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.
Dead Corpse wrote:Well, there's really almost no way to do that within the rules and procedures in the Senate.
Now THAT is a lie. My posts clearly state that the BOXER AMENDMENT needs to be removed before passage of this bill.
If you opposed this amendment, and you wanted to write/fax/call your Senator about it, the best time to do that was before the vote yesterday.
Now that it's in the S.1805 bill, your choices are pretty limited. You can ask your Senator to vote against final passage of S.1805 because it contains this amendment.
Your other choice is to wait before making any more contact with the Senate until after S.1805 as amended is passed, then contact the Republican leadership in the Senate and make it clear that you wish to see those provisions removed in the conference committee. Also, write your representatives in the House and make sure that this provision doesn't make its way into the House version.
As it is, the actual Boxer/Kohl amendment that passed isn't that objectionable, and if S.1805 with this amendment is the best we can get, I think it's good enough.
I'm more worried about some of the other amendments. The Frist amendment about the Mohamed/Malvo victims could be bad. It could open the door to judges totally gutting the law based on 14th amendment "equal protection" claims.
And of course, any renewal/extension/permanent enactment of the "Assault Weapons" Ban is unacceptable.
Dead Corpse wrote:No, this pertains to civil actions. In a civil action, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence standard. The plaintiff would have to have some evidence to prove that the gun was unlocked when it was stolen.
Under this one, if someone steals your gun, drills out the lock, and uses it in a crime, unless you can PROVE you had the lock on it you are SCREWED.