mrtgbnkr
Member
I wrote (and called, and called) Senator DeWine during the battle over S.1805 regarding both the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and the AWB extension amendment. Here is the letter I received in reply.
Way too much double speak to be worth breaking down...but I think I will contact him again...to tell him I'm voting for someone else.
Dear Mark,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (S.1805), which failed to pass in the Senate on March 2, 2004, by a vote of 8 to 90. I appreciate knowing your views.
As you know, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act would have prohibited several types of lawsuits from being brought against firearm manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and trade groups. Specifically, the Act would have -- except in very limited circumstances -- prohibited any person who is injured by unlawful gun violence from suing firearms sellers who irresponsibly or unreasonably provided guns to criminals. The Act's lawsuit prohibition also contained language that would have effectively terminated numerous pending civil lawsuits, including the lawsuit against the dealer who appears to have allowed, through negligent behavior, the Washington DC snipers to walk off unnoticed with a 3-foot assault rifle.(sic)
I do believe that we do need responsible tort reform measures in the Senate. However, I could not in good conscience support this bill. Although there are, without a doubt, many frivolous lawsuits, there are also legitimate cases where victims of negligence should be allowed to take their cases to court. This bill would have disallowed innocent victims of gun violence to hold irresponsible individuals accountable for harmful and negligent actions.
Providing the firearms industry with this immunity would have overturned over 200 years of civil law in this country and fundamentally changed our justice system. S. 1805 would have denied one group of our citizens access to the court system. I believe that we must trust the good judges we trust in every other civil suit in this country to make the decision to throw out frivolous lawsuits. We do not and should not exempt any industry in this country for their negligent actions. Passing this bill would have changed that and set a terrible precedent.
During the debate of this Act, the Senate voted on numerous amendments. Several received particular attention. I would like to explain my thoughts on some of these amendments.
First, I supported the Assault Weapons Ban. I voted to renew this ban because I feel that violent crime is a serious problem in our Nation and that this ban helps to keep out of the hands of criminals weapons designed to virtually fire -- indiscriminately -- numerous bullets in a very short period of time. Law enforcement has urged me to support this renewal. The ban makes exceptions for more than 670 hunting and recreational rifles, and at the same time the assault weapons ban does not limit protected weapons to just this list.
I also voted for the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act, an amendment to extend Brady background checks to all purchases at gun shows. I support the rights of people to hold, conduct, and attend gun shows. Under current law, however, some sellers at gun shows do not have to conduct background checks on purchasers, while others do. As a result, we wind up with the situation where Americans pay for a sophisticated and expensive background check system that can easily be avoided by criminals. That doesn't make sense. Indeed, according to federal officials, gun shows are the second leading source of illegal guns recovered from gun trafficking investigations. Also, following the attacks on September 11th, it cam to light that the organization funding these attacks, Al Qaida, produced a handbook in which it advised its followers to purchase firearms at gun shows in the United States. Therefore, it is imperative, now more than ever, that we enact legislation to protect our citizens.
Finally, I supported the Steve Young Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, an amendment to allow qualified current and former law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms in and jurisdiction in which they travel or live. I voted for this legislation because I believe that having more armed officers on the streets will help improve the security of our Nation and its citizens.
I support the Second Amendment right to bear arms. I also feel that gun violence is a serious problem in our Nation and that the best way to reduce the illegal use of guns is to pass and enforce tough laws that severely punish criminals who use them illegally. Throughout my tenure in the Senate, I consistently have supported measures to balance the legitimate rights of law-abiding citizens and gun owners, with measures to keep firearms from getting into the hands of criminals. While there is much debate on the Second Amendment, I believe we can successfully protect our constitutional rights while punishing and discouraging those who would abuse them.
Again, thank you for contacting me regarding this issue. If you have additional concerns, please feel free to contact me anytime.
Very respectfully yours,
(signed)
Mike DeWine
United States Senator
Way too much double speak to be worth breaking down...but I think I will contact him again...to tell him I'm voting for someone else.
Voinovich is no better. Why, oh why can't we do better? :banghead:
He took the primary easily (without my vote). He panders to the liberal majority in northern Ohio. Changing his behavior is not practical.