C-Span Alert (Debate begins this morning @ 9:30am on S. 1805 & Assasult Weapons Ban Renewal)

[conservativefromGa]

Senate debate on the gun manufactures liability bill will begin at 9:30 this morning on C-Span2. Expect Feinstein to attach her Assault Weapons Ban renewal rider on it. Also McCain may attach a rider closing the so called "gun show loophole". This is it folks.

[Dan from Michigan]

56-38 Amendment FAILED.

[El Gato]

Craig-Frist Amendment passed 59-37!!!

Jolly, that means that if you are caught jaywalking and have AP on your person, you get an increased penalty. If AP is defined by a performance standard, that's about any centerfire rifle ammo.

Of course if you commit a real crime with it, the guy will be just as dead if you shoot him with real AP or with normal FMJ or most standard hunting ammo. In fact if I had to be shot, I'd rather be shot with real AP (or FMJ) than most hunting ammo. I'd be likley to live that way, and my injuries would probably not be as severe. (Not as true for .223 and other really high velocity boat tailed bullets, which tend to yaw and do about as much damage as expanding hunting type ammo would)

[Dead Corpse]

You and cc2k work for Boxers office or something? You seem to denigrate any attempt to stop the Dems from screwing up this Bill, and cc2k seems to actually APPROVE of Boxers amendment.

Get it straight guys. Are we on the same side on this one? Or are you both sleeper trolls?

[Monitor]

You and cc2k work for Boxers office or something? You seem to denigrate any attempt to stop the Dems from screwing up this Bill, and cc2k seems to actually APPROVE of Boxers amendment.

I don't know what the amendment's text says, but I will once it's published. And if the amendment turns out to be what you claim it is, I can then begin my condemnation of the Republicans who voted for it.

What you refuse to understand is that nothing is lost by waiting until the evidence is in hand before passing judgement. We will know who voted how, long before the November elections, which is the first opportunity any of us really have to officially register our outrage. Waiting a February day or two for the evidence to be published won't change a damned thing.

But your continued insistence that we must - MUST - RIGHT F'IN NOW - be outraged at the Republican party because some of them voted for an unknown amendment - one which will be known in a very short time - smacks of psy-ops straight out of Moby's playbook.

I've never experienced someone so intent on trying to separate me from voting Republican in my whole life. So you'll excuse me if I ignore your continued baiting and demands for condemation until the evidence is in.

[OXENinFLA]

"...the snipers obtained a 'one-shot one-kill assault weapon'..."

OMG!

So has anyone found THE BOXER AMENDMENT yet?

[Little Pig]

I found this, originally from nraila.org. It summarizes the action so far. If this is true, Boxer's foul amendment was gutted by Kohl. As for "Swimmer" kennedy, he needs to lie down, before he hurts himself.


Thursday, February 26, 2004

On Wednesday morning, the U.S. Senate began to debate S. 1805—the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" (formerly referenced as S. 659/S. 1806.) A bi-partisan 75-22 vote allowed debate to proceed, lifting the threat of a filibuster.

The debate continued late into the evening with no substantive movement on the bill and no additional votes were taken. Senators did, however, reach a "Unanimous Consent Agreement" spelling out specific amendments that would be permitted to be offered during the debate in anticipation of a final vote on the underlying measure next Tuesday.

On Thursday, the Senate reconvened and first considered was an amendment by anti-gun Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) that would require all handguns be sold with a mechanical safety device approved by the Consumer Product Safety Commission(CPSC). This amendment was then replaced with a "second degree" amendment by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI). The Kohl amendment is much less restrictive and also provides liability protection for gun owners. The revised amendment passed 70-27.

The Senate next debated an amendment by Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) which would permit current and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms off duty in other states. Arguing hysterically against the amendment, anti-gun Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) revealed his deep distrust of gun carrying even by sworn police officers. A vote on the Campbell amendment was deferred until Tuesday.

Sen. Kennedy then introduced an amendment to ban the manufacture and sale of "armor-piercing" ammunition. Kennedy, who actually condemned the .30-30 Winchester cartridge during debate, wants to institute a "performance-based" standard that would grant any future Attorney General sweeping authority to ban any center-fire ammunition, including most common-place rifle hunting ammunition.The standard proposed by Sen. Kennedy was rejected in the 1980s as overly broad and unnecessary to meet any threat posed to law enforcement officers` safety. A vote on this NRA-opposed amendment will take place Tuesday.

The Senate next debated and voted upon two amendments seeking to gut S. 1805. The first related to the D.C. sniper case, but the proposal by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) was defeated, 56-40. A "law enforcement" exemption offered by Sen. John Corzine (D-NJ) was soundly defeated, 56 to 38.

[Dead Corpse]

Which is all pretty much what I was saying from the get-go you moron.

BTW. It looks like for private owners, you are liable under civil proceedings if someone steals your gun and uses it in a crime because you didn't have it locked up.

Text is here:

Boxer Amendment

Not as bad as it could have been, but more than bad enough. This needs to be pulled from the original Bill.

[Dead Corpse]

See Post #807. It is on yesterdays daily digest from teh Senate.

[RockChucker]

Not bad?

How about this:
``(A) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun, and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device with the handgun, shall be entitled to immunity from a qualified civil liability action."

So, unless we lock our guns up in our homes, we are responsible for an ant of a 3rd party who, for instance, stole the weapon and caused damages, injury or death?

[Dead Corpse]

Yep. There is no clause for fines/inprinsonment for simple non-compliance by the consumer though. Heavy fines for a dealer/manufacturer that doesn't include one at point of sale or transfer. It also gives $6 million to the Consumer Product Safety Commission over three years to set the "standard" for a locking mechanism.

Not what we needed added to this Bill and is poison enough to warrent calls to our Senators wanting this removed from the Bill.

[DBrow]

If someone steals your gun, you obviously did not store it securely (it was stolen) and once stolen, you do not have control over it, lawful ownership notwithstanding.

So this amendment means that you are liable for third (or fourth or...) parties who get their hands on your gun.

What a fine tradeoff so that Smith & Wesson can dismiss lawsuits!

The antis have longed for a strict personal liability law, and they tacked one on to this bill.

After a few very public trials, what do you suppose this will do to affect your homeowners liability insurance?

[DBrow]

Your search link to Thomas expired. I fumbled around to get the text and was not able to, could you post the entire text here?

Thanks, Dead Corpse.

[Dead Corpse]

Yeah... I just noticed that. Go here. Click Senate under Feb 26. Scroll down to number 40. Text of Amendments. the Boxer Amendment spans the second and thrid page. These are the amendments as read into the record.

Page thorugh it enough and you get to the Frist/Craig AP ammo amendment. It IS performance based and would whipe out about half of the centerfire cartridges out there for hunting/target shooting. Did this one pass? Or did it get shot down?

[StriperSniper]

NRA Statement About False S.1805 Rumours

[Dead Corpse]

Or, Dan from Michigan posted the applicable text over here.

[cc2k]

Dead Corpse wrote:

---

You and cc2k work for Boxers office or something?

---

No, but I do think it's wrong to lie about someones position. It's especially bad to lie about someones position if you disagree with them. It doesn't help your credibility at all when the opposition points out that you aren't telling the truth about them.

Here's the text of the actual amendment:

---

TITLE II--CHILD SAFETY LOCKS

   SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

    This title may be cited as the ``Child Safety Lock Act 
of 2004''.

   SEC. 202. PURPOSES.

    The purposes of this title are--

    (1) to promote the safe storage and use of handguns by 
consumers;

    (2) to prevent unauthorized persons from gaining access 
to or use of a handgun, including children who may not be in 
possession of a handgun; and

    (3) to avoid hindering industry from supplying firearms 
to law abiding citizens for all lawful purposes, including 
hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or 
recreational shooting.

   SEC. 203. FIREARMS SAFETY.

    (a) UNLAWFUL ACTS.--

    (1) MANDATORY TRANSFER OF SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY 
DEVICE.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting at the end the following:

    ``(z) SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE.--

    ``(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided under paragraph 
(2), it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, 
licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, 
or transfer any handgun to any person other than any person 
licensed under this chapter, unless the transferee is 
provided with a secure gun storage or safety device (as 
defined in section 921(a)(34)) for that handgun.

    ``(2) EXCEPTIONS.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

    ``(A)(i) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession 
by, the United States, a department or agency of the United 
States, a State, or a department, agency, or political 
subdivision of a State, of a handgun; or

    ``(ii) the transfer to, or possession by, a law 
enforcement officer employed by an entity referred to in 
clause (i) of a handgun for law enforcement purposes 
(whether on or off duty); or

    ``(B) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police 
officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or 
commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State 
of a handgun for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or 
off duty);

    ``(C) the transfer to any person of a handgun listed as 
a curio or relic by the Secretary pursuant to section 
921(a)(13); or

    ``(D) the transfer to any person of a handgun for which 
a secure gun storage or safety device is temporarily 
unavailable for the reasons described in the exceptions 
stated in section 923(e), if the licensed manufacturer, 
licensed importer, or licensed dealer delivers to the 
transferee within 10 calendar days from the date of the 
delivery of the handgun to the transferee a secure gun 
storage or safety device for the handgun.

    ``(3) LIABILITY FOR USE.--

    ``(A) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
of law, a person who has lawful possession and control of a 
handgun, and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device 
with the handgun, shall be entitled to immunity from a 
qualified civil liability action.

    ``(B) PROSPECTIVE ACTIONS.--A qualified civil liability 
action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.

    ``(C) DEFINED TERM.--As used in this paragraph, the term 
`qualified civil liability action'--

    ``(i) means a civil action brought by any person against 
a person described in subparagraph (A) for damages resulting 
from the criminal or unlawful misuse of the handgun by a 
third party, if--

    ``(I) the handgun was accessed by another person who did 
not have the permission or authorization of the person 
having lawful possession and control of the handgun to have 
access to it; and

    ``(II) at the time access was gained by the person not 
so authorized, the handgun had been made inoperable by use 
of a secure gun storage or safety device; and

    ``(ii) shall not include an action brought against the 
person having lawful possession and control of the handgun 
for negligent entrustment or negligence per se.''.

    (b) CIVIL PENALTIES.--Section 924 of title 18, United 
States Code, is amended--

    (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``or (f)'' and 
inserting ``(f), or (p)''; and

    (2) by adding at the end the following:

    ``(p) PENALTIES RELATING TO SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY 
DEVICE.--

    ``(1) IN GENERAL.--

    ``(A) SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF LICENSE; CIVIL 
PENALTIES.--With respect to each violation of section 
922(z)(1) by a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or 
licensed dealer, the Secretary may, after notice and 
opportunity for hearing--

    ``(i) suspend for not more than 6 months, or revoke, the 
license issued to the licensee under this chapter that was 
used to conduct the firearms transfer; or

    ``(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty in an 
amount equal to not more than $2,500.

    ``(B) REVIEW.--An action of the Secretary under this 
paragraph may be reviewed only as provided under section 
923(f).

    ``(2) ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.--The suspension or 
revocation of a license or the imposition of a civil penalty 
under paragraph (1) shall not preclude any administrative 
remedy that is otherwise available to the Secretary.''.

    (c) LIABILITY; EVIDENCE.--

    (1) LIABILITY.--Nothing in this title shall be construed 
to--

    (A) create a cause of action against any Federal 
firearms licensee or any other person for any civil 
liability; or

[Page: S1621]  GPO's PDF

    (B) establish any standard of care.

    (2) EVIDENCE.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, evidence regarding compliance or noncompliance with the 
amendments made by this title shall not be admissible as 
evidence in any proceeding of any court, agency, board, or 
other entity, except with respect to an action relating to 
section 922(z) of title 18, United States Code, as added by 
this section.

    (3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in this subsection 
shall be construed to bar a governmental action to impose a 
penalty under section 924(p) of title 18, United States 
Code, for a failure to comply with section 922(z) of that 
title.

   SEC. 204. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This title and the amendments made by this title shall 
take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act.

---

You, Dead Corpse, said that this amendment provide for a $2500 find and loss of gun ownership rights if someone's gun is stolen and it isn't locked at the time. Funny, I don't see that in the amendment that passed. You also said you heard Senator Boxer say this on the Senate floor. I watched all of the debate on this amendment on C-SPAN 2 yesterday, and I didn't see Senator boxer say thoste things. Now, I've also read the congressional record from yesterday, and it doesn't contain any record of Senator Boxer saying the things you attribute to her.

Dead Corpse wrote:

---

Get it straight guys. Are we on the same side on this one?

---

You were the one advocating that everyone should call their senators and stop HR1805 based on things that weren't in the amendment. Are you trying to ruin the credibility of all Freepers who might follow your advice and call or fax their Senators?

[BCR #226]

Does anyone have the language of the AP amendment that Frist got through?

I really want to see the exact language of that.

Mike

[Dead Corpse]

THIS is what I said initially. Pay SPECIAL attention to the last line.

Reading comprehension is our friend. Learn it.

[Dead Corpse]

You were the one advocating that everyone should call their senators and stop HR1805 based on things that weren't in the amendment. Are you trying to ruin the credibility of all Freepers who might follow your advice and call or fax their Senators?

Now THAT is a lie. My posts clearly state that the BOXER AMENDMENT needs to be removed before passage of this bill. Knock it off troll.

[cc2k]

RockChucker wrote:

---

So, unless we lock our guns up in our homes, we are responsible for an ant of a 3rd party who, for instance, stole the weapon and caused damages, injury or death?

---

And under the law we have today, if someone steals your locked gun and disables the lock and uses it in a crime, you might get sued by the victim for negligence in allowing the locked gun to be stolen and for using an ineffective lock.

While this new law isn't great, it could be an improvement over what we have today.

I'm not sure I would oppose S.1805 based only on this amendment. If they can keep it clean from other poison pill amendments, this might be the best we can get. I do wish they would vote on S.1806, with no amendments, for a straight up or down vote first, though. If it passes clean, then I think that woudl be doing better than the amended bill at this point.