Why the poison pills WERE NOT going to be stripped out in committee

[Calanctus]

I like to think of it this way:

Zero isn't a negative number.

True, we didn't get the lawsuit immunity. But there was a lot of negative attached to that bill. We smoked out 10 RINOs who we now know are NOT on our side. And, we're several days closer to the sunset date of the AWB without legislation being renewed. Sounds good to me.

 

[AJ Dual]

If anything, scuttling the lawsuit preemption bill was a sign that the anti's completely misread us on the issue.

The sense I'm gathering is that Feinstien's ammendment was the best chance of getting the AWB renewed before the sunset. I have to wonder if she misjudged how serious we are about the AWB, and had she known, would she have attached it as an ammendment to the lawsuit preemption bill?

I suspect the anti's think that the pro-RKBA crowd is as cynical as they are, they couldn't completely believe that that we'd destroy our own bill to keep from losing our rights. They were thinking that the preemption bill was merely about money, and that money would be enough to get the pro-RKBA legislators and the NRA to stab the gun-owning public in the back on the AWB, to protect "big business" in the form of the gun mfgrs.

It wasn't a victory, but it was a DRAW, and a draw where at the end of the day, our side had more to lose than the anti's did. In that regard, I agree we came out ahead.

 

[Zundfolge]

I'd say its more of a win then a loss.

We're no worse off then we were a week ago, in fact we're in slightly better shape. For one thing, the RINO Traitors have shown themselves and can be delt with now. Plus the antis have been handed a serious defeat and nows the time to push harder to take back some ground.

Also, if our side is willing to scuttle the Gun Manufacturers Liability bill to prevent the extension of the AWB that proves there's nothing they can do to get it extended (and they had a significantly greater chance of extending the current AWB then to write a new one and get it passed).

While gun manufacturers can still be sued we're still seeing most of the suits thrown out of court ... also, just because the antis can sue doesn't mean the will win (remember it costs them money too, so they can't do it forever).


Frankly I'd rather see a tort reform bill that extends the protections of the bill that just died to more then just the gun industry ... the McDonalds law suits are a good reason for tort reform. We need the law to protect all industries from law suits like those against the gun industry (on a side note McDonalds by itself is about 6 times larger then the entire US gun industry).



I will note one thing, this is the High Road and we should know better then to openly fantasize about the death of Ms. Feinstein. Honestly, the fact that she (and others) are still up and walking about is proof that us law abiding gun owners are not a threat to society

 

[Master Blaster]

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

Even if 659 passed and was upheld by Federal courts, the trial attorneys could still allege crimminal action or intentional wrongdoing by the manufacturer, They could also say that there was a product defect that contributed to the injury suffered by the plaintiff, even if there is no merit to the arguement.
In some jurisdctions there is joint and several liability, which means that if a defect in the design of the gun, say the lack of a loaded chamber indicator, a magazine disconnect, or too light of a trigger, or the lack of a built in safety lock, contributed as little as even 1% of the reason for the accident, (the crimminal says it just went off but I didnt mean to shoot him) the manufacturer would be responsible for 100% of the damages.

How effective 659 would have been given its wording is debatable, because it would still be up to the lawyers / judges to decide if there was intentional wrongdoing or a defect that contributed to the loss/ injury.

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

I have to strongly disagree with anyone who says they would rather see a new AWB pass than 659 die. They may mean well but they have no idea how the legal system works.

 

[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.

 

[fang]

Pendragon - scenic drive

You mean like, "The bridges of Chappaquiddick County"? How cool would
that be?

 

[Greg Bell]

Cool,


"Win?, Here's what I saw:

1. Lawfull Commerce in Firearms Protection Act introduced

2. One week later, it is loaded down with 3-4 seriously unconstitutional gun control amendments, and is itself voted down by 90-8.

We wanted that Bill, it was defeated. Nothing that happened yesterday prevents Fienstein--Warner-Schumer-Luger and the other leftist extremists in the gun confiscation movement from reintroducing an AWB reauthorization before Sept. On the other hand after yesterdays fiasco there's no chance of S. 1805 being reintroduced any time soon."



Yeah, yeah. So Gaston will have to spend a few bucks to defend lawsuits just like everbody else. The bill is important, but not as important as the expiration of the blatantly unconstituional AWB. We will get many chances to pass that bill. OTOH, the antis themselves admit that they missed their best shot yesterday. There is NO WAY IN HADES anyone else is going to allow the AWB to be attached to their bill (non gun related). Therefore, it has to go through the JC. It will not make it through the JC and/or be scheduled for a floor vote before Sept. NO WAY. Further, then it has to get a straight vote in the House. Not gonna happen. And so on. Buck up. We are actually going to get some rights BACK? from the government for the first time in a looong time.


GHB

 

[Greg Bell]

Sam,

"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."


I think you are on to something.

GHB

 

[greyhound]

They actually stood up and did not compromise

That was what amazed me. When I left work after hearing about the attached AWB renewal passing, I was in a deep dark mood just knowing that a compromise was in the air.

When I got home and found that the Republicans had flat out killed the bill, I tell you I was more shocked than Tom Daschle!

While we rightly boo the RINOs who turned on us, lets also thank those Republicans who stood strong and didn't cave to "business as usual".

Methinks Ms. Feinstein won't be repeating her little jig on 9/14/04, thanks to what the Republicans did yesterday.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Essentially, what happened was a stab in the back by some republican traitors. The republican party, from Bush down, wanted the protection bill to pass. Without help from republican senators, feinstein and her cronies couldn't have done squat to the original bill. The republicans that voted in favor of the AWB amendment had to know it would kill the entire bill. Instead of give the republican party and GWB, as well as the republican voters, a clean bill to protect the gun industry, they decided to screw over everyone.

I believe if the original bill had passed and made into law, it would have gone a long way toward Bush being re-elected and both houses of congress staying under republican control. Instead of giving the gun fanatics a little something to keep them happy, these few senators have painted the entire republican party as gun-grabbers, whether they are or not.

If a republican controlled congress can pass a gun ban amendment, even against the wishes of a republican president, there is absolutely no reason for the gun owners to vote for any republican.

would protect ALL industries against suits arising from the criminal use of any product by anyone not controlled by any potential defendant.

The difference is that in regards to the firearm industry, the purpose of the lawsuits is to put firearm manfacturers and dealers out of business. The basis for most other lawsuits is greed.

 

[Monkeyleg]

HK, others: has it occured to anyone that perhaps Bush really didn't want the Lawful Commerce bill to reach his desk, and gave some RINO's like Lugar permission to bolt?

Just a theory, but a plausible theory. It is, after all, an election year. And last time I looked, most of the public wasn't clammering for protection for gun manufacturers.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Guys, check the NYT and Washington Times - the reason the Republicans and NRA were so confident that the bad amendments would be stripped in committee was because they had stacked the deck.

The conference committee membership is appointed by the House Majority Leader and House Minority Leader plus the Senate Majority and Minority leaders. With Daschle cooperating with Craig, they thought they had control over 3/4 of the conference committee membership. They would pick people who WOULD strip those amendments.

Unfortnately, it looks like Daschle waffled at the last minute after Feinstein started leaning on him when the AWB renewal was attached and decided not to name his conferees prior to the final vote. Craig recognized a crawfish when he saw one and made the call to kill the bill himself.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Monkeyleg,

Sounds plausible. However, if he didn't want the bill to start with, why not simply never let the bill out of committee or once it did reach the senate floor, have the majority leader never bring it up for a vote? It would just fade away and no republicans would have had to vote for a gun ban.

 

[Greg Bell]

HK,

"If a republican controlled congress can pass a gun ban amendment, even against the wishes of a republican president, there is absolutely no reason for the gun owners to vote for any republican."


Dude! The bill died. The bill, with the extras, went down 90/8. Yes, the amendment passed. So what, it is deader than Dean. There is "absolutely no reason for the gun owners to vote for any republican." Come on! The AWB was not renewed. If the Democrats were in control the AWB would be renewed--period.

GHB

 

[jfh]

I'm still digesting and creating this concept

but it seems to me that the primary criteria for a (sophisticated) politician's vote is not his personal (or constituent) ethical commitment that determines how a legislative politician votes, but the extent to which he has to "use" the record of his voting.

By using that record carefully, the politician will win in the overall court of public opinion.

1: A sponsor for S1605 has demonstrated his commitment to the partisan faithfuls--he wins more support.

2: A supporter of S1605 votes for antagonistic amendments--and wins support from colleagues for maintaining traditions, and gets points to buy or sell from them. Now he's got more "wins" Further, he gets to demonstrate his 'party loyalty' here.

He also gains "deniability" in our 'sound byte' media by being able to show support to whichever 'side' constituents question him on.

3. A supporter of S1605 votes against it with the antagonistic amendments attached--and he can win again, this time among constituents who are on both sides of the fence: His partisan constiuency lauds him for principle (as we have done here, in lauding those who voted down the final version to being passed), and he wins among his antagonized constituents (e.g., voters who are antigun, in this case) because he can now say "I voted for including the AWB when it came up."

As best as I can recall from the last graduate level Social Psych classes about thirty years ago, this is most of us try to be in a "win-win" position in decision-making.

Have we got any more current 'students' here of decision making who can elaborate on this? I am still trying to identify the phenomena here that make for predicability, and then on to how that voting behavior could be best influenced.

The point is, of course, to be able to chart action by us--pro-gunners--that will enable our gun-supporter legislators win not only on principle (the primary vote) but also on the conflict they may feel....

 

[Sam Adams]

Hkmp5sd

The difference is that in regards to the firearm industry, the purpose of the lawsuits is to put firearm manfacturers and dealers out of business. The basis for most other lawsuits is greed.

Whatever the motivation of the suits against whatever industry, the net effect is the same. If you think that some suits against the gun industry for criminal action will be expensive, just think about how many people have been victimized by the actions of drunk drivers. The auto industry would be as bankrupt as the gun industry if such a thing were ever to be permitted. Given the millions of workers who directly or indirectly make their livings from the auto industry, it ISN'T going to happen. But I'll bet that the auto industry would be a big supporter of a comprehensive bill that would make such a thing impossible - because no one knows what absurd decision can come out of our court system. Crafted correctly, such a bill would also protect the gun industry, but get a lot more support.

 

[benEzra]

Frankly I'd rather see a tort reform bill that extends the protections of the bill that just died to more then just the gun industry

The tort lawyer's guild stripped my 4-year-old son of the medicine he HAS to have in order to eat (Propulsid/cisapride). He completely lost the ability to eat solid food and is now subsisting on $250/month of Pediasure, which he is able to process only because we were able to get into a cisapride investigational access program, but the max dose is limited to only half of what was working for him before.

If a doctor had somehow done that, I could sue him for malpractice. If only I could sue Sidney Wolfe and the rest of the clowns at Public Citizen . . .

Tort reform in this country CAN'T COME SOON ENOUGH.

 

[fang]

Contrarian view

What "Waitone" said! I concur with his view, and would add the following:

RE: lawsuits. Every year, more states pass state-level anti-lawsuit bills,
so every year the lawsuit threat dimisnishes a little. Granted, that's a
haphazard way to make progress, and granted, Federal protection is
really called for here, but any progress is better than no progress. JMPO

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Sam Adams,

I agree completely. I think it is absurd that someone which smoked for 60 years can sue a tobacco company for giving them cancer. It is just that I find it far worse to allow politicians and states, who publicly admit to a concerted effort, to sue firearms manufacturers as an indirect means of implementing a firearm ban.

I've always thought it might be a good idea to create a law requiring the complainants and their lawyers to pay the defendant the amount they were seeking if they lose the suit. If you sue someone for a million dollars and lose, you give them a million dollars.

 

[Zundfolge]

I've always thought it might be a good idea to create a law requiring the complainants and their lawyers to pay the defendant the amount they were seeking if they lose the suit. If you sue someone for a million dollars and lose, you give them a million dollars.

Thats a good way to keep people from seeking justice when they've been wronged.

Filing a law suit is NOT a guarantee of a win ... and losing is not always an indication that the suit was frivolous.

So now when a big rich company actually wrongs someone the victim won't sue for fear of losing their shirt on either a technicality or because the Jury's whims went in favor of the defendant that day.

I have no problem with reviewing cases before they go to trial and deciding if they are frivolous and dismissing them ... but everyone should just pay their own legal fees (maybe in fraudlent suits the defendant should be able to sue to recoup their legal costs).