Gun control backers thwarted in Senate debate
Wed Jul 27, 2005 7:23 PM ET
Printer Friendly | Email Article | Reprints | RSS
WASHINGTON, July 27 (Reuters) - Gun control advocates in the U.S. Senate, unable to halt a bill that would shield the firearms industry from some lawsuits, tried unsuccessfully on Wednesday to put some gun safety measures in the measure.
With a clear majority of the Senate backing it, the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" appears set to pass the Senate within the next few days. It is a top priority of the National Rifle Association, the influential gun lobby, and the White House has strongly endorsed it.
Critics acknowledged that they were not likely to be able to defeat the bill, but they had hoped through amendments to try to create an opportunity to vote on other firearms-related measures such as requiring background checks at gun shows or limiting sales of .50 caliber military sniper rifles.
Some lawmakers said closing gun sale loopholes had become even more imperative during the U.S. "war on terror."
But Senate Republican leaders used procedural moves to swiftly block amendments for most of Wednesday. In the evening, they agreed to a vote on one measure involving child safety locks, but it remained unlikely that the Senate would vote on any of the more controversial initiatives.
"That's the reality we face," said Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who considers the liability bill "a travesty."
Last year backers of the bill ended up unexpectedly killing it after amendments extending the assault weapons ban and requiring gun show background checks were added. This year the advocates of the legislation said they would try to get rid of any unpalatable amendments during negotiations with the House -- but that their preference was to not allow any amendments.
The two sides also fought over the breadth of the bill. Backers argued that it is a narrowly crafted bill, designed to stop politically-motivated "junk lawsuits" aimed at forcing law-abiding gun manufacturers and dealers into bankruptcy by holding them responsible if someone uses a gun in a crime.
"This bill is a cultural moment in American history," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican. The "frivolous" lawsuits are based on "a dangerous concept that would change America for the worst," he added.
Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican who fondly recalled hunting trips with his sons, said Congress needed to stop junk lawsuits in order to save jobs in an industry that also provided weapons for national defense.
But critics said that the bill goes much further and would prevent action even against distributors who supply guns to criminals. They said it would halt lawsuits by policemen shot on the job or families who lost loved ones to the 2002 Washington-area snipers.
"The real effect of this bill would be to prevent victims of gun violence from pursuing even obviously valid claims in state or federal courts," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat.
Sen. Mark Dayton, a Minnesota Democrat, said the bill provided the industry "almost complete immunity from lawsuits" for negligence.
© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.
Wed Jul 27, 2005 7:23 PM ET
Printer Friendly | Email Article | Reprints | RSS
WASHINGTON, July 27 (Reuters) - Gun control advocates in the U.S. Senate, unable to halt a bill that would shield the firearms industry from some lawsuits, tried unsuccessfully on Wednesday to put some gun safety measures in the measure.
With a clear majority of the Senate backing it, the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" appears set to pass the Senate within the next few days. It is a top priority of the National Rifle Association, the influential gun lobby, and the White House has strongly endorsed it.
Critics acknowledged that they were not likely to be able to defeat the bill, but they had hoped through amendments to try to create an opportunity to vote on other firearms-related measures such as requiring background checks at gun shows or limiting sales of .50 caliber military sniper rifles.
Some lawmakers said closing gun sale loopholes had become even more imperative during the U.S. "war on terror."
But Senate Republican leaders used procedural moves to swiftly block amendments for most of Wednesday. In the evening, they agreed to a vote on one measure involving child safety locks, but it remained unlikely that the Senate would vote on any of the more controversial initiatives.
"That's the reality we face," said Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who considers the liability bill "a travesty."
Last year backers of the bill ended up unexpectedly killing it after amendments extending the assault weapons ban and requiring gun show background checks were added. This year the advocates of the legislation said they would try to get rid of any unpalatable amendments during negotiations with the House -- but that their preference was to not allow any amendments.
The two sides also fought over the breadth of the bill. Backers argued that it is a narrowly crafted bill, designed to stop politically-motivated "junk lawsuits" aimed at forcing law-abiding gun manufacturers and dealers into bankruptcy by holding them responsible if someone uses a gun in a crime.
"This bill is a cultural moment in American history," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican. The "frivolous" lawsuits are based on "a dangerous concept that would change America for the worst," he added.
Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican who fondly recalled hunting trips with his sons, said Congress needed to stop junk lawsuits in order to save jobs in an industry that also provided weapons for national defense.
But critics said that the bill goes much further and would prevent action even against distributors who supply guns to criminals. They said it would halt lawsuits by policemen shot on the job or families who lost loved ones to the 2002 Washington-area snipers.
"The real effect of this bill would be to prevent victims of gun violence from pursuing even obviously valid claims in state or federal courts," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat.
Sen. Mark Dayton, a Minnesota Democrat, said the bill provided the industry "almost complete immunity from lawsuits" for negligence.
© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.
