S.659 becomes **S.1805 Adds Gun Control**

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CaesarI

Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
408
Location
KS
They've added it.

From RMGO:
EMERGENCY ALERT - Senate Bill 1805 opens Pandora's Box of Gun Control!

As predicted, S.1805, the Lawsuit Liability bill is being debated on the
Senate Floor (at the behest of its sponsor, Idaho Senator Larry Craig).

And late last night, Senator Larry Craig (a board member of the NRA)
worked with rabid anti-gunner Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) to come up with a
"Unanimous Consent Agreement" which allows a large number of gun control
amendments to be offered to S.1805.

By pushing this bill to be heard on the floor, and agreeing to hear a
large number of gun control amendments (listed below), Senator Craig has
opened up Pandora's Box of Gun Control.

That means you MUST call your US Senators immediately, even if you
called them yesterday.

Senator Wayne Allard can be reached at (202) 224-5941.

Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell can be reached at (202) 224-5852.

Urge both of Colorado's Senators to VOTE AGAINST S.1805, now that it has
gun control on it and is likely to contain more.

As this alert is being written, the Senate just passed an amendment (by
70-27) to require Trigger locks (we do not have the language, but will
shortly) and is moving toward more gun control. It's a federal
government intrusion on your right to self-defense, and FAR outweighs
any good S.1805's original language would do.

And as this is being written, Sen. Teddy Kennedy is offering an
amendment to ban "Cop Killer Bullets."

After agreeing to the "Unanimous Consent Agreement", Sen. Larry Craig
said "Some of these amendments could pass." This C-Span2 admission is
understating it -- some of these gun control amendments WILL pass. In
fact, one already has, and others gun control advocates are lining up to
join in on the "fun".

NRA Board Member Sen. Larry Craig has agreed to allow a slated list of
gun control amendments to S.1805. These include, but are not limited
to, the following unspecified gun controls:

Boxer - new Federal rules for Gun locks
Campbell - Cop-Only Nationwide Carry
Kennedy - Cop Killer Bullets
Mikulski - Snipers
McCain-Reed - Gun Show ban
Feinstein - Assault Weapons ban
Frist - Cop Killer bullets

And these are only the amendments that have been announced. Others
almost certainly will be floated, and maybe passed.

Does this constitute proof that the NRA "struck a deal" to allow gun
controls to pass? Of course, they claim they didn't cut any deals.

But ask these questions:

1. Have you received an e-mail from NRA-ILA urging voting against S.1805
IF it gets gun control on it? They KNOW quite well that this bill will
have gun control on it, and have known it for weeks. Instead, they play
inside baseball and tell gun owners "Trust us -- we have a plan",
trusting in their own cleverness to circumvent the anti-gunners
amendments. That is the same thing they said on the McCain-Fiengold
Campaign Finance Deform bill (which stripped gun owners of their 1st
Amendment rights) as well as the first Assault Weapons and High-capacity
magazines ban bill, Brady Registration Checks, Lautenberg Gun Ban, etc,
etc. That's a failed strategy, and should be abandoned.

Remember, the definition of insanity is continuing to do what you've
always done but expecting different results.

They'll post some things on their website, but they won't apply real
pressure. That mean's they are, by their silence, agreeing to this
"Unanimous Consent Agreement." And their board member, Sen. Larry
Craig, openly agreed to that agreement with Sen. Reed. Craig will vote
against most (not all) of the gun controls, but he's the person who
enabled all of these gun control amendments.

2. Why would an NRA board member accept a Unanimous Consent Agreement to
allow a huge number of amendments to be debated, all of which strip gun
owners of their rights and many of which that board member (and US
Senator) knows will pass?

The writer of this alert is a former staff member (not intern) of the
U.S. Senate, under Senator Bill Armstrong. I know how the U.S. Senate
works, and have been in regular consultation with those who have worked
in all aspects of Congress for decades. One thing is crystal clear: the
NRA's mouthpiece, US Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho), has agreed to let
these amendments be heard, and he knows some will be attached to the
bill.

3. Have you heard the NRA say that they will oppose S.659/S.1805 in the
Senate if it gets gun control amendments on it? We haven't, and doubt
we will, since their US Senator is the one who enabled those amendments
to be attached.

There's no more time to waste.

Call your US Senators immediately and urge them to vote AGAINST S.1805.

Senator Wayne Allard can be reached at (202) 224-5941.

Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell can be reached at (202) 224-5852.

Urge them to vote against S.1805.

It's time to pull the plug on this well-meaning, but gun-control-laden
dog.
 
NRA Board Member Sen. Larry Craig has agreed to allow a slated list of
gun control amendments to S.1805. These include, but are not limited
to, the following unspecified gun controls:

Boxer - new Federal rules for Gun locks
Campbell - Cop-Only Nationwide Carry
Kennedy - Cop Killer Bullets
Mikulski - Snipers
McCain-Reed - Gun Show ban
Feinstein - Assault Weapons ban
Frist - Cop Killer bullets
Click to expand...
Has it really gone this bad or is this a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

I've written letters to urge my reps to support the anti-lawsuit bill, then I wrote them to only pass it if it didn't contain AWB ammendments, now I'm supposed to write them and say to just kill the whole thing all together? I'm starting to suspect that this whole thing was a setup by the HCI to make us lose credibility.
 
at this point, its better to let them add all the gun control amendments they want. the more the add, the more likely that the whole shootin' match (pardon the pun) will get voted out of existance. yes, that sucks for the gun industry, but the bill can be attached to another piece of legislation just like the Democrats are doing to us now. at this point, its best to urge your congressfolks to vote "NO" on the whole thing.

Bobby
 
Yeah but

without an extension of the Clinton (so-called Assault Weapon) Gun Ban or any restrictions related to gun shows.
Click to expand...

So trigger locks are OK?
 
The amendments that were added, kept more nasty amendments written by the Bradyites from being viable
 
The bill is still a grade schooler

Although its morals have been briefly corrupted by contact with Boxter and Feinstein at the Stop and Shop, the parents have done an admirable job of keeping it on the path, and have tactically avoided direct contamination.

Its due to get jumped in an alley on Monday.

We will have to watch and see the result.
 
Thought this was important enough to post here too...
Oh My...
I think I may be an Idiot. Yes, with a capital "I".
All this time - I had a modem capable of sending faxes... all I had to do was upgrade grab a driver and put in a patch and v'iola...
A fax machine right under my snout!
And here's the first one I used it for....

To Senator Bill Frist

If this “study†as mentioned in SA 2625 is anything like the seatbelt study it will redefine armor piercing to mean anything that can pierce body armor. Well, knives can pierce body armor, so can a sharp stick. If this Amendment sticks to this bill, shooting enthusiasts and those who value the right to self-defense will be darn lucky to have either. I don’t understand a lot about your methods up there in Washington but I will say this; there is a lot of chatter about this little item being the death knell for centerfire rifle ammunition and S. 1805. If this is just some way to get it through the Senate and then strip it and send it back, we have no way of knowing. We feel revulsion at the mere mention of anything further restricting our freedoms and to be honest it makes us a bit nervous out here in fly over country. The current thought among the voters I have been talking to and who are closely following this legislation is this; If it is not a clean bill, we do not want it.
Sincerely,
FAXMAN!!!!!
Anyway... What kind of fool am I... dada da da....
Any one who wants to should be able to do this also...
I went HERE for THIS
I am in buisness now...
If anyone needs assistance re: faxing from their PC... PM me or do whatever you need to do - just do it!
 
It's the job of judges, not Congress, to throw out frivolous cases.

If the judges were doing so, and Congress came along with a bill saying they must hear those cases, I'd question the authority under which they did that. Upon learning that they did it under the same authority as nearly everything else: a stretched-beyond-recognition interstate commerce clause, I'd call it unconstitutional.

That's what I call this Trojan horse, S. 1805. The anti-gun amendments are the soldiers within. I don't want them either, and the best way to keep them out is to refuse the horse.
 
It's the job of judges, not Congress, to throw out frivolous cases.
Click to expand...

No. Congress has authority under the Constitution to serve as a check on the power of the judiciary. If the judiciary gets out of hand, Congress has the authority to restrict the power of the judiciary by limiting the types of cases that can be heard.
 
Our country is becoming populated with activist judges who feel they have a right to legislate from the bench, instead of interpreting the law.
I'm not at all comfortable leaving gun related matters in their hands, hoping that they will do the right thing.
 
I have a question on the tactics of the Senate.

All 4 of the following bills are identical in structure and wording.

H.R. 1036:
4/10/2003:
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

This house bill was passed as a "clean" bill, as all amendments were rejected by the House.

S. 659:
3/19/2003:
Introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3997-3998)
3/19/2003:
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S3998-3999
3/20/2003:
Introductory remarks on measure. (CR S4169)

S. 1805:
Currently under discussion with several anti-gun amendments

S. 1806:
10/31/2003:
Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
11/3/2003:
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 364.
-----

Since the senate is now debating S. 1805, why the identical s. 1806? and why morph S.695 into the other two? All 3 senate bills were itroduced by Larry Craig. All 3 bills are due for Senate action at some time or another.. Can anyone explain the purpose for this? (I think I know, but will wait to see what others say.)
 
I tend to think that this whole bill will go up in flames. I mean, that Kennedy roundabout ban of centerfire rifle ammo....no way on earth that's gonna make it through. Even if the Senate okays it, the House will tear the bill to shreds.

I thought the leftists were going to be 'reasonable' in their amendments, like just putting an extension of the AWB on there. That would at least have a shot of passing.
 
If you want to see shat amendments have been added got to http://www.senate.gov and look up under legislation to see what amenments passed. So far the only bad amendment that got added is the Boxer amendment to have gun locks with every gun sold. I truly believe that could be removed in conference with the House which is here the bill will have to go. If the senate passes a version you don't like let your Representatives know that you want those amendments stripped.


What we need to do is make sure the AWB doesn't get tacked on. Call your Senators and tell them you won't stand for that.
 
I have a question on the tactics of the Senate.
Click to expand...

H.R. 1036 is the bill the House passed. It is irrelevant to the Senate except that if the Senate passes a version that is different from H.R.1036, it will have to go back to the House for a conference committee and another vote.

S.659 was the original bill and was proposed to match H.R.1036

As I understand it, S.1805 and S.1806 were slight rewrites of S.659 in an effort to get enough Senators on board to have a filibuster-proof majority. I'm not sure why two almost identical versions were written except that they wanted to shop both of them around to see which would gather more support.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Act NOW to Kill S 1805
Replies
4
Views
618
Bartholomew Roberts
B
B
  • Locked
Final Vote for S.659/S.1805 Scheduled
Replies
7
Views
658
Publicola
P
S
  • Locked
Confused: S.659 vs S.1805
Replies
1
Views
351
Bartholomew Roberts
B
N
  • Locked
Sample Faxes / E-mail on S.1805 & Essential Contact Info!!!
Replies
14
Views
1K
burbanite
B
F
  • Locked
Neal Knox on the US Senate voting on S. 1805
Replies
9
Views
896
TheBluesMan
T
Back
Top