Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Senate needs to act, gun owners need to speak on this one - S. 659

Discussion in 'Legal' started by alan, Feb 12, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. alan

    alan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,594
    Location:
    sowest pa.
    The Senate needs to act, gun owners need to speak on this one

    Last summer, The House passed it's version of legislation to ban the idiot suits against gun makers, distributors and dealers. They passed a "clean bill", or at least what appears to be one such.

    S. 659, the Senate companion piece, says or said, unless since changed, the same thing said in the House version, has lain fallow for entirely to long. Supposedly, S. 659 is scheduled for floor action in early March. The usual rogues gallery of anti-gun apparachnicks is lined up in opposition, Kennedy, Feinstein, Lautenberg et al.

    The Senate needs to pass A CLEAN BILL. S.659, as originally written, mirrors House passed legislation. Members of The Senate need to hear from their constituents. Pass S. 659, without the usual parlimentary game playing, or better yet, The Senate should accept the House passed legislation.

    Gun owners, and others who can see past the smoke and mirrors of anti gun rhetoric and lies need to make themselves heard. Time's awaisting.
     
  2. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    This bill is scheduled to come to the floor for three days of debate on March 3rd. (Edited to add: According to Neal Knox's Feb 11 Alert, this could now be delayed a few days over ricin concerns)

    Since a pro-gun majority controls the Senate Judiciary committee, the bill is currently clean; but three senators have annouced intentions to try to amend the bill from the Senate floor. If they get a simple majority vote of Senators present, they can attach their amendment to S.659 - this is why alan's post is so important.

    Feinstein: will attempt to add amendment identical to S.1034 - the bill that eliminates the sunset of the assault weapon ban and stops the import of pre-94 magazines.

    McCain: will attempt to add gunshow background check amendment sponsored by Americans for Gun Safety

    Schumer: will attempt to add amendment that kills the recent Tiahrt Amendment. The Tiahrt Amendment forces the Department of Justice to destroy NICS information on legitimate approved purchases within 24 hours.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2004
  3. 7.62FullMetalJacket

    7.62FullMetalJacket Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2003
    Messages:
    2,991
    Location:
    Cedar City, Utah
    Why is it that Senators from the two most populous, screwed-up states seek to tell the rest of the country how to behave? Feinstein has an AWB in her home state which is far more draconian than the federal AWB. What is her compelling interest for 49 other states?

    I know, I am preaching to the choir.

    But I still want to know what her cause is since her "constituents" are already banned from having AWs at the state level.
     
  4. corncob

    corncob Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2003
    Messages:
    337
    Location:
    Lexington, SC
    how's this for a first draft?

    Dear Senator Graham:

    I understand that a bill banning junk lawsuits against gun manufacturers is coming to the senate floor for debate soon. I urge you as my representative in Washington to help pass this bill. It is unfair for well-funded activists to use this nation’s judiciary to bankrupt this vital industry in a “back-door†attempt on the God-given rights of all Americans.

    Furthermore, I urge you to pass a clean version of this bill. Please do all in your power to prevent the addition of any amendments that undermine the Founders’ intent that the federal government draw its power from a well-armed and vigilant citizenry. With the approaching sunset date of the egregious 1994 “assault weapons†ban, now is not the time to compromise.

    My family and I support legislators who defend our liberty; we do not support those who do not. Thank you for your time and service to the people of South Carolina.

    Sincerely,
     
  5. alan

    alan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,594
    Location:
    sowest pa.
    7.62FullMetalJacket:

    Re your question as to the motives/desires of "Lady Dianne", the following might be informative. Respecting the Anti-Gun Apparachnicks, of whom she is certainly one, their ultimate and oft mouthed goals are as follows: The Total Proscription of Firearms.

    Nelson Shields the founder of Handgun Control Inc. back in the 1970's, offered the following. Our goals cannot be accomplished in a single stroke, we must approach their achievment on a piecemeal basis, which if one looks at history, is exactly what they have done. By the way, they have experienced some success, going at the thing this way. One might be surprised, having taken a close look at their tactics, by the number of people they have fooled.

    If you think that I might clarify further, shoot me an e-mail, or we could continue here. Of course, I could be wrong, however I call them as I see them. As for Feinstein, we have her famous "... Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in .." comment, offered after passage of The Feinstein Amendment, as it was then known, later becoming The Assault Weapons Ban, so called.

    Be real careful with Senate 1034.
     
  6. 7.62FullMetalJacket

    7.62FullMetalJacket Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2003
    Messages:
    2,991
    Location:
    Cedar City, Utah
    I know where she stands. I just wish someone in the Senate with an "R" behind their name would state the obvious: "Mr. And Mrs. California are already banned from owning assault weapons. I am calling on the Senator from California to tell us exactly what dog she has in this fight."

    YOu know, that old "state's rights" thing.
     
  7. M1911Owner

    M1911Owner Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Messages:
    824
    Location:
    Palo Alto, PRK
    :banghead: :cuss: :fire: VERY FRUSTRATING!!!!

    Feinstein:cuss: and Boxer:cuss: are my senators. Not a :cuss: thing I can do to change their minds.

    :banghead: :banghead:
     
  8. alan

    alan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,594
    Location:
    sowest pa.
    M1911Owner wrote:

    VERY FRUSTRATING!!!!

    Feinstein and Boxer are my senators. Not a thing I can do to change their minds.

    The above is quite true, there is no way to change "the minds" of Boxer/Feinstein on the question of firearms. Are they elitists or racists or both, I don't know, and when I lived in California a very long time ago, neither were in the "national legislature".

    While their minds cannot be changed, others might be voted into office, replacing them. Of course, the Republican Party would, of needs, have to get it's act together, which seems to present a very considerable problem in California and elsewhere too.
     
  9. NY Patriot

    NY Patriot Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2003
    Messages:
    171
    Location:
    NY
    M1911Owner, I hear where you are coming from...

    That's why I want to point out that it is vitally important that we contact EVERYONE in The Essential "End the AW Ban" Contact List & Sample Letter Thread, not just our local congresscritter & our two Senators. Take me as an example... my Senators are Chuckie Schumer & Madam Hillary, and my Rep. is Nita Lowey, a hard core leftist. If I only wrote to them, my opinions would be virtually guaranteed of being ignored, and my efforts would be for naught.

    BUT... I make sure that everyone who could potentially have a hand in the outcome of the AW ban battle hears from me! The POTUS represents EVERY American, thus he hears from me. I'm a registered Republican, so the RNC gets an earful. I'm also an NRA member, so guess what... they are beholden to my views & opinions if they want the continued privilege of spending my money. All the Congressional & Senatorial committee members, as well as the House & Senate leaders & Speakers are, by virtue of their exalted positions, answerable to ALL Americans, not just those living in their districts & states.

    You get the idea... our letter writing responsibilities extend FAR beyond our district & state boundaries!!!

    Don't give up that easily friend… you can still make your opinion count!!!
     
  10. jimpeel

    jimpeel Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    2,998
    Location:
    Kimball, NE
    The problem is that the Senators from other states don't want to hear from anyone but their constuituents. They think that anything they do will only affect their constitutntes -- or at least that's what they hope we think.

    I wrote my senators, Ben Nelson and Chuck Hagel. Hagel is on board but I have heard nothing from Nelson.
     
  11. NY Patriot

    NY Patriot Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2003
    Messages:
    171
    Location:
    NY
    Jimpeel...
    Not entirely true, Jim. I'm from NY, & I have personally received replies from politicians & notables who don't directly represent me (the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, Lindsey Graham, Ed Gillispie, Karl Rove, etc.), as have many other gun owners who have responded to my "End the AWB Thread".

    Trust me... if enough of us write, call, fax, etc. our message will get through to those who don't normally care to hear it!
     
  12. alan

    alan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,594
    Location:
    sowest pa.
    NY Patriot quoted JimPeel as follows:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The problem is that the Senators from other states don't want to hear from anyone but their constituents.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Respecting at least some of our elected things, if one were to judge by the responsiveness of these people to their constuents, or by the lack of response, they do not want to hear from them either.

    Actually, I've contacted elected things from other areas many times, as well as others mentioned by NY Patriot. Do not recall ever having much in the way of responses, though writing, even telephone messages and e-mails likely have some effect. In one case, the staffer asked if I had been in touch with my own elected reps and senators. I indicated that I most certainly had, and politely pointed out that their boss, voting on FEDERAL LAWS, effected me also, notwithstanding district lines.

    Essentially, it's like the story of the person who "never voted because their vote didn't count". It most certainly doesn't count when it isn't cast. I got into this with an individual a while back. When I pointed out to him, that the last U.S. Senatorial election in Nevada, as I recall, turned on about 500 votes, I believe that the individual I was speaking with might have had second thoughts. Cannot tell for sure, but they perhaps did begin to have second thoughts, possibly even FIRST thoughts.
     
  13. jimpeel

    jimpeel Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    2,998
    Location:
    Kimball, NE
    Feinstein's answer person hung up on me once he found out I'm from NE and stated that I should call Nelson or Hagel. Goodbye. Click.
     
  14. alan

    alan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,594
    Location:
    sowest pa.
    JimPeel:

    Feinstein's "answer person" has about as much class as does her boss, which isn't much.

    Funny thing about that, is how these drones forget that their bosses are voting on FEDERAL LEGISLATION, which last time I looked, transcended state borders as well as congressional or senatorial district lines.

    As I mentioned in my previous post, the way some of these clowns act/react to CONSTITUENT COMMENT, they don't want to hear from them either, though perhaps the inclusion of a check, along with one's letter would garner, for ones letter, somewhat more attention.
     
  15. No4Mk1*

    No4Mk1* Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    482
    Location:
    Upstate SC
  16. Dean Speir

    Dean Speir Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2003
    Messages:
    193
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    S&W's Latest Blunder Endangers Passage of S659…

     

    This is really much, much bigger than just S&W…

    Entire industry embarrassed just in time for Lawsuit Immunity vote

    But then it always is, isn't it? Something seems to come along to screw the Pro-Gun pooch just before a key vote! The letters to your Senators are really critical now… there's far too many pants-wetters on the Hill.

     
     
  17. jimpeel

    jimpeel Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    2,998
    Location:
    Kimball, NE
    Hearken back to her revelation that she had bought a scoped rifle for her son and what we all made of that.

    We grow the fodder, we feed the stock, and we get what we grew -- good or bad.
     
  18. bjengs

    bjengs Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2003
    Messages:
    176
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Why is everyone so upset? I am very confident that President Bush will veto this bill. He is, after all, pro-RKBA.
     
  19. Norton

    Norton Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,718


    This sounds an awful like the "dialectic" so often referred to in Communist circles. A patient, methodical enacting of one's agenda over a long period of time. The cause is of upmost importance.....:fire:
     
  20. jimpeel

    jimpeel Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    2,998
    Location:
    Kimball, NE
    Norton

    That would be "incrementalism" at its best.

    The Hegelian Dialectic is the false creation of a crisis (thesis), the solution for which is already in place (antithesis), and taking credit for solving the problem which never existed (synthesis) to further a pre-conceived goal (Higher unity).

    Bill Clinton was a master of the Hegelian Dialectic.

    The Marxian dialectic is similar.

     
  21. TheOtherOne

    TheOtherOne Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    1,422
    Location:
    Ogden
    Concerning Feinstein and Boxer:
    It seems like there are ALOT of gun owners in California. Isn't California still the number one economy for guns in the United States? Why is it so hard for all the California gun owners to get together and start voting these people out of office?
     
  22. Vasilia Zhietzev

    Vasilia Zhietzev Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    81
    OK:

    here's my email to senator gibbons. hope you don't mind the paraphrasing.

    VZ


    Mike Gibbons:

    This bill is coming up in March, and I'm wondering how you are standing on it.

    Last summer, The House passed a version of legislation to ban the 'idiot suits' against gun makers, distributors and dealers. They passed a "clean bill", or at least what appears to be one such.

    S. 659, the Senate companion piece, says or said, unless since changed, the same thing said in the House version, has been laying fallow ever since. Supposedly, S. 659 is scheduled for floor action in early March.

    Are you in favor of passing a clean bill? S.659, as originally written, mirrors House passed legislation. Will you recommend The Senate should accept the House passed legislation?

    If not, what are your objections? I am most certainly interesting in hearing your view.

    As a Missouri resident whom has responsibly owned firearms, I'm in favor of supporting responsible gun ownership. I'm not in favor of frivolous suits against manufacturers & dealers whom make & sell the items. It is the willful intent to harm or kill in a person's mind that should bear the brunt of breaking the law, not the tool.

    Firearms are a tool - a tool with lethal consquences in an uneducated pair of hands. Where is the responsibility & accountability of using a tool like that taught in Missouri? I've been willing to give up my personal time to be educated, practice for hours at ranges, and listen to experienced firearms owners & legal officers, AND pay quite a bit of my personal income to be a responsible legal owner of a tool that will allow me, a female, to:
    * defend myself & any child when my male loved ones are not there to defend me.
    * provide me with a way to serve my country when & if *i* am needed.
    * give an example of personal accountability & responsibility to others in this community.

    I look forward to your response.
     
  23. Frohickey

    Frohickey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,018
    Location:
    People's Republic of **********
    We try. Oh boy, how we try.

    But between the illegal alien voters and the room-temperature body temp voters, its hard to make a dent. :p
     
  24. boofus

    boofus Guest

    I called my congress critters today about SB659 and the upcoming AWB sunset. I called John Cornyn, Bill Frist, Hastert and Delay. I probably came off as some sort of dumbass, cause I called House of Representative members on the Senate bill, but hey maybe they can pull some strings to help in the Senate. At the very least they needed to get some support for canning the AWB.

    Hehe, I did my part so everyone else do the same! Otherwise you got no reason to bitch and moan if Feinstein + Schumer version 2.0 gets passed and your Ruger 10/22 becomes a rapid fire saturday night sniper assault armor piercing weapon. :neener:
     
  25. RobW

    RobW Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    564
    Location:
    Henderson, NV
    bjengs: I wouldn't hold my breath for this. GW already stated that he would sign an AWB renewal, if it appears on his desk. Be sure the anti-freedom and anti liberty crowd will find a way that it appears right there (like the Feinstein/Boxer rider on S 659).

    GW used just ONE veto up to now, and that for keeping the unconstitutional "Patriot Act" going.

    At this time of his presidency, Ronald Reagen had (to my knowledge) 18 vetos against anti freedom and anti liberty laws.

    Hail to the "compassionate conservative" that signs the mutilation of the 1st amendment, vetoes an attempt to make the "Patriot Act" less frightening, and keeps the BORDERS WIDE OPEN!!!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page