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 last
To: tpaine
oh, you done did it now, tom!
61 posted on 04/10/2003 4:54:45 PM PDT by demosthenes the elder (The Jesuits TRAINED me - they didn't TAME me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
that is pretty deep.
not sure I thoroughly agree on all points.
am quite thoroughly sure I am not prepared to offer an equally cogent counterargument.
62 posted on 04/10/2003 5:02:18 PM PDT by demosthenes the elder (The Jesuits TRAINED me - they didn't TAME me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: demosthenes the elder
Yes. A squealing plethora of oinkings about 'begging questions' will soon descend upon us from our FR soi-King.
63 posted on 04/10/2003 5:09:00 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: demosthenes the elder
Well if you'd like to read others' opinons about what I have to say on the topic of civic regulation, consider this.
64 posted on 04/10/2003 5:12:56 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex to be managed by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
good for the house
65 posted on 04/10/2003 5:13:29 PM PDT by The Wizard (Saddamocrats are enemies of Ameri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
I went, I read (some 5 pages), I bookmarked.
good stuff, too good for rapid digestion - stuff needing time for quiet reflection and analysis.
I assume you ar Mark Edward Vande Pol?
I tip my hat.
66 posted on 04/10/2003 5:22:40 PM PDT by demosthenes the elder (The Jesuits TRAINED me - they didn't TAME me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
A "letter of marque" strategy is a waste of time.

It's been a year and a half since the government set out to get him. How much did it cost?

Seeing as you are an expert, how big would the contract have to be to entice someone to get it done? I'd bet we'd have saved both time and money.

67 posted on 04/10/2003 5:23:24 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex to be managed by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
urrrh... you say that as if that is a good thing.
68 posted on 04/10/2003 5:23:31 PM PDT by demosthenes the elder (The Jesuits TRAINED me - they didn't TAME me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
If government is doing less, our chances for individual liberty clearly improve.
54 -CO-

And it becomes obvious that if we restrict governments to their proper role, -- protecting individual liberty; -- chances are excellent that terrorism against governments would fade away, as it is an unproductive & stupid way to attempt to gain liberty.
69 posted on 04/10/2003 5:23:54 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: demosthenes the elder
Thanks for your time. There are a lot of people who can't read material that dense, especially 400 pages of it. The good news is that there are not a few humor breaks.
70 posted on 04/10/2003 5:27:30 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex to be managed by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
Interesting. I note that NC's Bob Etheridge (D) did the weasel dance voting yes for the bill, then voting for all of the ammendments to water it down.
71 posted on 04/10/2003 5:28:18 PM PDT by TC Rider (The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
once I get a bit deeper into it, and see whether you have addressed the issue, it might be interesting to get your take on the global warming issue... on Mars.
72 posted on 04/10/2003 6:05:06 PM PDT by demosthenes the elder (The Jesuits TRAINED me - they didn't TAME me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Seeing as you are an expert, how big would the contract have to be to entice someone to get it done? I'd bet we'd have saved both time and money.

Well, there's a $25 million bounty on his head. And the money is still in the bank.

73 posted on 04/10/2003 6:37:01 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: demosthenes the elder
1) Citizens have a right, protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, to keep and bear arms.

(2) Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms that operate as designed and intended, which seek money damages and other relief for the harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals.

(3) The manufacture, importation, possession, sale, and use of firearms and ammunition in the United States are heavily regulated by Federal, State, and local laws. Such Federal laws include the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National Firearms Act, and the Arms Export Control Act.

Cheerleading the federalization of gun control?

74 posted on 04/10/2003 6:56:36 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
what have you DONE?!? cf#74
75 posted on 04/10/2003 7:01:52 PM PDT by demosthenes the elder (The Jesuits TRAINED me - they didn't TAME me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
$25 million is chump change. A billion or more sounds about right. It's a steal compared to the cost of this operation.
76 posted on 04/10/2003 7:06:14 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex to be managed by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Of course, Paul could lose his seat. Unlike most Republicans and Democrats, that is not his first priority. Fortunately, there are still men and women in the world who care more about principle than winning the next election.

2004 is still a long way to go as politics go....we shall see what is happening at the point with new "democratic government" of Iraq...that is if they don't all stab each other first.

77 posted on 04/11/2003 6:59:07 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | 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.

Perhaps he found the findings in the bill objectionable?

That may be the case.

My question to you is, if his was the deciding vote on this specific issue, which way would have you wanted him to vote?

From a real world standpoint, would the clear intent of the Constituion be more supported by a yes vote based on content or a no vote based on process?

78 posted on 04/11/2003 2:37:43 PM PDT by !1776!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: !1776!
My question to you is, if his was the deciding vote on this specific issue, which way would have you wanted him to vote?

From a real world standpoint, would the clear intent of the Constituion be more supported by a yes vote based on content or a no vote based on process?

Tough question. Obviously my first act would be to offer an amendment to strike the findings with a memorandum explaining the operant constitutional principles inserted into the record.

Failing that, the choice to make a principled decsion to vote no based upon process would depend upon on a couple of prerequisites: 1) confidence in the ability of activist groups or the DOJ to set up a case correctly and and bring an effective suit on the constitutionality of the law, AND 2)confidence in the appelate and supreme court system to come to an expeditious decision and confine the case to constitutional principles rather than boot it on political grounds.

I know; that's a tall order, one that is unsupported by historical performance of the courts and the justice department in bringing the cases to a head (note how the administration just booted Emerson). Some might say it's a totally unrealistic choice. Thank goodness we aren't in a position where Mr. Paul was faced with that choice.

Failing any confidence in the courts and faced with having to make the deciding vote, my choice would be to go with the second, obviously more expedient though "unprincipled" option. My reason would hinge upon what I call "feed-forward" in political processes. A good example is leftist schools that produce leftist professors that train leftist teachers... Without gun owners, there simply wouldn't be an organized and effective constituency for armed self-defense. Sometimes you just have to throw a wrench in the spokes to buy time, all self-righteousness to the contrary.

The reason for my apparent breach of principle is the key distinction between our current situation and that faced by the founders. It illustrates why such choices now carry such import and peril:

We are so far down the road to serfdom that one must grab a rope on the way into the vortex not knowing how secure it might be. Hence the non-optimal choice is still supported by principle.
79 posted on 04/11/2003 3:16:33 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Because there are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
The reason for my apparent breach of principle is the key distinction between our current situation and that faced by the founders. It illustrates why such choices now carry such import and peril:

It is a tough question, but that is where we get a chance to put our principles to the test...

Personally, I don't believe it would be a breach of those principles because the issue at hand in this case tests a very specific principle - should frivilous lawsuits against the firearms industry (or any industry for that matter) be allowed?

Is taking part in that decision supportive of the flawed process? Maybe.

I think a bigger question is whether or not the sum of very narrow, specific stands on specific issues based on issue specific principles would "equal" the total principle base you are working from.

Does or can the sum of the parts equal the whole?

I'm thinking too much for a Saturday...

80 posted on 04/12/2003 11:59:54 AM PDT by !1776!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


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