Progress of SB 659 NOTIC! AMENDMENTS!

Bill Summary & Status for the 108th Congress ---------------------------------------------------------

NEW SEARCH | HOME | HELP | ABOUT STATUS ---------------------------------------------------------

Title: A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others.

Cosponsors: 1 Related Bills: H.R.1036, S.1806 Latest Major Action: 2/27/2004 Senate floor actions. Status: Considered by Senate. ---------------------------------------------------------

Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time. 11/3/2003:

Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 363. 2/23/2004:

Motion to proceed to consideration of measure made in Senate by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S1448) 2/23/2004:

Motion to proceed to consideration of measure withdrawn in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

Motion to proceed to consideration of measure considered in Senate. (consideration: CR S1532-1554, S1559-1572, S1574-1582)

Cloture motion on the motion to proceed to consider the measure invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 75 - 22. Record Vote Number: 16.

S.AMDT.2620 Amendment SA 2620 proposed by Senator Boxer. (consideration: CR S1612-1616; text: CR S1613)

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to require the provision of a child safety device in connection with the transfer of a handgun and to provide safety standards for child safety devices.

S.AMDT.2621 Amendment SA 2621 proposed by Senator Daschle. (consideration: CR S1616-1620; text: CR S1616) To clarify the definition of qualified civil liability action, and for other purposes.

S.AMDT.2622 Amendment SA 2622 proposed by Senator Kohl to Amendment SA 2620. (consideration: CR S1620-1621; text: CR S1620-1621)

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to require the provision of a child safety lock in connection with the transfer of a handgun.

S.AMDT.2620 Amendment SA 2620 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 70 - 27. Record Vote Number: 17.

S.AMDT.2623 Amendment SA 2623 proposed by Senator Hatch for Senator Campbell. (consideration: CR S1623-1634; text: CR S1623-1624)

To amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns.

S.AMDT.2619 Amendment SA 2619 proposed by Senator Kennedy. (consideration: CR S1634-1639; text: CR S1634) To expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition and to require the Attorney General to promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against body armor.

S.AMDT.2625 Amendment SA 2625 proposed by Senator Craig for Senator Frist. (consideration: CR S1639-1641; text: CR S1639)

To regulate the sale and possession of armor piercing ammunition, and for other purposes.

S.AMDT.2617 Amendment SA 2617 proposed by Senator Cantwell. (consideration: CR S1641-1649, S1655; text: CR S1641)

To extend and expand the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002, and for other purposes. 2/26/2004:

S.AMDT.2617 Point of order under the Budget Act raised in Senate with respect to amendment SA 2617.

S.AMDT.2626 Amendment SA 2626 proposed by Senator Frist. (consideration: CR S1649-1655, S1655; text: CR S1650) To make the provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 permanent.

S.AMDT.2617 Motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to amendment SA 2617 rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay. 58 - 39. Record Vote Number: 18.

S.AMDT.2627 Amendment SA 2627 proposed by Senator Mikulski. (consideration: CR S1655-1659, S1662-1663; text: CR S1655)

To exempt lawsuits involving a shooting victim of John Allen Muhammad or Lee Boyd Malvo from the definition of qualified civil liability action.

S.AMDT.2628 Amendment SA 2628 proposed by Senator Craig for Senator Frist. (consideration: CR S1659-1662; text: CR S1659)

To exempt any lawsuit involving a shooting victim of John Allen Muhammad or John Lee Malvo from the definition of qualified civil liability action that meets certain requirements.

S.AMDT.2628 Amendment SA 2628 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 59 - 37. Record Vote Number: 19.

S.AMDT.2627 Amendment SA 2627 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 40 - 56. Record Vote Number: 20. 2/26/2004:

S.AMDT.2629 Amendment SA 2629 proposed by Senator Corzine. (consideration: CR S1663-1666, S1670; text: CR S1663)

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. 2/26/2004:

S.AMDT.2630 Amendment SA 2630 proposed by Senator Craig for Senator Frist. (consideration: CR S1666-1670; text: CR S1666)

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. 2/26/2004:

S.AMDT.2630 Amendment SA 2630 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 60 - 34. Record Vote Number: 21. 2/26/2004:

S.AMDT.2629 Amendment SA 2629 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 38 - 56. Record Vote Number: 22.

S.AMDT.2631 Amendment SA 2631 proposed by Senator Levin. To exempt any civil action against a person from the provisions of the bill if the gross negligence or reckless conduct of the person proximately caused death or injury.

To improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system.

To require that certain notifications occur whenever a query to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System reveals that a person listed in the Violent Gang and Terrorist Organization File is attempting to purchase a firearm, and for other purposes. 2/27/2004:

To exempt lawsuits involving injuries to children from the definition of qualified civil liability action.

It's fair to say, unfortunately, that a majority of people have by now bought the lies that proponents of a Government of Inherent Authority (i.e. the Left meme) have been pushing.
Notwithstanding that RKBA is enshrined in the Constitution, relatively few people have the requisite understanding of the Framers' intentions, or the patience to learn, or even to defend their rights, that will be necessary to defend this right against the baying of the pack in years to come.
The Pew Center, in measuring America for its socialist knife, produced a typology of the American electorate in 1999. Only two or three of the nine or ten broad lifestyle blocs actually support RKBA. In the GOP, the business bloc or wing of the party is an especial danger. Dealing with money and people, and principally engaged in separating the former from the latter, businessmen have no love of the idea of an armed citizenry. Their guilty consciences love the idea of gun control. They are the most dangerous group to RKBA right now.

Watch out for signs that Bush/Ashcroft are "playing to lose" on RKBA issues. I realize that in the Emerson case, Ashcroft filed a brief stating that RKBA is an individual right. While that is a significant defi to offer the Left, what a lot of people missed was that Ashcroft and his Solicitor General, Ted Olson, didn't throw the other shoe: that the right cannot be infringed. They left the door open to "reasonable" gun control -- the kind the business community likes. The kind that will get your firearm, but not Donald Trump's or Punch Sulzberger's.

Thanks for the information. I had not heard of the Pew Center, nor their study. Is there a link where I can read about the entire study?

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to require the provision of a child safety lock in connection with the transfer of a handgun.

What is a transfer? Any time a 4473 is required? What about private sales? What a stupid law.

They're taking it beyond that: even a trip to a gunsmith's, requiring entry on the 'smith's *bound book* record of work performed, would require return with a NEW trigger lock, which MUST bne of a type *approved by the manufacturer*...whose attorneys will of course insist be only those made/installed by the manufacturer themselves:

SA 2617 - SA 2633 have been proposed, and SA 2620, SA 2621, SA 2622, SA 2628, and SA 2630 have been agreed to by the Senate. SA 2620 is Boxer's "Child Safety Device Act of 2004," which requires licensees to provide a "locking device" with any handgun and gets the CPSC involved in regulation of such "locking devices." SA 2621 makes a variety of changes to the details of S. 1805. SA 2622 is the "Child Safety Lock Act of 2004," which requires licensees to provide the transferee of any handgun with a "secure gun storage or safety device."
SA 2622 also provides for immunity from a qualified civil liability action for a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device with a handgun.
SA 2628 makes an exception for "an action involving "a shooting victim of John Allen Muhammad or John Lee Malvo that meets 1 of the requirements under clauses (i) though (v)."
SA 2630 makes an exception for officers or employees of Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies for civil actions that meet 1 of the requirements under clauses (i) through (v) of subparagraph (A).
Most problematic are SA 2620 and SA 2622, which collectively impose different requirements for devices that licensees must provide with handguns. The "locking devices" of SA 2620 will have to conform to standards to be promulgated by the CPSC, while the "secure gun storage or safety devices" of SA 2622 will have to comply with 921(a)(34). If S. 1805 becomes law with both SA 2620 and SA 2622, a licensee will have to comply with BOTH requirements. The extent to which CPSC follows or departs from 921(a)(34) will determine the extent to which a single device will be adequate to comply with both requirements. Also, while SA 2622 purports to prevent its immunity provision from establishing a standard of care, what liberal trial lawyer wouldn't try to make it do so? For those reasons, I think both SA 2620 and 2622 represent wedges to force open a door to increasing gun control laws.
There are a few potential pitfalls created by SA 2620 and SA 2622. One is that, under SA 2620, a "locking device" has to be "approved by a licensed firearms manufacturer for use on the handgun with which the device or locking mechanism is sold, delivered, or transferred...." Thus, it puts licensed firearms manufacturers in the position of having to approve "locking devices." I am not convinced that manufacturers might face some liability resulting from such approval, particularly when they are forced to comply with CPSC standards. For example, if the CPSC were to require manufacturers to file a form certifying their "locking device's" compliance with a standard and the device were found to somehow fall short of the standard, I could imagine that there might be an attempt to circumvent the supposed legal protection of S. 1805 by alleging that the manufacturer's erroneous certification form was a "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," as excluded by SA 2621.
The requirement for such an approved "locking device" could also be problematic for transactions involving used handguns, as there would not necessarily be a manufacturer available to provide the required approval. Thus, SA 2620 could create a de facto ban on the sale of used handguns, particularly in states that require handguns to be transferred through dealers or in any state if a law were passed to close the supposed "gunshow loophole."
Additionally, the provisions of SA 2620 and SA 2622 could be particularly insidious for gunsmiths and pawnbrokers, both of whom are "dealers." For example, if a competition shooter were to take a very specialized competition handgun for a slight tune-up and the gunsmith were to perform some very simple procedure, such as replacing the recoil spring, and return the handgun to the customer, what is to prevent the gunsmith from having violated the requirements of SA 2620 and SA 2622 regarding having to provide a "locking device" and a "secure gun storage or safety device" with the handgun, even if the customer already possessed such devices for the handgun. Likewise, even the return of a customer's handgun to that same customer by a pawnbroker could arguably give rise to such a requirement even if the customer already possessed adequate devices for securing the handgun. Even more insidiously, if the CPSC were to change the standards for a "locking device" prior to the return of the handgun to the customer, an argument could be made that a violation of the provisions of SA 2620 and/or SA 2622 would occur. Moreover, even if a gunsmith or pawnbroker were to provide an improved "locking device" meeting a modified CPSC standard, if such an improved "locking device" were not approved by "a licensed firearms manufacturer for use on the handgun," an argument could be made that the improved "locking device" still did not comply with the provisions of SA 2620.
As can be readily seen from the foregoing examples, S. 1805, as amended, is of dubious effectiveness for limiting civil liability of federal firearms licensees and, more likely, creates legal impediments and pitfalls not only for licensees, but also for firearms consumers. Based on that analysis, I would recommend asking one's Senators to vote against S. 1805, as amended.

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.