WHAT REALLY HAPPENED: S.1805 & the AWB

[benEzra]

This damn Bill should have been sent over to the House where all the Poison Pills put in by Feinstine and Schummer could quietly be removed and be made clean again.

I vehemently disagree. Feinstein and Boxer were hopeful that by hook or by crook, they could get it attached to the House's bill. Maybe they were overoptimistic, but it was definitely possible.

Passing this bill as it stands would be (in chess terms) gambling your queen to win a pawn. Forget it.

 

[Baba Louie]

Depends on how you spin it.
For a lark, read the Brady groups spin on how THEY defeated the NRA
http://www.bradycampaign.org/
Maybe you agree. Maybe you don't.
Then there's the NRA's version of wanting and only supporting a "Clean Bill" which is what I heard GWB wanted as well...
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=3496
So maybe, in a Machiavellian manner, by allowing Feinstein and McCain et al to attach their rider clauses, then killing the whole thing, something positive was accomplished or delayed.
I don't see anyone crowing about defeating the AWB like the Brady's are about the Lawsuit bill, possibly because we still have 7 months till September's AWB sunset.
Stay tuned, write to the congresscritters who helped, thanking them, and ask them to keep you notified if Feinstein/Schumer/McCain try to attach the same amendments to anything else prior to that September sunset (plan on it).

 

[ClonaKilty]

whoami: you say...

The reason why this is not going to happen is that the legislation needs to pass both the House and the Senate. We know now it can pass the Senate, but several AWB bills have been introduced in the House and they are ALL languishing in committee...they'll never reach a floor vote

which basically means that the House Committes are our Safeguard against the AWB renewal. But then you say...

I recall hearing that it wouldn't be Delay but Hastert who would pick the members of the committee, and he's made rumblings of not agreeing with Delay's position on the AWB. Two or three foul picks for the committee and we'd be under the AWB for another ten years.

Seems to be a contradiction...if the committees are the safeguard but Hastert may OK a AWB renewal, the renewal can very well still pass this year. Am I wrong? I'm not arguing here, just want to learn.

 

[Augustwest]

While I don't think they've taken a strong enough stand in the past, I don't hate the NRA.

But I am curious why they're being given so much credit for what happened yesterday. The 50+ Senators who voted to amend S1805 with a renewal of the AWB suddenly looked down at their Palm Pilots and decided to act according to Wayne LaPierre's wishes?

I think not. My guess is that it had much more to do with Larry Craig requesting that the Bill go down, and the fact that there was something bad for everyone in it that defeated it.

Again, nothin' against the NRA, but seems like they're be given way more credit than is reasonable by some here.

 

[kingfisher]

We wouldn't even be having this discussion if ten republicans had voted their constituents wishes. Instead they took the RNC money and stuck a knife in our backs. Was this all planned in advance? I can't answer that question. I've never found a tinfoil hat that fit.

In my mind the big question is our leadership or lack of it in the Senate. Mr. Frist needs to take some of these boys for a visit to the woodshed. IMO the line between Republican and Democrat has become so indistinct, that the voter must know how the candidate is going to vote on issues that are important before he goes to the voting booth. Party doesn't mean squat anymore. Representatives on both sides of the isle recieve votes because they look sharp and can lie convincingly. Character and spine are a thing of the past.

 

[Glock-A-Roo]

Regarding Senate support for a new, "clean" AWB bill, I think some here are missing an important point.

I think the reason so many senators voted for the AWB extension on yesterday's bill is that they could cover their butts w/ the lawsuit prevention side of the vote. They could say "yes, I voted to extend the AWB but look how supportive I was of the lawsuit provision...".

A clean, nothing-but-gun-control AWB will be much harder to defend by the very same senators. This is not to say that the FineSwine's won't try to attach an AWB extension to yet another popular bill, but I think it is very valid to say that a new, pure, clean AWB bill won't get near the senate support that yesterday's bill got.

 

[Hank Zudd]

Whole lotta shakin' going on,,,

It makes me dizzy sorting out the political & other aspects of this fight. I guess ya'll have got 4 months or 4 more years (till the dems regain more control?) to enjoy buying what you could'nt have. One thing puzzles me is if Di Fi (feinstien) represents California (which has extremely limited gun availablity re: restrictions) why does she need to be pushing this AWB? I know ,I know, but logically she should be sponsoring legislation representing the interests of Kalifornians. The gun manufactures lawsuit problem mainly keeps the price of guns high to pay for these lawsuits. Oh well, I guess one thing we can do is to make sure idots & other various criminal knuckleheads don't get anything in their hands that would let them do stupid & immoral things that would raise the public outcry (led by the media) against any gun ownership.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

I think people may have mentioned this already. If so, my apologies for being redundant.

I think the Democrats had to look at this S.1805 from two different perspectives, and that determined what they were willing to sacrifice and do.

Perspective #1. They knew in their hearts that none of the ammendments that they offered would really do anything at all as far as protecting children, families, the police, etc. These were nothing but left leaning, political-points-scoring, vehicles for the campaign season. They would be ecstatic if they could get all of these ammendments put into law, but only for political reasoning and to further their gun control agenda. They know these methods don't reduce crime, even though they WANT to believe that they would. Thus, these were wish lists, but not their number one priority.

Perspective #2. The junk lawsuits ban was a direct attack on one of their biggest financiers and backers, the trial lawyer guild. There was no way the Democrats wanted to look weak and allow this to pass. It would have left political scars on their behinds that would have taken years to heal. This was the Dems holy grail. They had to do whatever it took to derail this thing, given the support it had on its own in the Senate. Thus, they went back to perspective #1 and decided it was worth the horse trade to give up the perspective #1 ammendments to make sure that they didn't lose on perspective #2.

So, we win a couple of short term victories for now, in hopefully allowing the AWB to sunset, no gun show loophole bill, and no hidden gun tax in the trigger lock ammendment. In payment, we leave the gun manufacturers still vulnerable to attack in the courts and their pocket books, which affects our pocket books.

A hidden win for the dems may be that by allowing more junk lawsuits to go forward, they can increase the cost of AWB's (and all guns for that matter), in order to reduce the number of new ones put into circulation.

Fineswine is thinking, in the terms of Ahhnold, the Governator, "Ahhllll be baaack". She will attempt this again when ever she gets a chance. Bet on it.

 

[dwkennedy]

I think the blame for yesterday's fiasco rests ultimately with the people who elected those rotten, freedom-hating Senators who voted for ridiculous, unconstitutional amendments.

My Senators from Oklahoma are 100% correct in their gun voting. One OK Senator is leaving office this year, and there are a dozen career politicians scrambling to capture his seat. I think the best thing I can do to preserve our gun rights is to make sure we send another 100%, A++ rated Senator to Washington.

You guys in California and New York might as well immigrate to another state that is more borderline, if you ever hope to make a difference in the Senate.

 

[ClonaKilty]

One thing puzzles me is if Di Fi (feinstien) represents California (which has extremely limited gun availablity re: restrictions) why does she need to be pushing this AWB? I know ,I know, but logically she should be sponsoring legislation representing the interests of Kalifornians

Look guys, being Anti-gun in Kalifornistan is the way to get elected there. In other words, most people in Kali HATE GUNS. Also, the Left (i.e. Feinstein & Boxer) sees every political office as a way to enforce their views on the rest of America. Yes logically Senators are suppoosed to represent their own states, and this law would be moot in Kali. But neither Feinstein nor Boxer see their roles as limited to governing Kali. Nor, dare I say, do much of the Kali electorate -- they're just as eager to turn the US into a welfare state for you as well as for themselves. After all, a welfare state doesn't work unless all are forced to comply.

That's how the Left works!

 

[joonya187]

I think Feinstein knows that a pure awb bill wouldn't get through.

As far as 1805, if it were targeted at manufacturers in general rather than just gun makers, it would have had a better chance of getting through. Then, if the dems tack anti-gun legislation to it, they'd look like single-issue haters.

 

[sturmruger]

I AM THE NRA

Here is my take on what happened yesterday. For most gun owners the two big issues were the Gun MFG Liability, and the AWB Renewal. Both are topics that we feel very strongly about, but both have different time lines. I am sure all of the manufacturers would love to have relief from the crazy lawsuits that they are being subjected to and the sooner the better for them. Then there is the AWB it is due to sunset in 193 days. This is obviously more of a time critical issue. I believe the Sen. Craig and the GOP did the right thing in killing this bill. Why gamble on the House being able to take out all of the rotten amendments? Is it worth gambling this important issue? The antis have surprised us before I would hate to be surprised again.

I am so sick of the hearing people complain about the NRA. My job is such that I am able to listen to State and Federal legislative feeds on the internet. I was listening to, MO, WI, and MN whenever there was a critical vote or debate going on concerning CCW legislation. The last week I have been listening with rapped attention to what has been going on in the Senate. Besides the antis stupid whining the one thing that I heard from each and every state was the how much the antis hate the NRA. They talk about the NRA with a tone of inferiority, and fear. They know that the NRA is one of the most powerful lobbies in the country. Have I agreed with everything the NRA does? NO, but they are the best thing that has ever happened to the gun owners.

 

[El Rojo]

no hidden gun tax in the trigger lock ammendment.

I find this quote amusing. Most guns already come with a gun lock at no cost and even if they did add it in there, I don't know how you would call it a tax. The money isn't going to the government unless you count the extra $.04 of sales tax added onto a $5 lock. The cost of the lock is going directly the the manufacturer. Now a $.05 tax on every round of ammunition, that is a gun tax.

You guys in California and New York might as well immigrate to another state that is more borderline, if you ever hope to make a difference in the Senate.

DwKennedy. I know you probably mean well, but that your comment is exactly what is wrong with firearms owners perceptions towards my state. I am so tired of hearing it on this board. You are telling me to move to to Nevada or Arizona so I can make a difference in the senate. How in the hell am I going to do that? All four of those senators voted no on the AWB rider. I wouldn't be making a difference, I would just be able to feel better about myself and brag to all of my buddies that my senators are doing a good job.

The problem is all of the good people have left California. Now this is a commi, liberal state where we don't have much chance of getting a good conservative or heck a horrible conservative in office. And you want more of us to move out? I would think this Feinstein rider and her attitude would finally convince some of you know it alls out there that you need to have pro-gun, conservative voters take the likes of Feinstein and Boxer out of the senate. You sure as heck aren't going to get that to happen if all of us move out of California. And now you understand that one bad apple from my state can screw you guys over well. And a brilliant point was brought up, the extension of the AWB has nothing to do with her state. We already have it worse here. She is doing it just because she thinks she knows what is best for the rest of you. And to counter her you want to keep her in office by having me move out of the state and vote for senators that are already pretty much safe in their conservative districts?

PEOPLE OF THR! HEAR ME! YOU DON'T WANT THE GOOD PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA TO MOVE OUT! YOU WANT THEM TO STAY AND YOU WANT MORE GOOD PEOPLE TO MOVE IN. OTHERWISE, LOOK FORWARD TO MORE WONDERFUL YEARS OF FEINSTEIN AND BOXER!

And I'll be damned if I shed any tears for you guys if you ever have to live with any of these draconian gun laws. My response will be, "You need to move out of the United States and make a difference in a better country."

 

[Nestor]

If we the clean bill had passed, how long would it have be in force when the 9th declared it unconstitutinal on equal protection grounds

and as for cleaning it up in confernce - remember that NO man is safe while congress is in session

 

[Bruce H]

The ammemdment vote on S 1805 gives us a record of votes. Senators are on record as having voted a certain way. They will have a hard time spinning their vote with proof like this. I really don't care if no legislation gets passed before the elections. Lets sunset the AWB.

 

[Master Blaster]

What really needs to be passed is looser pays tort reform.

Not one of the third party liabaility suits against the gun manufacturers has been won to date. The fact is that you cant hold some one responsible for amn action in which they were not involved in any way. Thats why the suits have been thrown out of court. As far as product liabaility goes every manufacturere of any legal product has been sued over the misuse of that product by a third party, from an electric drill used by a drunk person to drill a hole in his own leg, to the idiot who spilled a hot cup of coffeee on themselves. Loser pays would put a stop to most of this nonsense.

Some folks will cry that loser pays will prevent contingency fee based suits from being brought on behalf of average americans. If the suit has merit there is some lawyer willing to risk it cuase there is alot of money to be made. Under the current system if a contingecy fee based suit is lost by the plaintiff the attorneys who brought the suit are out all of their costs, which can run into the millions. Loser pays will only up the anty slightly and result in some of the borderline suits not being brought.


The gun manufacturers need to agressively counter sue the municipalities bringing these frivolous suits, if they do and the municipalities lose that will put an end to this nonsense.

Even if 659 passed and was upheld by Federal courts, the trial attorneys could still allege crimminal action by the manufacturer, and that there was a product defect that contributed to the injury suffered by the plaintiff, even if there is no merit to the arguement.

The AWB is more important than 659 by a great deal, because it affects the consitutionaly protected God given rights of all Americans.

 

[ClonaKilty]

Even if 659 passed and was upheld by Federal courts, the trial attorneys could still allege crimminal action by the manufacturer, and that there was a product defect that contributed to the injury suffered by the plaintiff, even if there is no merit to the arguement.

This is a good point. In the Dix v. Berreta case -- the one about the Berkeley teen who shot his friend thinking the gun was empty -- the argument from Plaintiff was precisely that there was a gun defect.

Now, it was a ludricous assertion, but note that 1805 or 659 wouldn't have prevented the case.

 

[whoami]

Seems to be a contradiction...if the committees are the safeguard but Hastert may OK a AWB renewal, the renewal can very well still pass this year. Am I wrong? I'm not arguing here, just want to learn.

Call it an unintentional misstatement. It is not the committees, or more to the point the joint committees, that are the safeguard, but the House proper. There will not be (this session) another bill upon which the AWB can be attached to, and thus the only way to press the issue is for the AWB to come up as it's own legislation. Were that to happen in the Senate, judging by the AWB amendment vote, there's a good chance of it passing in the Senate. If that happens, the bill goes to the House, to the appropriate committee, for reading and discussion. It has been quite clearly stated by DeLay that no AWB will ever escape committee while he's around (and none of the bills in existence have as of yet), so there's no way a new bill could pass the House.

When I referred to the 'committee' in the second section of my post, I was speaking (and should have been more explicit on this point for the sake of clarity) of the joint Senate/House committee that would be formed had S 1805 passed. When a bill is passed in one house of Congress, but passed with amendments in the other, a committee of members of both houses is formed to discuss the bill, and decide on what form the bill will take if it reaches the President's desk. If a compromise is reached, that compromised bill is forwarded. If no compromise can be reached, the bill usually dies. There was a danger in letting an amended S 1805 go to that sort of committee....there is no formal committee to deal with such things, and the members are usually hand picked. In this case, it would be Dennis Hastert who would be selecting members from the House to join this committee, and he has in the past shown himself at odds with DeLay's position on the AWB. It could have created a situation where S 1805 would end up on the President's desk with the AWB still attached. And taking George Bush at his word, it would most likely have been signed.

As of right now, there is NO WAY, barring the truly unconscionable, for the AWB renewal to happen. There have been a number (at least 4 or 5) AWB bills introduced into the House this session, and they have all been languishing in Judiciary. They will not be coming out, because neither Sensenbrenner (head of Judiciary) nor DeLay will allow them to come to a vote. That pretty much locks down the normal legislative process for AWB legislation.

 

[dwkennedy]

PEOPLE OF THR! HEAR ME! YOU DON'T WANT THE GOOD PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA TO MOVE OUT! YOU WANT THEM TO STAY AND YOU WANT MORE GOOD PEOPLE TO MOVE IN. OTHERWISE, LOOK FORWARD TO MORE WONDERFUL YEARS OF FEINSTEIN AND BOXER!

And I'll be damned if I shed any tears for you guys if you ever have to live with any of these draconian gun laws. My response will be, "You need to move out of the United States and make a difference in a better country."

El Rojo,

I appreciate all you and other gun supporters are doing in CA to further the cause. We are all in this together. I don't seriously expect people to move from their home in one state, to another state that's teetering on the edge of electing a anti-gun senator, in the hope that a few more pro-gun votes will tip the balance. There is a more to deciding to uproot and move than that. Jobs, family ties, and lots of other inertia to overcome. I just thought I'd clear that up.

I didn't move away from California due to gun laws, rather family reasons, but living here in the land of relative freedom I'm not really keen on moving back. It was tempting back a few years ago when the high-tech recruiters were calling every day with job offers, but I valued my gun freedom and adequate job more than a high paying (and now vaporized) job with limited freedom. I do believe half of my net worth is in a form that wouldn't make it over the border, if you know what I mean...

Our forebearers made the choice to bail out of where ever they came from, and make a go at it here in America. But we are running out of places to escape. Unless you'd like to colonize Antarctica or the Moon, we're going to have to fight this right here. I don't think the US can long exist with urbanized gun-free zones on either coast, and people free to buy, sell, and possess guns in between. Something's going to give sooner or later.

The real root of our problems is an irrationally magnified fear of weapons in the hands of honest citizens. Until we stamp out the culture of ignorance that lets politicians get away with such performances as we've seen over that last few days, we'll all be hiding in an increasingly shrinking corner. Even Oklahoma has sent a couple of foolishly anti-gun representatives to Washington, and thank goodness a majority of us had the sense to kick them out. (one guy I'm thinking of never moved back, but stayed in DC... well, not DC, since our nation's capital is a violent slum, but in that area.)

The ultimate answer is to recruit: take people shooting, change their attitudes toward owning guns. Convince them to reject the doctrine of making themselves safer by trying to take away everyone else's guns. The spread of legalized concealed carry and continuing popularity of guns seems to indicate we're heading this direction.

 

[Sam Adams]

Here's my perspective:

It is interesting to note that only 8 traitors voted for the final bill. More interesting is who among the other traitors in the Senate did NOT vote for it: Feinstein, Schumer and Kerry. Gee, let's see: the authors of the AWB amendment to this bill, which was attached to the legislation, still didn't vote for it. Neither did the obvious Presidential candidate for the Thundering Herd of Jackasses, despite having voted for not only the AWB provision, but also McStain's gun-show-killing amendment. If these people had REALLY wanted these provisions in the law, they and their fellow travelers would have voted for it. The fact that they didn't says that they attached all of these amendments for one reason - to kill the underlying legislation. They want to kill the firearms industry, by hook or by crook, so desperately that they are willing to even sacrifice a gun ban for it. This says to me that they must think that they are losing, that this one tactic (death by lawsuit) is the only one that will allow them to win. That analysis makes me feel very much better than I felt yesterday morning, after the AWB and the gunshow provisions got attached. Now it not only appears that the AWB is on the way out, but the antis have revealed their true feelings - that they are scared.

Look, I don't like these absurd suits any more than anyone else. I, like you, pay more for guns and ammo because of the potential for (or reality of) baseless lawsuits. The judges are clearly NOT doing their jobs. But there have been no awards that have stuck on appeal. There will be none, because the moment a gun manufacturer is found liable for the criminal actions of someone not under their control, 10,000 lawyers are going to sue GM, Ford and every other car company for selling cars to drunk drivers. It won't - it CAN'T - happen, because if it does the economy goes down the crapper as commerce grinds to a halt. Thus, until a clean liability law IS passed (how about next year, after another 2-4 Senate Dems get promotions to the private sector), the only real cost will be the litigation cost. That's not nothing, and I certainly am not attempting to minimize it, but it is bearable.

What I would REALLY like to see is something similar to the unamended S.1805 that would protect ALL industries against suits arising from the criminal use of any product by anyone not controlled by any potential defendant. This would not only be far more just and nip a problem in the bud, but it would have the vocal (and financial) support of EVERY industry that produces tangible products. Let's see the Dems shoot that one down.