Posted on 02/25/2004 8:49:53 AM PST by Dan from Michigan
The first vote is to end the fillibuster. I'll post the other votes on this thread when they happen and when Thomas prints them. On this first vote, a YEA vote ends the fillibuster.
Everything should happen in the next 30 hours since cloture was invoked. However, right now - Drunken swimmer Ted Kennedy is going on a very long rant.
YEAs ---75
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT) Byrd (D-WV) Campbell (R-CO)
Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI) Chambliss (R-GA)
Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID) Daschle (D-SD) Dayton (D-MN)
Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feingold (D-WI)
Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK)
Jeffords (I-VT) Johnson (D-SD) Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Leahy (D-VT)
Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK) Pryor (D-AR) Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)
NAYs ---22
Akaka (D-HI) Boxer (D-CA) Cantwell (D-WA)
Clinton (D-NY) Corzine (D-NJ) DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (D-FL) Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting - 3
Edwards (D-NC) Kerry (D-MA) Miller (D-GA
The amendment has yet to be offerred. It probably will be, but not yet, unless it's been offerred today, after the cloture vote.
According to thomas.loc.gov, no such amendment, or any other, was added to S. 659. I don't understand the manuever of creating two clones of S. 659, (S. 1805 and S. 1806). There may be some differences, but I haven't had time to look for them.
It never was attached, that will come before it is passed, if it comes at all.
Stay Safe !
He must really be sweating the upcoming election.
(5) QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTION-
(A) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified civil liability action' means a civil action brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include--
(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;
(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including--
(I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law;(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or
(III) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code;
(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product; or
(v) an action for physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable.
(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- As used in subparagraph (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment' means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.
(C) REASONABLY FORESEEABLE- As used in subparagraph (A)(v), the term `reasonably foreseeable' does not include any criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product, other than possessory offenses.
(D) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- The exceptions described in subparagraph (A) shall be construed so as not to be in conflict and no provision of this Act shall be construed to create a Federal private cause of action or remedy.
Respectfully, I take the Second Amendment seriously. This is the reset button on the constitution. I'd vote for Nader to skew the system. Yes, John Kerry (57 varieties of pork sh*t) would be worse. However, my vote or lack of is a protest, no matter how minuscule, concerning my constitutional right to defend myself, family, and country (what fraction of it that has not been judicated away)
The rifle used in the sniper attacks wasn't sold. It was STOLEN. Kinda hard to do a background check on someone under those circumstances.
Similarly, any gun manufacturer that produces a defective product (i.e. that blows up or fires when the trigger is not being pulled, etc) can still be sued. The bill again changes absolutely nothing.
All the bill does is to say that if a manufacturer's product is not defective, and if the product is sold in a legal and compliant manner, then there is nothing to sue either the dealer or the manufacturer about. Wouldn't you agree with that?
No, asided from the minor problem of criminal liability for not conducting the background check (Which might not have shown the restraining order anyway), there is a provision in the bill that allows suing when a law is broken and for negligent entrustment or negligence per se
From the bill:
(A) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified civil liability action' means a civil action brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include--
(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;
(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;
(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including--
(I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law;
(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or
(III) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code;
(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product; or
(v) an action for physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable.
(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- As used in subparagraph (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment' means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.
(C) REASONABLY FORESEEABLE- As used in subparagraph (A)(v), the term `reasonably foreseeable' does not include any criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product, other than possessory offenses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.