The bottom line is, that this Ammo Ban Amendment is absolutely disastrous to S. 1805.
If the the Kennedy Amendment (as amended by Craig/Frist) is passed, we should all immediately start calling for the defeat of S. 1805.
Which is probably what the Dems/Libs and RINOs had in mind all along
President Bush has asked for a "clean bill," and his own Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist, is running around tacking on a bunch of stupid Amendments.
For example Frist sponsored this amendment that has already PASSED !!
S.AMDT.2630 to S.1805 To protect the rights of law enforcement officers who are victimized by crime to secure compensation from those who participate in the arming of criminals. Sponsor: Sen Frist, Bill [TN] (introduced 2/26/2004) Cosponsors: 1 Latest Major Action: 2/26/2004 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2630 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 60 - 34. Record Vote Number: 21.
Man does that leave the door open for frivolous lawsuits -- this Amendment, in effect - cancels the whole purpose of S. 1805. This Amendment says 'Its OK to have a frivilous lawsuit against a manufacturer, dealer, or other third-party, so long as a policeman (and his lawyer) get all the money.' In other words, the police (and the government) are exempt from this law. Nothing new here, they're all extra-special, you know.
Then, there are the other Frist Amendments:
S.AMDT.2625 to S.1805 To regulate the sale and possession of armor piercing ammunition, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Frist, Bill [TN] (introduced 2/26/2004) Cosponsors: 1 Latest Major Action: 2/26/2004 Senate amendment proposed (on the floor)
And this lunacy - what did this proposed Amendment (now withdrawn) have to do with giving the President a "clean bill ??":
S.AMDT.2626 to S.1805 To make the provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 permanent. Sponsor: Sen Frist, Bill [TN] (introduced 2/26/2004) Cosponsors: 1 Latest Major Action: 2/26/2004 Proposed amendment SA 2626 withdrawn in Senate.
And my own RINO from Virginia, proposes an Amendment and won't even reveal it's purpose:
S.AMDT.2624 to S.1805 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text. Sponsor: Sen Warner, John W. [VA] (introduced 2/26/2004) Cosponsors: (none) Latest Major Action: 2/26/2004 Senate amendment submitted
The NRA is gonna have to conger up some powerful prevarication to quell the dissatisfaction in the ranks - something akin to convincing us black is white and vice-versa.
BTW, did you ever notice, go to any NRA Web site: NRA.org, NRAHQ.org, NRA-ILA.org, ClintonGunBan, etc., - and they all provide links to write an e-mail to your congresscritters, the President, the media -- but THERE ARE NO LINKS, for members to contact the NRA. Guess they just don't want to hear from us.
If you go the the main NRA web site, http://www.nra.org, the top left corner carries a section called "Top Headlines." This morning; "Healthy GDP Raises Hopes for Job Growth," "Agency Tells Airlines to Weigh Passengers," "IOC Clears Iraqi Flag for Athens Olympics," "Bush, German Leader Put Differences Aside" and "Bush Believes Aristide Should Resign."
But, back when the D.C.-sniper was THE headline news around the world, the NRA completely embargoed all those reports in this section. I thought that was disingenuous reporting. What a perfect opportunity to dispel the idea that some gun (like an insane SUV) had gone berserk and was on the streets killing babies - instead, there was NOTHING.
So I called every NRA HQ media, public relations and ILA number I could find to discuss the public appearance of their ignoring the story on a real-time basis.
I've been a Life Member for 32 years, they didn't want to discuss it -- couldn't find anybody that would even feign an interest in the issue, or admit any policy-level responsibility for making such decisions.
I was promised "someone" would call me back -- no one ever did.
The NRA is not responding to it's membership. The April Convention ought to be interesting, reminiscent of the old days with Baker and Carter and others. I'm not sure the rules even allow a groundswell of dissent to rise to the surface at an annual meeting anymore.
No point trying to talk to LaPierre, he is "unavailable" to the lowlife membership.
Glad I haven't sent in my NRA ballot yet.
[/soapbox]
The strategy so far seems to be that whenever the Dims propose an anti-gun amendment, Frist and/or Craig propose an alternative that is much less anti-gun. Any alternate amendment that doesn't really change the intent of S.1805 is voted on immediately. Any ammendment (whether proposed by Dims or as an alternate by the Republicans) that is controversial and muddies up S.1805 is scheduled for a vote on Tuesday.
For example, Mikulski proposed adding victims of he DC Snipers to cases that would be allowed under S.1805. Her amendment added this to the list of actions that would be allowed:
Frist then proposed an amendment to add this instead:
``(vi) an action involving a shooting victim of John Allen Muhammad or Lee Boyd Malvo.''.
The Frist version passed. The Mikulski version was either rejected or tabled (I don't remember which at this point).
(vi) an action involving a shooting victim of John Allen Muhammad or John Lee Malvo that meets 1 of the requirements under clauses (i) through (v).
So, the amendment that actually passed said that DC Sniper victims could only sue manufacturers or dealers if their case met the other requirement of S.1805 (such as criminal activity by the dealer or manufacturer, or a defective product).
I'm not sure about the law enforcement "exception", but I'll bet if you check the actual text of the amendment as passed, it will also require that any action by a law enforcement officer will still have to meet the other criteria to be allowed.
We do need to pay attention to the Congressional Record, and contact our Senators about the controversial votes that will be held on Tuesday, but so far, they are actually holding the line pretty good on this bill.
For example, the Craig AP ammuniation amendment was scheduled for a vote on Tuesday.
One thing that is important is not to overreact, and to make sure you have your facts straight when you contact your Senators. Some disruptors are spreading misinformation and are trying to make pro-gun people look like fools when they contact their Senators. Unfortunately, some pro-gun groups and individuals are further spreading the misinformation.
For example, you will look like a crackpot if you call you Senator and object to the Boxer gun locks amendment (which has already passed) because it imposes a fine of $2500 if your unlocked is used in a crime. The Boxer/Kohl amendment that passed doesn't have any requirements for gun owners to use gun locks. It only requires manufacturers to provide locks with the guns they sell. It also offers immunity to gun owners who keep their guns locked if their locked gun is stolen and used in a crime.
If you are going to complain to your Senator about something, make sure you have your facts straight. There are disruptors who are trying to harm your credibility by passing on misinformation.