[Joe Brower]

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!

S.1805 is the "pure" firearms-mfgr. protection bill.

[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.

[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.

[45Auto]

The RATs want desperately to put the Repubos in a position in which their RKBA advocacy voter base goes nuts and abandons the dipsticks come November; If they allow the industry immunity bill to leave Congress with anyappended anti-gun legislation attached, they will have committed political suicide. The Presidential race might be a lot closer than the pundits think; in such a case, say something like the fiasco of the 2000 election, the Repubos cannot afford to piss off their base any more than they already have.

RKBA advocates may hold the key to victory or defeat. The RATs lost majority control of Congress in '94 precisely because of the Clinton/Gore/Reno Crime Bill/AW ban. The choice is for the Repubos to make: assure majority control for a decade, or take the chance of losing both the White House and the Senate. Are they smart enough to see it, or are they simply stupidly going to assume that gun owners will once again "bend over"?