Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

House PASSES Ban on frivolous lawsuits on gunmakers!!! (ROLL CALL - Who voted what)
Thomas ^ | 4-9-03

Posted on 04/09/2003 4:05:06 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan

I'm posting the Roll Calls on the Final Passage and also ALL the Amendments on this, to catch the doublespeak jerks out there. On the Final Passage, a YES vote is pro-2a and anti-trial lawyer. On the Amendments, NO VOTES are good.

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 124
(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)

      H R 1036     YEA-AND-NAY      9-APR-2003   5:48 PM
      QUESTION: On Passage
      BILL TITLE:  Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

YEAS NAYS PRES NV
REPUBLICAN 221 3   4
DEMOCRATIC 63 137   5
INDEPENDENT 1      
TOTALS 285 140   9

--- YEAS    285 ---

Aderholt Gallegly Obey
Akin Garrett (NJ) Ortiz
Alexander Gerlach Osborne
Baca Gibbons Ose
Bachus Gilchrest Otter
Baird Gillmor Oxley
Baker Gingrey Pearce
Ballenger Goode Pence
Barrett (SC) Goodlatte Peterson (MN)
Bartlett (MD) Gordon Peterson (PA)
Barton (TX) Goss Petri
Bass Granger Pickering
Beauprez Graves Pitts
Bell Green (TX) Platts
Bereuter Green (WI) Pombo
Berry Greenwood Pomeroy
Biggert Gutknecht Porter
Bilirakis Hall Portman
Bishop (GA) Harris Pryce (OH)
Bishop (UT) Hart Putnam
Blackburn Hastings (WA) Quinn
Blunt Hayes Radanovich
Boehlert Hayworth Rahall
Boehner Hefley Ramstad
Bonilla Hensarling Regula
Bonner Herger Rehberg
Bono Hill Renzi
Boozman Hinojosa Reyes
Boswell Hobson Reynolds
Boucher Hoekstra Rodriguez
Bradley (NH) Holden Rogers (AL)
Brady (TX) Hostettler Rogers (KY)
Brown (SC) Hulshof Rogers (MI)
Brown, Corrine Hunter Rohrabacher
Brown-Waite, Ginny Isakson Ros-Lehtinen
Burgess Issa Ross
Burns Istook Royce
Burr Janklow Ryan (OH)
Burton (IN) Jenkins Ryan (WI)
Buyer John Sanders
Calvert Johnson (CT) Sandlin
Camp Johnson (IL) Saxton
Cannon Johnson, Sam Schrock
Cantor Jones (NC) Scott (GA)
Capito Kanjorski Sensenbrenner
Cardoza Kaptur Sessions
Carson (OK) Keller Shadegg
Carter Kelly Shaw
Chabot Kennedy (MN) Sherwood
Chocola Kind Shimkus
Coble King (IA) Shuster
Cole King (NY) Simmons
Collins Kingston Simpson
Combest Kirk Skelton
Cooper Kline Smith (MI)
Costello Knollenberg Smith (NJ)
Cox Kolbe Smith (TX)
Cramer LaHood Smith (WA)
Crane Lampson Souder
Crenshaw Larsen (WA) Spratt
Cubin Latham Stearns
Culberson LaTourette Stenholm
Cunningham Leach Strickland
Davis (AL) Lewis (CA) Stupak
Davis (TN) Lewis (KY) Sullivan
Davis, Jo Ann Linder Sweeney
Davis, Tom Lipinski Tancredo
Deal (GA) LoBiondo Tanner
DeFazio Lucas (KY) Tauzin
DeLay Manzullo Taylor (MS)
DeMint Marshall Taylor (NC)
Diaz-Balart, L. Matheson Terry
Diaz-Balart, M. McCotter Thomas
Dingell McCrery Thompson (CA)
Dooley (CA) McHugh Thornberry
Doolittle McInnis Tiahrt
Dreier McIntyre Tiberi
Duncan McKeon Toomey
Dunn Mica Turner (OH)
Edwards Michaud Turner (TX)
Ehlers Miller (FL) Upton
Emerson Miller (MI) Vitter
English Miller, Gary Walden (OR)
Etheridge Mollohan Walsh
Everett Moran (KS) Wamp
Feeney Murphy Weldon (FL)
Ferguson Murtha Weldon (PA)
Flake Musgrave Weller
Fletcher Myrick Whitfield
Foley Nethercutt Wicker
Forbes Ney Wilson (NM)
Ford Northup Wilson (SC)
Fossella Norwood Wolf
Franks (AZ) Nunes Young (AK)
Frelinghuysen Nussle Young (FL)
--- NAYS    140 ---

Abercrombie Hinchey Neal (MA)
Ackerman Hoeffel Oberstar
Allen Holt Olver
Andrews Honda Owens
Baldwin Hooley (OR) Pallone
Ballance Hoyer Pascrell
Becerra Inslee Pastor
Berkley Israel Paul
Berman Jackson (IL) Payne
Bishop (NY) Jackson-Lee (TX) Pelosi
Blumenauer Jefferson Price (NC)
Brady (PA) Johnson, E. B. Rothman
Brown (OH) Jones (OH) Roybal-Allard
Capps Kennedy (RI) Ruppersberger
Capuano Kildee Rush
Cardin Kilpatrick Sabo
Carson (IN) Kleczka Sanchez, Linda T.
Case Kucinich Sanchez, Loretta
Castle Langevin Schakowsky
Clay Lantos Schiff
Clyburn Larson (CT) Scott (VA)
Conyers Lee Serrano
Crowley Levin Shays
Cummings Lewis (GA) Sherman
Davis (CA) Lofgren Slaughter
Davis (FL) Lowey Snyder
DeGette Lynch Solis
Delahunt Majette Stark
DeLauro Maloney Tauscher
Deutsch Markey Thompson (MS)
Dicks Matsui Tierney
Doggett McCarthy (NY) Towns
Doyle McCollum Udall (CO)
Emanuel McDermott Udall (NM)
Engel McGovern Van Hollen
Eshoo McNulty Velazquez
Evans Meehan Visclosky
Farr Meek (FL) Waters
Fattah Meeks (NY) Watson
Filner Menendez Watt
Frank (MA) Millender-McDonald Waxman
Frost Miller (NC) Weiner
Gonzalez Miller, George Wexler
Grijalva Moore Woolsey
Gutierrez Moran (VA) Wu
Harman Nadler Wynn
Hastings (FL) Napolitano
--- NOT VOTING    9 ---

Boyd Houghton McCarthy (MO)
Davis (IL) Hyde Rangel
Gephardt Lucas (OK) Ryun (KS)




TOPICS: Announcements; Breaking News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; guns; lawsuits; triallawyerlosers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 next last
To: sinkspur
The fool votes against a ban on lawsuits against gunmakers!! A Texan, for heaven's sake!

That is disappointing.

21 posted on 04/09/2003 4:32:18 PM PDT by thepitts (The republic depends upon fervent devotion to all our fundamental rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
My guess is that Mr. Paul voted against the bill because he believes that the Congress doesn't have the Constitutional power to be passing legislation concerning or regulating private arms ownership or commerce in any way.

This bill prevents and, in fact, nullifies existing lawsuits against gunmakers.

Indeed, I would think Paul would be in favor, since it prevents the assault against the financial assets of gun companies by bleeding them dry through legal defenses.

But, as in many of his votes, Paul comes out on the losing end.

I've lost all respect I ever had for Paul with his childish petulance about the war against Hussein.

I hope he feels like hell tonight.

22 posted on 04/09/2003 4:37:08 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
in any way.

I think he will only vote for removing one that shouldn't be there in the first place, or as you said in all other cases.

23 posted on 04/09/2003 4:49:15 PM PDT by StriperSniper (Frogs are for gigging)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
Shays, Case and Castle.

Get them gone!

Be out of my house!

24 posted on 04/09/2003 4:50:36 PM PDT by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
Even Bernie Sanders voted for it.
25 posted on 04/09/2003 4:55:20 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Rest in pieces Saddam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Why should Ron Paul (a far stronger believer in liberty and defender of gun rights than many people here) "feel like hell?" I am sure that he had a good rationale for his vote; as a man of principle he always does in my experience.

The biggest objection to the war was the potential danger of a long-term occupation and nation building....not the war itself. Those warnings apply now more than ever. I am overjoyed that Iraqis are free of Saddam as a byproduct of a mistaken Wilsonian War....but the problem remains.

I will say immodestly that I (along with many anti-war conservatives) never believed the war would be a quagmire (the occupation is another matter). In fact, on FR, I over optimistically predicted on FR that the Iraqi regime would be overthrown in a coup on the first day of an attack.

26 posted on 04/09/2003 5:06:08 PM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: StriperSniper; Dan from Michigan; !1776!
I think he will only vote for removing one that shouldn't be there in the first place, or as you said in all other cases.

Precisely; Mr. Paul's is a literal interpretation of the Second Amendment. I suspect he would say, 'If the Constitution needs to be amended in the pursuit of liberty, then amend it. Do not pass unconstitutional legislation or it dilutes respect for the Constitution in the construction of ALL legislation.' In that respect, he would be right.

Unfortunately, there really are places where one must draw a limit line on "keep and bear arms," because technology has so enormously changed what constitutes "arms." Assuming a logic of literal interpretation, Mr. Paul would consequently vote against laws limiting private ownership of nuclear weapons or weaponized smallpox and sinkspur would say that it was proof that he was crazy. Perhaps, but then he might also demand a Constitutional Amendment to articulate what should be the limits on private arms ownership.

If so, IMO, he would be right to do so. Technology has changed many things, and not all for the better. It is our challenge in the pursuit of liberty to ascertain the operant principles of self-defense, and an armed militia, necessary (AND SUFFICIENT) to insure a free people, and craft legislation that accurately articulates the key distinctions in light of those technical changes, a task so far beyond most legislators that it gives one pause to even hope for such a resolution.

27 posted on 04/09/2003 5:09:52 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (With friends like these, who needs friends?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Why in hell does Ron Paul list himself as a Republican?

He wants the federal government to limit itself to the duties and powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution. Banning private lawsuits doesn't really fall within its authority. Personally, I'd regard the Second Amendment as having an enforceability provision as do later ones ["Congress shall have the authority to enforce this amendment through appropriate legislation."] but it isn't literally there.

28 posted on 04/09/2003 5:36:21 PM PDT by supercat (TAG--you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: Bobby Fischer
This bill will set a precedent to ban all manner of legitimate legal claims, including ones which are claims for the right to own a gun.

How is not allowing lawsuits against gunmakers going to abridge the right own a gun? I fail to see the leap of logic you are making.

Besides, allowing lawsuits against gunmakers would open the door to suing Ford when you rear-end someone in an accident.

You can't abridge somebody else's freedom without abridging your own, bubba.

Sure I can. We take criminals off the street every day and it doesn't abridge my freedom in the least.

Holding the makers of an inaminate object responsible for the actions of a thinking human being is stupidity.

But, Ron Paul doesn't see it, and neither do you, which is why libertarians never win anything. Paul's opposition to the war might cost him his seat, especially if he runs against another solid conservative in a primary.

30 posted on 04/09/2003 6:18:59 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
The biggest objection to the war was the potential danger of a long-term occupation and nation building....not the war itself. Those warnings apply now more than ever. I am overjoyed that Iraqis are free of Saddam as a byproduct of a mistaken Wilsonian War...

What a silly thing to say! How would the Iraqis have been free of Saddam without the war?

Should we have just nicely asked him to leave?

We will occupy however long it takes to bring a stable government to that nation. More important, however, the other nations supporting terrorists in the region are getting the message, loud and clear, that they had better clean house.

Ron Paul would have us sit back and take another hit from terrorists before he would do anything. Hell, he thought we ought to use letters of marque to root out the Taliban! The idiot didn't even want us to go after Osama bin Laden with the military!

What a foolish, foolish man! I hope he loses his seat over this.

31 posted on 04/09/2003 6:25:50 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

To: Bobby Fischer
Bobby Fischer signed up 2003-04-09.
33 posted on 04/09/2003 6:49:26 PM PDT by P8riot (Stupid is forever. Ignorance can be fixed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
Well, with 60+ defections on their side and only 3 defections on our side, it's a pretty decisive victory. I think there are at least 8 solidly anti-gun Republicans in congress, so they must have wussed out from pressure over this one.

Paul has the right IDEA 90% of the time, but I never cared for way of putting them into action. As some other freepers pointed out, since the 2nd amendment doesn't LITERALLY say "Congress SHALL have the power to ENFORCE this amendment through appriopiate legislation" like all later amendments state, Paul is going to insist that we don't have the power to write any laws to strengthen it. Of course, under Ron Paul's logic, Presidents Tyler, Fillmore, Andy Johnson, Arthur, Teddy Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, and LBJ were not "really" president since the constitution did not LITERALLY state "the Vice President SHALL become President if the President dies" until 1967. One need not act like an andriod to be a strict constructionist.

On the other hand, Shays is just a damn RINO. Now that the GOP has finally gotten the upper hand in liberal Conn., can't they find any REAL Republican to challenge this guy? The local "Republican" establishment will all try to sabatoge the campaign of any conservative, but so did Marge Roameka's supporters in NJ. In any case, real Republicans will not vote for Shays unless they HAVE to.

34 posted on 04/09/2003 8:14:45 PM PDT by BillyBoy (George Ryan deserves a long term...without parole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I've lost all respect I ever had for Paul

You've never had respect for Paul.
35 posted on 04/09/2003 8:41:22 PM PDT by jmc813 (The average citizen in Baghdad,right now, has more firearm rights than anyone in our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Paul is worthless!
No Sir, Ron Paul is one of those wacky Libertarians. He is a Republican for convenience, 'cause wacky Libertarians are unelectible, but wacky Republicans are. Go figure.
36 posted on 04/09/2003 9:06:01 PM PDT by Xthe17th (FREE THE STATES. Repudiate the 17th amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
Well Dan thanks for the post. I'm surprised to see Larsen vote for this but now that I think about it he represents a pretty rural district.

Of course my allstar rep. Inslee voted against it because he really wants to grow up to be McDermott.
37 posted on 04/09/2003 9:23:36 PM PDT by TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig (.45 .46, whatever it takes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan; *bang_list
Thanks for the ping.
38 posted on 04/09/2003 10:35:01 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
It is a federalism issue. Common Law has been the purview of states. He sees this as a Federal Usurpation, even if for a good cause.
39 posted on 04/10/2003 12:21:11 AM PDT by rmlew ("Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
A victory for the 2nd Amendment! Does the bill next go to the Senate or to the President's Desk?


40 posted on 04/10/2003 12:46:21 AM PDT by 2nd_Amendment_Defender ("It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains." -- Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson