOP really thinks about the AWB.

Wrong. Read the ACTUAL VOTING RECORD. The exception, of course, does NOT prove the rule. The GOP is overwhelmingly on the side of gun owners.

Some of you guys need to seriously re-examine your sources of info.

Inside the beltway, the actual guys in the trenches consider it to be COMMON KNOWLEDGE that Bush's statements concerning the AWB are a political ploy to give himself space. Prudent and smart.

From ontheissues.org (bipartisan info): "Recent attempts to distance himself are assumed to be merely tactical."

-Bush supports concealed carry, for God's sake!
-He supports lawsuit immunity for the gun industry.
-He supports our ideas because "we live in a dangerous society, people feel like they need to defend themselves." (Wash Post, Apr. '99)

If you don't see that that's about as good as is plausible, you need to work on your level of political acuity.

 

[femoralis]

"You tell 'em, Wayne. Oh, wait. He says they oppose any expansion of the Clinton ban, not reauthorizationin its current form."

Are you trying to say the NRA is ok w/ the AW ban as it is now? Umm, no. Please see www.clintongunban.com

 

[c_yeager]

Thanks for clearing that up WvaBill. The immunity law looks OK to me. I still dont really think the .gov should have a place at all in product liability but, they will wether we like it or not anyways and its better this way.

 

[GSB]

Inside the beltway, the actual guys in the trenches consider it to be COMMON KNOWLEDGE that Bush's statements concerning the AWB are a political ploy to give himself space. Prudent and smart.

Unfortunately, I remember when it was common knowledge that Bush signed CFR as a political ploy, fully expecting the USSC to overturn the free speech restrictions.

By the way, why does everyone assume that GWB doesn't really support with the ban? He's been pretty clear on his support of it since before he was elected, and I've never seen any quotes that would lead me to believe that he has any problems with the thing beyond the fact that he'd rather the issue never got to his desk so that he doesn't have to piss anyone off before an election. Everything I've seen from him on the subject leads me to conclude that he honestly thinks it's good legislation. I don't agree with him, but I can respect that a heck of a lot more than I would respect somebody who outright lies to the public as a "political ploy".

 

[WvaBill]

c_yeager

Thanks for clearing that up WvaBill. The immunity law looks OK to me. I still dont really think the .gov should have a place at all in product liability but, they will wether we like it or not anyways and its better this way.

The .gov is trying to stop the antis from using the courts to do what they have failed to do in legislature(marketing liability), not involve itself in product liability.

 

[rick_reno]

By the way, why does everyone assume that GWB doesn't really support with the ban? He's been pretty clear on his support of it since before he was elected, and I've never seen any quotes that would lead me to believe that he has any problems with the thing beyond the fact that he'd rather the issue never got to his desk so that he doesn't have to piss anyone off before an election.

I think we'll have to wait until after the election to see what GWB does with this one. He won't be facing an election then.

 

[dustind]

Bush is a political windsock, he will vote for anything that touches his desk.

This liability bill is like a few said, only for criminals using lawful products, not defects.

 

[Mark Tyson]

If Bush didn't "really" support the ban, then why didn't he come out and say it when he had the chance, and when it's politically safe to do so? The antis are already in Kerry's camp anyway.

 

[MBG]

My read on this, from buying a few rounds of beer for some hill staffers, is that (fortunately) the AWB renewal will never see the light of joint committee, and (unfortunately) neither will the manufactures protection bill.

Just before the big ’04 election cycle, there is no political benefit for either party to hash this out in public. Dem’s are worried about mobilizing the gun owners without any incremental gain from the other side. Rep’s are concerned of trying and failing, thus pissing off both sides at once.

Come November, the Democrats will tell the banners that the mean old Republicans would not let them bring the legislation up for public debate. The Republicans will tell us that they stopped those wacky gun banners from taking our over-unders and target pistols.

For the moment, we are the political third rail. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Marty

P.S., of course we should NOT enjoy being the third rail. Make sure your reps, as well as each of the Presidential candidates, KNOWS you will vote based on their gun rights records.

 

[GSB]

If Bush didn't "really" support the ban, then why didn't he come out and say it when he had the chance, and when it's politically safe to do so? The antis are already in Kerry's camp anyway.

I'm inclined to think he thinks the AWB is a good idea, just not one he wants to have to deal with. I have no reason from his comments to think otherwise. I would be delighted to have someone provide me some evidence to the contrary -- something more tangible than "conventional wisdom" or the comments of "political strategists". This is one time where I want to be proved wrong.

edited to add: Please don't take this to mean that I think GWB is anti-gun or "just as bad as Kerry". Heck, there are plenty of gun owners who think the AWB is a good idea. I've talked to them. I think that this is just not a particularly important issue to the President, given everything else he has to deal with, and he probably doesn't have any real idea about the legislation beyond the standard "you don't need a machine gun to hunt deer" stereotype.