S 397 passes 65-31!

[TheOtherOne]

What are the chances the gun lock requirement will make it all the way to the Presidents desk and get signed? Will they be able to strip this poison pill out during committee or what? That's just what I need is my dealer being forced by the federal government to push a cable lock on me.

Am I a spineless voter if I don't stay true to my word and no longer vote for my (supposedly) pro-gun senators Bennett and Hatch for passing this bill with an anti-gun amendment?

 

[Kharn]

What are the chances the gun lock requirement will make it all the way to the Presidents desk and get signed? Will they be able to strip this poison pill out during committee or what?

That "poison pill" would protect you from a lawsuit if some crackhead broke into your safe and sold all your guns on the street.

Kharn

 

[TheOtherOne]

That "poison pill" would protect you from a lawsuit if some crackhead broke into your safe and sold all your guns on the street.

Is that what it does? I searched and think I finally found the amendment but I'm really not sure what the heck it says. I noticed it had the usual exemptions for Law Enforcement and the list of co-sponsors are impressive freedom fighters:

Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] - 7/28/2005
Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] - 7/28/2005
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 7/28/2005
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] - 7/28/2005
Sen Corzine, Jon S. [NJ] - 7/28/2005
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 7/28/2005

With those kind of backers I'm sure it's very pro-gun. Does it also exempt me from lawsuits if a crook busts open my LOCKED door or breaks a closed window and steals a shotgun leaning in my closet or a pistol in my dresser drawer?

Mr. KOHL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 397, to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:


On page 12, after line 24, add the following:

SEC. 5. CHILD SAFETY LOCKS.

(a) SHORT TITLE.--This section may be cited as the ``Child Safety Lock Act of 2005''.

(b) PURPOSES.--The purposes of this section are--

(1) to promote the safe storage and use of handguns by consumers;

(2) to prevent unauthorized persons from gaining access to or use of a handgun, including children who may not be in possession of a handgun; and

(3) to avoid hindering industry from supplying firearms to law abiding citizens for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting.

(c) FIREARMS SAFETY.--

(1) MANDATORY TRANSFER OF SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:

``(z) SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE.--

``(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided under paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun to any person other than any person licensed under this chapter, unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device (as defined in section 921(a)(34)) for that handgun.

``(2) EXCEPTIONS.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

``(A)(i) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, the United States, a department or agency of the United States, a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, of a handgun; or

``(ii) the transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a handgun for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off duty); or

``(B) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State of a handgun for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);

``(C) the transfer to any person of a handgun listed as a curio or relic by the Secretary pursuant to section 921(a)(13); or

``(D) the transfer to any person of a handgun for which a secure gun storage or safety device is temporarily unavailable for the reasons described in the exceptions stated in section 923(e), if the licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer delivers to the transferee within 10 calendar days from the date of the delivery of the handgun to the transferee a secure gun storage or safety device for the handgun.

``(3) LIABILITY FOR USE.--

``(A) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun, and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device with the handgun, shall be entitled to immunity from a qualified civil liability action.

``(B) PROSPECTIVE ACTIONS.--A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.

``(C) DEFINED TERM.--As used in this paragraph, the term `qualified civil liability action'--

``(i) means a civil action brought by any person against a person described in subparagraph (A) for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of the handgun by a third party, if--

``(I) the handgun was accessed by another person who did not have the permission or authorization of the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun to have access to it; and

``(II) at the time access was gained by the person not so authorized, the handgun had been made inoperable by use of a secure gun storage or safety device; and

``(ii) shall not include an action brought against the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun for negligent entrustment or negligence per se.''.

(2) CIVIL PENALTIES.--Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``or (f)'' and inserting ``(f), or (p)''; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

``(p) PENALTIES RELATING TO SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE.--

``(1) IN GENERAL.--

``(A) SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF LICENSE; CIVIL PENALTIES.--With respect to each violation of section 922(z)(1) by a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer, the Secretary may, after notice and opportunity for hearing--

``(i) suspend for not more than 6 months, or revoke, the license issued to the licensee under this chapter that was used to conduct the firearms transfer; or

``(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty in an amount equal to not more than $2,500.

``(B) REVIEW.--An action of the Secretary under this paragraph may be reviewed only as provided under section 923(f).

``(2) ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.--The suspension or revocation of a license or the imposition of a civil penalty under paragraph (1) shall not preclude any administrative remedy that is otherwise available to the Secretary.''.

To be a little more fair to Hatch and Bennett they did initially vote against adding this amendment... but ultimately voted for it when they voted Yea on the passage of S 397

 

[TonkinTwentyMil]

29 of the 31 votes against the bill...

... were by Democrats.

So, I'm real confused here.

Didn't Dem party honcho, Dr. Howie Dean, tell everyone just a couple months ago that Gun Control was no longer a national issue for his party?

Maybe those 29 Dem senators who voted against this bill thought they were voting against something else... like the Trial Lawyers Welfare Reform Act of 2005.

 

[NCGUN]

Regarding the trigger lock, read http://www.gunowners.org/a072905.htm and see why the little gun-lock issue could be a wolf in sheeps clothing.

 

[Harry Tuttle]

Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Not Voting
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Nay
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Nay Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Not Voting
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Mikulski (D-MD), Nay Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Dayton (D-MN), Nay
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Yea
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea Talent (R-MO), Yea
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Burns (R-MT), Yea
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Not Voting
New Jersey: Corzine (D-NJ), Nay Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Ohio: DeWine (R-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Not Voting Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Pennsylvania: Santorum (R-PA), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Chafee (R-RI), Nay Reed (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Yea Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Frist (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Jeffords (I-VT), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Virginia: Allen (R-VA), Yea Warner (R-VA), Yea
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Murray (D-WA), Nay
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming: Enzi (R-WY), Yea Thomas (R-WY), Yea

 

[beerslurpy]

Why dont the republicans repeal 922(o) (86 ban) the same way that it was done in the first place? They can get rid of the trigger lock bit and also repeal 922(o) at the same time. A late night last minute voice vote.

Am I missing something? Surely the republicans have a greater majority than the dems did in 86, no?

 

[Kurush]

You are missing that Frist wants to run for President so he's trying to be everybody's good buddy.

 

[beerslurpy]

Uh, 922(o) was tacked on in the House, and the House is where they plan to remove the safety lock BS. So I daresay that this has nothing to do with Frist or his ambitions. (which you are completely correct about by the way)

 

[Kurush]

Yep but the Senate still has to vote on whatever comes out of the conference committee.

 

[beerslurpy]

As long as they only vote, it just matters that they have a simple majority.

In conference committee, they could put in that it is a felony for Ted Kennedy to drink alcohol and it would still pass.

I just hope that the Republicans in the House actually do their jobs.

 

[Mr.BadExample]

The gun lock amendment does open up a can of worms, but it looks like the proposal to make .50BMG an NFA did not pass, and for that I am glad. Could have been worse, but let's not celebrate yet.

 

[RealGun]

So, I'm real confused here.

Didn't Dem party honcho, Dr. Howie Dean, tell everyone just a couple months ago that Gun Control was no longer a national issue for his party?

Maybe those 29 Dem senators who voted against this bill thought they were voting against something else... like the Trial Lawyers Welfare Reform Act of 2005.

Dems tried to make it gun control bill, but it was a legal reform bill. Hard core opponents were either damned if they were going to give the gun lobby any satisfaction or sincerely believed the common guy should be able sue. Anything that protects a business of any kind would get their attention. I think that's a pretty common theme among more liberal Senators.

The trigger lock amendment is mildly germane, because use of a safe or "trigger lock" supposedly provides immunity from lawsuit. It is not at all clear how use of an easily removed locking device would be established when a stolen gun was traced back to its owner. It is clear that usage of safes and trigger locks will become subjects covered by prosecutors. This noose will become tighter via increasingly specific laws until it becomes readily possible to nail someone for this fabricated negligence.

 

[Nathaniel Firethorn]

Good news.

But I would be much more interested in knowing what the heck is going on with the Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005.

- pdmoderator

 

[aquapong]

The House version of this bill has not yet passed. It is HR 800, and has 257 cosponsors, more than enough to go through. We all need to contact Tom DeLay and the reps cosponsoring the bill to tell them we want it passed when they come back from August recess.

 

[RavenVT100]

And I found the perfect way to celebrate the victory today.....

...Bought a case of .223 and a case of 45ACP, as well as a few choice evil accesories for the AR

Ah. I just went to the bar.

 

[txgho1911]

check out all the votes for your your senator

I can see through the records that Bayh (D-IN) may not be a Kennedy but he is anti.
Can also see through the records that Lugar (R-IN) is on the wrong side of most of the issues up this past week.

All of the 109th congresses Senate votes are here:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_1.htm

S.397 begins at about vote # 206. The various recorded votes on amendments until final passage streach up to about 219.

The RINO is up first for re-election. Lets show him the door.

 

[RealGun]

But I would be much more interested in knowing what the heck is going on with the Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005.

However, all or most of the nuisance amendments would need to be treated as germane, when the subject of the bill really was gun control.

Did someone say "gun"! Let's see...I think I have an amendment here somewhere.

What a circus.

 

[RealGun]

Senators up for reelection in 2006, sorted by State:

Last name First name State Party Class
Kyl Jon AZ R I
Feinstein Dianne CA D I
Lieberman Joseph CT D I
Carper Thomas DE D I
Nelson Bill FL D I
Akaka Daniel HI D I
Lugar Richard IN R I
Kennedy Edward MA D I
Sarbanes Paul MD D I
Snowe Olympia ME R I
Stabenow Debbie MI D I
Dayton Mark MN D I
Talent James MO R I
Lott Trent MS R I
Burns Conrad MT R I
Conrad Kent ND D I
Nelson Ben NE D I
Corzine Jon NJ D I
Bingaman Jeff NM D I
Ensign John NV R I
Clinton Hillary NY D I
DeWine Mike OH R I
Santorum Rick PA R I
Chafee Lincoln RI R I
Frist Bill TN R I
Hutchison Kay TX R I
Hatch Orrin UT R I
Allen George VA R I
Jeffords James VT I I
Cantwell Maria WA D I
Kohl Herb WI D I
Byrd Robert WV D I
Thomas Craig WY R I

I don't think Sarbanes and Frist are planning to run.