S.397 Being Debated Right Now!
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
- Status
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Sen. Sessions rebutting Reed's comments now
Sessions is pointing out how these cases are still a threat. Points out how many have failed because they're so bogus. Reads letter from Beretta, written this year. It states that a DC ruling holds manufacturers liable for crimes done with their guns. Hadn't been used until recently when it was used by a lawsuit filed to hold them accountable for gun crimes in the District. Cites ruling where victims can sue gun companies simply to determine IF their gun were used in their crime. This means even if the gun is sold lawfully in a state far away, and it winds up a crime gun in DC, the mfg is responsible.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Sen. Sessions reading a letter from the General Counsel of Beretta to the VP of the U.S. asking how they are supposed to do business when the Washington D.C. court has upheld a law saying that manufacturers, importers and distributors are strictly liable for criminal acts committed with their products in D.C.
All that is takes to be eligible is to have your companies' firearm used in the shooting, even if the firearm was originally sold in a state far from D.C. and sold to a lawful customer - but hey no crisis that would require a reform of lawsuits.
All that is takes to be eligible is to have your companies' firearm used in the shooting, even if the firearm was originally sold in a state far from D.C. and sold to a lawful customer - but hey no crisis that would require a reform of lawsuits.
Flyboy
Member
Reed just mentioned the case of the Kahr pistols that were stolen by employees and sold for cash and drugs as a case that would be dismissed by this legislation. Seems to me that such a case would be an excellent opportunity to charge the individuals who, you know, committed the theft.
The Dems don't care about criminals because they don't have deep pockets to reach into.
Reed could only come up with non sequitors about not being able to sue negligent dealers, now Sessions is addressing the untruthfulness of this assertion.
Reed could only come up with non sequitors about not being able to sue negligent dealers, now Sessions is addressing the untruthfulness of this assertion.
The instrument to remove the tools of the 2nd Amendment and LE and national defense rests in the hands of attorneys, letter says. Sessions says it's the principle of the matter to be concerned with. Should a mfg who sold a gun in MN be liable for an intervening criminal act in DC? We're in the mode now of using the courts to push this political agenda, an agenda that can't pass Congress, etc. We're concerned with eliminating this political abuse of not being subject to the legisilative process. Notes how you can sue mfgs who violate the law, how an action can be brought against a dealer by any party harmed by a violation of law. Acts of neglience, etc.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
By the way, ARFCOM is sponsoring a "Tell Sen. Reed what you think of his comments at (202) 224 - 4642" effort...
armoredman
Member
I wish Sessions would quit tripping over his words. Good words, but he sounds like he blustering, with all the umm and ahss...
Sessions continues to point out all the laws and regulations that must be complied with during the process of mfg, selling, using, etc. and how a violation of these allows for lawsuits. Also includes straw purchases in example. He believes these are important exceptions, and says S.397 doesn't give the claimed "immunity" to dealers.
It's been said that dealers have insurance, ergo it isn't so bad. Says this is a slippery slope argument used too much. Says juries are often told they're punishing wrong doers, but insurance companies end up paying so often. So we all end up paying with higher rates. All dealers good and bad suffer too.
It's been said that dealers have insurance, ergo it isn't so bad. Says this is a slippery slope argument used too much. Says juries are often told they're punishing wrong doers, but insurance companies end up paying so often. So we all end up paying with higher rates. All dealers good and bad suffer too.
Sessions says it's a stretch beyond breaking point that those complying with law in their transfers, become liable if legal buyer misuses it. Points out the common sense that Malvo should be responsible if he shoots somebody. But they realize that he has no money, so they go after Wal-Mart, or S&W. Is very concerned over this, and says we have moved far away from our principles of liability.
Sessions talks about serial numbers, and their recording. Talks about prosecuting criminals filing serial numbers hoping to avoid detection. Doesn't want guns to move around without being indentified. Says our Constitution provides for the RKBA, and we set many restrictions on it. The problem is dealing with courts who create legal liability on mfg who sells a legal product to legal buyer. Just trying to bring some balance to this issue, has broad support because the bugs have been worked out of S.397 and had many months to review it.
There is certainly no requirement to be a polished speaker in the US Senate, one merely need be able to consume an hour or more with a rambling diatribe.
World's Greatest Deliberative Body? More like long winded, uninterrputable bores compared to the back-and-forth of say, the UK parliament.
World's Greatest Deliberative Body? More like long winded, uninterrputable bores compared to the back-and-forth of say, the UK parliament.
armoredman
Member
Who is this "large person"?
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Hillary up with a totally unrelated amendment she wanted to attach to S.1042 (to boost VA funding) - My bad, it is Stabenow speaking not Hillary. I have audio only.
Now some senator is talking about a bill she wishes she could have added to the DOD funding act. BOOHOO!! Talk about the bill on the floor or be quiet.
Edited to add: Never mind let her blather on about something else, just don't complain about not debating S 397 fully.
Edited to add: Never mind let her blather on about something else, just don't complain about not debating S 397 fully.
armoredman
Member
How long do they get to debate S 397 before voting, now that they have cloture? This woman is annoying.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
After a cloture vote, they have up to 100 hours before reaching a final vote.
armoredman
Member
Gah....The large woman is crying that they have to get back to the DoD bill to "save our troops", but this would not be a priority if the competing bill wasn't a firearm rights bill, that's for sure!
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
If you want to get back to the DoD appropriations bill then quit bloviating and offer a clean S.397 for a vote to the Senate. Vote it up or down and you can proceed to consider S.1042 again.
Easy enough Dems, now let's see if they actually try that...
Easy enough Dems, now let's see if they actually try that...
Beren
Moderator Emeritus
MY BRAIN IS TRYING TO GNAW ITS WAY OUT MY EAR! 
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
No, the Senate leader (Frist) promised they would finish up the Defense Appropriations bill in the next 30 hours (the amount of time left before the Senate breaks for summer recess and doesn't return until Sept. 6th).
However, that was before the Senate refused to approve cloture of the Defense bill, so who knows now...
However, that was before the Senate refused to approve cloture of the Defense bill, so who knows now...
- Status