Roll call - Who voted what on all the gun lawsuit ban votes, possibly AW ban later

thomas ^ | 2-25-04 | US SENATE

[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

[CougarGA7]

OK. That explains why I couldn't find it in the bill. If it comes up as an amendment it has to be voted on to be attached to the bill. That's the vote I will direct my e-mails to my Senators about. Especially that putz Bingamen.

By the way I like you tagline.

[btcusn]

Abortion should be ok even thirty days after birth.
Or in the case of politicians, up to 30 days AFTER they retire from office!!
Jack

[El Gato]

Wasn't 1805 the POS that had the no lawsuit thang yet had a extension of the AWB buried in it ?? I thought this was good for firearms industry yet extended the AWB. Did Swinesteins AWB extension part of this get trashed ??

The amendment has yet to be offerred. It probably will be, but not yet, unless it's been offerred today, after the cloture vote.

[El Gato]

S.1805 replaced S.659 yesterday, since S.659 did get an AWB extension "poison pill" amended to it. At least, that's what I gathered. I'm sure someone here will correct me if I'm wrong!

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.

[Badray]

ROFLMAO

[Sender]

Maybe Kerry's and Edwards' handlers advised them to be on the campaign trail and AWOL when controversial votes come up. That way later they can bluster and preach about what they would have done if they'd been there...and of course what they would have done varies according to the audience.

[El Gato]

Is the AWB still attached? I assume that it can still be removed before a vote if it is, right

It never was attached, that will come before it is passed, if it comes at all.

[ought-six]

If a gunstore sells a firearm to a customer without conducting the required background check, and that customer would have been prohibited from purchasing a firearm due to an established restriction (ex. convicted felon), and that customer then uses that firearm to injure someone, the gunstore could be liable anyway -- for its own negligence --even if this bill passes. All this bill does is protect manufacturers from the intentional misuse of their product by a third party, without the knowledge or assistanced of the manufacturer, where said intentional misuse results in injury or damage. The bill basically protects the manufacturer or retailer from frivolous law suits. The manufacturer or retailer can still be held liable for their negligent actions or for a product defect.

[Squantos]

About 8 months of intense watchdoggin followed by a lifetime of diligence to keep these turdburglers at bay is needed. Sad that it's illegal to hang/shoot/deport Seditious Socialists RATS and RINOS .........for now .

Stay Safe !

[rintense]

I added pics to my profile page of this weekends shooting event- go take a look see.

[Nov3]

Daschle (D-SD) Yea

He must really be sweating the upcoming election.

[Blood of Tyrants]

I have compared the two bills side by side. S1805 differs from S659 by adding as follows in bold

(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.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

I really don't know much about this bill so let me ask a potentially stupid question. As most of you know, here in Washington D.C. in 2002 we had a couple of snipers running around picking people off at random. From what I can recall, the gun they used was bought at a gun store in Washington State. Furthermore, it turns out that the gun should have never been sold due to a restraining order against the purchaser. The gun store apparantly didn't conduct the required background check, and also from what I understand, can't produce a record of the transaction.

If this bill were to become law, is the gun store owner free of any civil liability for their actions? If so, I have a hard time supporting this bill. If this is the case, I'd much rather see restrictions limited to an end to liability for gun manufacturers rather than the dealers.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Be careful, you are running around with incomplete and incorrect information.

The firearm was stolden from the gun store. They were felons and could not have purchased it legally. The two perps at columbine HS broke 12 federal firearms laws.

Do you honestly think that one more law will reduce the evil hearts of those who aim to harm us??

HA HAH HA

[RightWingMama]

I believe that statement is on the back of the teeshirts that the NRA promoted if you donated a certain amount of money to their legal fund.

[devnull]

You've got to be kidding me. You really think that this is worth electing John Kerry over?

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)

[Badray]

"Furthermore, it turns out that the gun should have never been sold due to a restraining order against the purchaser. The gun store apparantly didn't conduct the required background check, and also from what I understand, can't produce a record of the transaction."

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.

[Sender]

The bill would still allow prosecution of gun dealers if they break even one single law, which the negligent dealer that 'lost' over 300 firearms (including the DC sniper's rifle) certainly did. The bill would change absolutely nothing in that regard.

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?

[Blood of Tyrants]

Re: Tagline. Thanks. I read it here in an article and stole it.

[King Prout]

well, one o' my boys voted Yea, the other abstained, so I suppose they got all of my e-mails :)

[El Gato]

If this bill were to become law, is the gun store owner free of any civil liability for their actions?

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.