S 397 passes 65-31!

Status
Not open for further replies.

CentralTexas

Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Messages
1,235
Location
Austin Texas
By MARY DALRYMPLE, Associated Press Writer
7 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Friday to shield firearms manufacturers, dealers and importers from lawsuits brought by victims of gun crimes, a measure opponents said had been ordered up by the gun lobby.


The 65-31 vote passed a bill that supporters said protects the industry from financial disaster and bankruptcy caused by damage lawsuits.

"This bill says go after the criminal, don't go after the law-abiding gun manufacturer or the law-abiding gun seller," said bill sponsor Sen. Larry Craig (news, bio, voting record), R-Idaho.

But Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., and other opponents said the gun industry needs no such special protection. "This bill has one motivation — payback by the Bush administration and the Republican leadership of the Congress to the powerful special interest of the National Rifle Association," he said.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., yanked similar legislation from debate last year when Democrats successfully attached an extension of the ban on assault-style weapons and the NRA dropped its support.

Republicans picked up four more Senate seats in last November's election, emboldening gun rights supporters to try again.

The House passed a similar bill last year but has taken no action on it this year.

Democrats won inclusion this year of a new requirement that each handgun be sold with a separate child safety or locking device, unless purchased by government officials or police officers. Any violation could be punished by the suspension of a dealer's license, a $10,000 fine, or both.

Craig said the bill does not block gunmakers and dealers from facing product liability, negligence or breach of contract suits.

Its opponents, however, say the bill effectively exempts gun manufacturers from liability. They also say dealers sometimes let weapons get into the hands of people the law says shouldn't have them.

Democrats tried and lost attempts to insert special provisions in the legislation that would let children and police retain the right to sue, along with another amendment that would have let individuals but not municipalities retain the right to sue.

"Should those whose actions lead to the death or injury of a child get a free pass?" asked Sen. Frank Lautenberg (news, bio, voting record), D-N.J., who sponsored one amendment.

Supporters of the liability bill said the changes would have gutted the bill.

The Senate also brushed aside a Kennedy amendment that would have banned hollow-tipped, so-called "cop killer" bullets.

The gun industry gave 88 percent of its campaign contributions, or $1.2 million, to Republicans in the 2004 election cycle. Gun control advocates, meanwhile, gave 98 percent of their contributions, or $93,700, to Democrats during that election, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

___

On the Net:

Information on the legislation, S. 397, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/

National Rifle Association: http://www.nra.org

Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence: http://www.bradycenter.org
 
Does anyone have the text to Kennedy's Amendment, stating what Ammo would have been banned? Would like to give a buddy of mine, who is a yellow dog dem a heart attack. :evil:
 
But, there's not difference between the republicans and Democrats, right?

What will it take to make Ted Kennedy retire???
They'll have to carry his well-pickeled corpse out of his senate office.
 
This is just one part that is very good for all of us. Just a reiteration of the Bill of Rights (and further qualification):

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.
 
The handgun lock amendment requires a trigger or cable lock be delivered with every handgun sold with a dealer, but offers lawsuit protection for any gun owner that secures his weapon (with a cable/trigger lock, built-in lock, gun safe or locked case) against being sued for the actions of an unauthorized user. I'd say the $2 rise in the cost of handguns is worth the personal lawsuit protection.

Kharn
 
The handgun lock amendment requires a trigger or cable lock be delivered with every handgun sold with a dealer
Hmm....

Here's the definition (it was already defined before this vote):
(34) The term ''secure gun storage or safety device'' means -
(A) a device that, when installed on a firearm, is designed to
prevent the firearm from being operated without first
deactivating the device;
(B) a device incorporated into the design of the firearm that
is designed to prevent the operation of the firearm by anyone not
having access to the device; or
(C) a safe, gun safe, gun case, lock box, or other device that
is designed to be or can be used to store a firearm and that is
designed to be unlocked only by means of a key, a combination, or
other similar means.
It seems to me that a garbage bag pull-tie qualifies under (A). At the most it would have to be a specially branded pull-tie that is explicitly for guns. I searched ATF's regulations and found no references to safety devices.
 
I am fairly impressed it got through essentially untainted. Finally, a real success.
 
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 :evil:
 
As I've heard it, the House will take up passing their own bill again when they return from their recess in the fall.

This was a great victory today and it was very lopsided with RINOS Chafee and DeWine voting with the libs.
 
did you guys catch the amounts contributed by "pro-gun" and "gun-control" groups respectively? sucks to be them
 
Applause. Took the Republicans about four and a half years to actually do something for RKBA. At this rate, if they stay a majority for thirty years or so; they might just get around to repealing some of the gun control junk.


But, maybe they'll get emboldened by success.
 
The section that affirms the right of individuals to keep and bear arms is better than the lawsuit preemption if you ask me.
 
Do we have any indication when this may hit the House and then be signed into law, or can it still be shot down?
 
I'm wondering what's left for the Bradys and other gun control groups? With the Senate passing this bill the political door is rapidly closing for them and their discredited philosophies, nationally. They're really not going to be welcome anywhere else. What good are they to anyone in Washington? They don't give out much money during election time and they've pretty much worn out their welcome with reality minded Democrats who want to start winning and stop spinning about people not understanding their message. I would like to hope that the Democrats have finally come around to realize that the anti-gunners just aren't worth the headaches and bruisings that they have been causing them since 1994.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top