Fed Firearms bill

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by ntsqd, Oct 20, 2005.

  1. ntsqd

    ntsqd 1/2 ton status

    Nov 28, 2002
    Likes Received:
    So. CA
    from: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_GUNS?SITE=CAVEN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

    Congress OKs gun industry lawsuit shield

    Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congress gave the gun lobby its top legislative priority Thursday, passing a bill that would protect the firearms industry from massive lawsuits brought by crime victims. The White House says President Bush will sign it into law.

    The House voted 283-144 to send the bill to the president after supporters, led by the National Rifle Association, proclaimed it vital to protect the industry from being bankrupted by huge jury awards. Opponents, waging a tough battle against growing public support for the legislation, called it proof of the gun lobby's power over the Republican-controlled Congress.

    "This legislation will make the unregulated gun industry the most pampered industry in America," said Kristen Rand, director of the Violence Policy Center.

    Under the measure, as many as 20 pending lawsuits by local governments against the industry would be dismissed. The Senate passed the bill in July.

    The bill's passage was the NRA's top legislative priority and would give Bush and his Republican allies on Capitol Hill a rare victory at a time when some top GOP leaders are under indictment or investigation.

    "Lawsuits seeking to hold the firearms industry responsible for the criminal and unlawful use of its products are brazen attempts to accomplish through litigation what has not been achieved by legislation and the democratic process," House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., told his colleagues.

    Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, did not vote. He is in Texas in connection with his indictment in an alleged scheme to violate state election law.

    Propelled by GOP election gains and the incidents of lawlessness associated with the passing of Hurricane Katrina, support for the bill has grown since a similar measure passed the House last year and was killed in the Senate.

    Reese reports opponents see the measure's strong support as testament to the gun lobby's influence.

    Horrific images of people without the protection of public safety in New Orleans made a particular impression on viewers who had never before felt unsafe, according to the gun lobby.

    "Americans saw a complete collapse of the government's ability to protect them," said Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president.

    "That burnt in, those pictures of people standing there defending their lives and defending their property and their family," he added, "where the one source of comfort was a firearm."

    With support from four new Republicans this session of Congress, the bill passed the Senate for the first time in July. House passage never was in doubt because it had 257 co-sponsors, far more than the 218 needed to pass.

    The bill's authors say it still would allow civil suits against individual parties who have been found guilty of criminal wrongdoing by the courts.

    Opponents say the strength of the bill's support is testament to the influence of the gun lobby. If the bill had been law when the relatives of six victims of convicted Washington-area snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo sued the gun dealer from which they obtained their rifle, the dealer would not have agreed to pay the families and victims $2.5 million.

    "It is shameful that Republicans in Congress are pushing legislation that guarantees their gun-dealing cronies receive special treatment and are above the law," said Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Calif.

    Bush has said he supports the bill, which would prohibit lawsuits against the firearms industry for damages resulting from the unlawful use of a firearm or ammunition. Gun makers and dealers still would be subject to product liability, negligence or breach of contract suits, the bill's authors say.

    Democrats and Republicans alike court the NRA at election time, and the bill has garnered bipartisan support. But the firearms industry still gave 88 percent of its campaign contributions, or $1.2 million, to Republicans in the 2004 election cycle.

    Gun control advocates, meanwhile, gave 98 percent of their contributions, or $93,700, to Democrats that cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
  2. jarheadk5

    jarheadk5 1/2 ton status

    Mar 6, 2000
    Likes Received:
    Good. For once, a smart move by Congress...
  3. hunterguy86

    hunterguy86 1/2 ton status

    Jan 10, 2005
    Likes Received:
    San Marcos, Texas
    Guns dont kill people, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!!!!! Why should you hold the gun makers responsible for someone shooting someone else. In my opinion, it's not their fault. If you say it is, then to me its sayin if I kill someone w/ a bat then that persons family could sue the bat maker.

    Why dont we go back to sending killers to jail instead of sueing people unrealated to the incident.

    I fully support the legislation.

    This is my opinion. I do not mean to step on anyones toes here. i saw the post and had to express my feelings.

  4. newyorkin

    newyorkin 1 ton status Premium Member

    May 8, 2001
    Likes Received:
    Los Estados Unitos
    Damn, I hope this doesn't start a precedent. I planned on sueing Kawasaki cause I hurt my foot on my Kawasaki Motorcycle last week.

    Then I planned on sueing McDonalds becuase I noticed I was gaining weight after eating 1 a day of their grease-dripping wads of crap.

    Then I was going to sue MasterCard for giving me a credit card that allowed me to get into debt I can't get out of.

    Then I was going to sue Alpine because I heard offensive music on my car stereo last week. I was going to sue Dodge for it also, since they put the Alpine stereo in my car. I was also going to sue Nelly and fitty cent because they're rich and they'd be perpetrators I actually could get money from.

    I was thinking about sueing New York since sometimes I don't feel good, and I live here, so it must be something New York is doing.

    :doah: :doah: :doah: :( :mad: :eek1:
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2005
  5. monster man

    monster man 1/2 ton status

    Oct 20, 2003
    Likes Received:
    Reno, NV
    you do realize that Kawasaki, McDonalds and Mastercard have ruined this country don't you? Yup, it's also their fault also that people are being killed. Just filed a class action suit today against all of them....... :rolleyes:
  6. newyorkin

    newyorkin 1 ton status Premium Member

    May 8, 2001
    Likes Received:
    Los Estados Unitos
    Actually, I think I'd have to agree if you said Rap/hip-hop was ruining the country... :haha: :haha: :haha:
  7. Leper

    Leper 1/2 ton status

    Feb 18, 2005
    Likes Received:
    Dallas Baby!!!!
    WOW The first move to stop a blameless society. Something done right for a change. Mabey someday there will be a law against frivolous(sp) lawsuits, like in other countries.
    There was a guy recently suing a car manufacturer because he ran over his kid and the car he bought did not have a backup camera in it. There was a model he could have bought that had one, but he didn't buy it. So the blameless society we live in suggested that he go to court.
    He should have been in court....for capital murder of a child.

    Something I have seen myself. A lady tripped on a "step-up". There were signs, there was yellow and black striped tape. She was even told to watch her step. She fell, and cried, and cried and moaned. Then her husband says "who is going to take care of the medical bills?" The stupid cow fell 30 seconds ago, What medical bills has she received?

    It is always the fault of everybody else that things happen.

    I keep a big can of pickled beets on my nightstand. I hate pickled beets. I am just hoping someone breaks into my house and I can beat them to death with the can. That way they will outlaw pickled beets because they kill people, and I will never have to eat or see them again.
  8. Z3PR

    Z3PR Banned

    Mar 30, 2002
    Likes Received:
    What is up with all these idiots sueing gun makers because some arsehole use a gun to commit a crime ?? That's just strait stupid. Should I sue Furd because the dumbarse that rearended my Alero was driving a Furd Ranger ???
  9. gjk5

    gjk5 3/4 ton status

    Mar 17, 2004
    Likes Received:
    Grand Junction, CO

    :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

    I think you should sue the pickled beet manufacturer for diminishing your quality of life.
  10. MTMike

    MTMike 1/2 ton status

    Feb 10, 2005
    Likes Received:
    Billings, Montana
    This is a HUGE step in the right direction!! Props to everyone in congress who voted in favor of the bill!! :bow: :waytogo:
  11. bobalob

    bobalob 1/2 ton status

    Jul 20, 2005
    Likes Received:
    Everson, Washington
    If guns kill people then spoons make Michael Moore fat.
  12. tiger9297

    tiger9297 1/2 ton status

    Jul 23, 2004
    Likes Received:
    Tupelo, Mississippi
    Piper aircraft company manufactures small airplanes. A widow sued Piper and won $8 million IIRC after her husband crashed a Piper airplane and was killed...............He ran the plane out of fuel!!!! :rolleyes:
  13. ntsqd

    ntsqd 1/2 ton status

    Nov 28, 2002
    Likes Received:
    So. CA
    Too late, that one already passed. It was known as "McBill" :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:
  14. newyorkin

    newyorkin 1 ton status Premium Member

    May 8, 2001
    Likes Received:
    Los Estados Unitos
    :haha: :haha: :haha:

    By the way, I was just browsing some of yesterdays actions in congress and I noticed this in HR554 (AKA "Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act of 2005"):

    Figured some folks would be pleased to notice that in a bill in congress...
  15. cbbr

    cbbr 1 ton status GMOTM Winner

    Jul 17, 2004
    Likes Received:
    High velocity, Low altitude
    It really is about time people started taking personal responsibility for their actions. As to lawsuits, I have always thought that it should be a loser pays all of the cost stystem like in many countries. If the litigants could not pay, the lawyers should be held accountable. That way people would think twice.
  16. bobalob

    bobalob 1/2 ton status

    Jul 20, 2005
    Likes Received:
    Everson, Washington
    I absolutely agree, the idea that some rich jerk or even a large business can bankrupt an individual with frivolous lawsuits or even flat out lies to the point that even if you do win, all those years working to earn money have just been wiped out. But just try pushing that idea past the Trial Lawyers of America, right now they make billions no matter who wins or loses with that much money at stake I don't expect common sense to prevail anytime soon. :mad:
  17. Silver84k5

    Silver84k5 1/2 ton status

    Feb 7, 2002
    Likes Received:
    Hillsboro Oregon
    ok so... if you can sue a gun company because somone shot you with their gun

    the next time somone rearends me, im gonna sue the car company who made the car....

    Glad to see that laws' going to pass. some of the **** people sue for really makes me second guess the Intelligence level of humans...\

    disclaimer***** I only read half of the first post in this thread.. so if my statements are way off in left field then oh well...
  18. mofugly13

    mofugly13 1 ton bucket of rust Premium Member

    Oct 6, 2002
    Likes Received:
    San Francisco
    It's a good step, but the bil that will be sent to the President's desk is the "dirty" version. It requires that all firearms be sold with a trigger lock, which amounts to nothing more than a mandatory "tax". You won't be getting that lock for free, it will be included in the cost of the gun. I get frequent email alerts from Gun Owners of America, here is a cut and paste of the most recent one regarding this bill.

    While gun control passes in the House, GOA expresses a big THANK YOU
    to all of its members and activists who waged a lone battle of
    -- And you can be encouraged that your calls made a HUGE difference
    in one area

    Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
    8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
    Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408

    Thursday, October 20, 2005

    "The anti-gun provisions in S. 397 would probably be stripped out in
    the House if all the gun groups were working together with GOA." --
    Rep. Ron Paul, Sept. 15, 2005

    It's a shame really.

    Rep. Ron Paul is totally correct. Working united, we could have
    encouraged the House leadership to bring up a CLEAN bill.

    H.R. 800, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, garnered
    well over 250 cosponsors and would have passed the House easily if
    the leadership had brought up this bill rather than its Senate
    counterpart, S. 397.

    Unfortunately, GOA was the ONLY national group that was not calling
    for passage of the Senate bill, which contained new gun control. And
    likewise, GOA was the ONLY national group that was pressing for
    passage of the clean bill, H.R. 800.

    The House today passed S. 397 and sent it to the President. Because
    he has promised to sign this legislation, it is all the more tragic
    that House and Senate leaders refused to send him a clean bill.


    As we have mentioned before, S. 397 imposes a mandatory "gun
    tax" by
    forcing every gun buyer to purchase a trigger lock and takes us to
    the verge of mandatory trigger lock usage.

    The bill provides immunity (from lawsuits) for those who use trigger
    locks, but there is no such immunity for gun owners who keep a
    firearm available for self-defense WITHOUT a trigger lock.

    The push towards trigger locks may very well follow the push for
    mandatory seat belts and motorcycle helmets. And if our country ever
    takes that next step -- and straps every gun owner with
    California-style lock-up-your-safety legislation -- then we will need
    to remember this day as the day that laid the foundation.

    Mary Carpenter certainly will. She is the grandmother who has had to
    live with the fact that two of her grandchildren were killed in 2000,
    because no one in the house could get to the family weapons to
    protect themselves against the pitchfork wielding thug.

    People in the home had been trained with firearms and knew how to use
    them. But the guns were locked up in compliance with California
    state law. Gun owners can go to http://www.gunowners.com/psatext.htm
    on the GOA website to view the public safety ad -- produced by Gun
    Owners Foundation -- which features Mary Carpenter and her tragic

    Another amendment which passed as part of S. 397 would give impetus
    to adopting a "penetration standard" for armor piercing bullets by
    commissioning a Justice Department study of the issue. If a
    "penetration standard" were adopted, a gun-adverse administration
    could probably use it to ban virtually all ammunition.

    The Senate passed its gun control-laden version as Congress was
    getting ready to go out for their summer recess. At that time, Rep.
    Marilyn Musgrave's office had promised to mobilize pro-gun members in
    the House to oppose the Senate version, by asking them to join her in
    approaching the leadership in favor of H.R. 800. A Musgrave-led
    effort such as this would have made it much more likely that the
    House bill would have been considered. Unfortunately, Rep. Musgrave
    decided to do nothing, and the voices that were demanding S.397 --
    gun locks and all -- carried the day.

    You can see how your Representative voted by going to
    http://www.clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/ on the House of Representative's


    GOA is glad that Congress has passed legislation that is intended to
    stop predatory law suits designed to destroy the gun industry. That
    much is very good, and GOA supports that 100%. GOA hopes that the law
    accomplishes what its sponsors intended.

    Also, GOA would be remiss if we failed to mention that there is at
    least one "silver lining" in this entire ordeal. Don't
    forget that
    your hard work KILLED the Feinstein semi-auto ban this past summer.

    Remember several months ago when Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) wanted
    to offer a renewal of the semi-auto ban to S. 397? Gun Owners of
    America asked Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to use whatever means
    possible to block her anti-gun amendments.

    Well, that request fell upon deaf ears. So we asked you to lobby
    him, since his office had been incorrectly asserting this strategy
    couldn't be done. (Some in his staff were even claiming there was no
    Senate rule allowing the majority party to block bad amendments.)

    But after GOA members and activists like you applied the heat, Frist
    took another look. He then used parliamentary rules to "fill the
    amendment tree," which is exactly what we asked him to do.
    the amendment tree" is a technical term which explains how the
    majority party can offer amendments in such a way as to block the
    minority party from offering other amendments.

    Democrats were beside themselves. On the floor of the Senate, Harry
    Reid (D-NV) complained about the strategy Frist had employed:

    "I have nothing in my memory that [Sen. Frist] has ever done this
    before; that is, immediately going to a bill and FILLING THE TREE SO
    NO OTHER AMENDMENTS CAN BE OFFERED. [Emphasis added.] I have never,
    ever known him to do this. It is so unusual. It is not in keeping
    with how he has done business here during his tenure as majority
    leader. While filling the tree is within the rules, it is done very
    rarely. And again, I am surprised that Senator Frist did this."
    (Congressional Record, July 27, 2005, pp. S9104-5)

    You guys achieved this significant victory! You guys were
    responsible for making the sure the Feinstein ban was never offered
    on the floor of the Senate. You guys deserve the credit.

    It was just so unfortunate that, after achieving this great victory,
    Frist blinked. He could have blocked EVERY SINGLE anti-gun
    amendment, but he allowed two to be offered, namely, the trigger lock
    amendment and the armor-piercing study.

    So take heart... your hard work did accomplish much. You convinced
    Frist to block Feinstein's ban in the first place. And that was no
    small undertaking.


    Some have faulted GOA for remaining "no compromise" throughout this
    battle. They claim that by sticking to our guns, we were endangering
    the chance to pass this legislation that might have the effect of
    protecting gun makers.

    First, please realize that this underestimates YOUR collective power.
    This ignores the power of the grassroots. Remember, GOA was also
    told that blocking the Feinstein ban couldn't be done through
    parliamentary procedures. But together, we convinced the Senate
    Majority Leader to think differently, and we accomplished a
    tremendous feat together. Don't ever underestimate the strength of
    the gun rights community working together as one!

    Second, as a pragmatic matter, the desire to compromise ignores one
    simple fact: we could have EASILY won this battle to pass a clean
    bill! Consider:

    * A filibuster-proof majority of Senators had cosponsored S. 397

    * A super majority of Representatives had cosponsored H.R. 800 -- a
    bill which contained NO TRIGGER LOCKS in it.

    * The President had said he would sign a bill, even if it had NO
    TRIGGER LOCKS in it.

    Add to this the fact that the bills passed both houses of Congress by
    HUGE majorities (65-31 in the Senate, and 283-144 in the House).

    So why couldn't we insist on a bill that had no trigger locks? What
    was the problem? Why couldn’t we stare down the anti-gunners and
    just say, "We're going to pass a clean bill because you don't have
    the votes to stop us."

    Winston Churchill once said that, "If you will not fight for right
    when you can easily win without blood shed, if you will not fight
    when your victory is sure and not too costly, you may come to the
    moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and
    only a precarious chance of survival."

    Early on, we had the upper hand. GOA was insisting on a clean bill.
    Why do some think that was too much to ask?

    The answer is quite simply this: the spirit of Neville Chamberlain
    lives on, from one generation to the next. Some people just always
    seem to have the desire to placate the other side, even when they've
    got the muscle to get things done right.

    Winston Churchill didn't buy it, and neither should we. Speaking to
    the failings of appeasement, Churchill said, "An appeaser is one who
    feeds a crocodile -- hoping it will eat him last."

    Well, at GOA, we don't appease. We prefer to shoot the crocodile.

    Again, thanks to all of you who worked so hard and stood with us.
    Your efforts have not been in vain.



    "Actually, the organization that does a better job of [keeping me
    informed] is Gun Owners of America. I'm on their mailing list, and
    we know when something pops up and we're informed as to what's going
    on so we can write our emails and make phone calls to our respective
    representatives." -- C-SPAN caller from Pensacola, Florida (October
    20, 2005)

    We are always glad when we hear our members say they find our alerts
    worthwhile. GOA is here to keep you informed. And so, if you've
    never officially joined GOA, please consider becoming a member by
    signing up at http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm or call
  19. mtn. burb

    mtn. burb 1/2 ton status

    May 13, 2004
    Likes Received:
    Ojai Calif.
    Great post, and good news for a change.

    GOA is the real deal. I am also an NRA member, but GOA is run very lean and intentional. God bless Larry Pratt and his son for being there for us. I can't imagine working the Hill...a cesspool of second rate minds elected by an ignorant and stupid majority.


Share This Page