PDA

View Full Version : S. 397 Passes U.S. Senate!!!



Geezah
08-01-2005, 11:36 AM
I recieve emailed updates from the NRA daily, so I thought I would pass this one along.


Thanks to your efforts, today, the U.S. Senate passed S. 397 by a strong bipartisan vote of 65-31! While this doesn't assure the bill will be enacted into law, it represents a MAJOR first step toward ending the anti-gun lobby's reign of extortion through reckless lawsuits against the firearm industry. The fight now moves to the U.S. House of Representatives, so it is critical that you once again contact your U.S. Representative and urge him/her to pass S. 397--"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act."

As reported yesterday, an amendment by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) passed, which requires federally licensed dealers to provide a "secure gun storage or safety device" with the sale/transfer of every handgun (does not apply to long guns). It does not require gun owners to use the device, does not apply to private transfers, and does not create any new civil liability for gun owners who choose not to use these storage devices. Virtually all new handguns today are sold with some type of secure storage or safety device. The amendment has no significant impact on current law or S. 397 itself.

The U.S. Senate rejected a slew of anti-gun amendments to S. 397 including:

Special "carve out" amendments by Sens. Corzine (D-N.J.) and Lautenberg (D-N.J.) that would have permitted reckless lawsuits by law enforcement and juveniles to continue unabated. Both were soundly defeated;

A ban on "armor piercing" ammunition (Kennedy-D-Mass.) (by a vote of 31-64) that would have banned virtually all hunting ammunition. Similar efforts have been continuously defeated by Congress, and Sen. Kennedy's most recent attempt was nothing more than anti-gun political posturing. (The Senate did adopt an amendment by Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) calling for increased penalties if "armor piercing" handgun ammunition is used in the commission of a crime.), and;

A "gutting" amendment by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) that sought to continue to allow the very types of suits S. 397 prohibits (by a vote of 33-63).

This long overdue victory marks the culmination of your tireless efforts--your phone calls, faxes, letters, e-mails, and personal meetings--over the past few days, and over the past many years. As critical as these efforts were, this victory also highlights your importance in volunteering and voting for pro-gun candidates running for office. Without your steadfast work in past election years to elect more pro-gun U.S. Senators, we simply would not have had enough votes to pass this bill in the Senate.

Defeating former Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) in the 2004 elections (Daschle, as you'll recall was the architect who last year allowed the bill to be loaded up with anti-gun amendments), and thus elevating Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), a consistent and longstanding supporter of S. 397, to that leadership position represented a major step toward guaranteeing we finally received a fair procedure to bring this measure up for a final vote, and carried out the will of a majority of the U.S. Senate. And of course, members should express their gratitude to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), Senator Minority Leader Harry Reid, and bill sponsors Sens. Larry Craig and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) for their leadership and stewardship on S. 397.

While this fight is far from over, the Senate's action today enabled us to overcome a major hurdle in enacting this legislation into law. All of us at NRA-ILA thank you from the bottoms of our hearts for your continued vigilance in seeing this bill through the U.S. Senate. You deserve a lion's share of the credit, and we know you will help us finish the job once and for all by now contacting your U.S. Representative and urging him/her to support "The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act."

(For a list of roll call votes on these amendments and final passage of S. 397, go to www.NRAILA.org. Take note of how your Senators voted, and please thank those who voted in support of gun owners and let those who voted against our rights know that you will keep their votes in mind when they are up for re-election. BE SURE TO ALSO ATTEND ANY OF YOUR U.S. REPRESENTATIVE'S TOWN HALL MEETINGS DURING THE "SUMMER DISTRICT WORK PERIOD" [Aug. 1-Sept. 5] and encourage him/her to bring up and pass S. 397 as soon as possible.)

ReconCominAtYa
08-01-2005, 03:20 PM
I actually wrote a paper on this exact bill a few months ago. Glad to see it being treated well.

Geezah
08-01-2005, 03:49 PM
I was watching it live on C-Span friday, I was somewhat amused by Ted Kennedy, kept on about Cop Killers, only to be owned by the FOP.
Chalk another one up to the law abiding gun owners/makers of America woot

California Joe
08-01-2005, 03:58 PM
Speaking of that, where's Durandal been lately that girlfriend having, owes me a big piece of walnut bastard?

Durandal
08-01-2005, 07:50 PM
Speaking of that, where's Durandal been lately that girlfriend having, owes me a big piece of walnut bastard?

Just got back from a trip to North Carolina to do some fishing and drinking with the family. It was the first trip with my family that the GF has gone on with me.

On the way home we did slight detour and spent the day on several of the overlooks and trails at New River Gorge.

A good time.

Caught some flounder and croakers and a baby shark. Surf fishing with beers in easy reach is simply far too fun to explain. :D

Moisture is down to 18% in most of the pieces of walnut.

I was gung ho on it when it looked like I could hand to you in person. Since I screwed that up, now I am happy for it to weigh less to ship it too you. ;)

Tell me EXACTLY what you want and where to ship it and I'll have it to you brother! I have about 30 pieces to choose from. Some of the earlier stuff split. None of it is as spectacular in narli-ness that I thought it would be. So it would be simple grain.

So talk to me.

MEGR
08-01-2005, 08:10 PM
You were in North Carolina? Where? Aww man!..

Geezah
08-02-2005, 08:19 AM
Talking about wood, CJ do you have any knowledge about rifles used during the war of 1812?
pm inbound anywho.



Durandal,

pm in bound, hope you and the bird :P had a good time woot

Durandal
08-02-2005, 11:05 AM
You were in North Carolina? Where? Aww man!..

Avon, NC...Outer Banks

Durandal
08-02-2005, 11:09 AM
Durandal,

pm in bound, hope you and the bird :P had a good time woot

We did. It was a family affair. My folks this time. A couple cousins and their kids, a couple friends of the family and our parents.

Took my annual trip to the Wright Brothers Memorial, which is always fun. Was waiting on a ferry and ended up chilling with some Coast Guard newbs on their patrol craft, got a tour (no pics, I was taking a walk while we waited and left my camera in the car. I did get a nice shot of it intercepting a small craft when we were on the ferry though.

We need to get together with the other guys and go shooting. Its been a couple weeks and I feel the need!

Durandal
08-02-2005, 11:18 AM
Now that I have filled this thread with off topic banter I post my comments.

Hoorah!

The more fight I see against ANY legislation against LEGAL gun ownership the better I feel. Its mighty impressive to see the difference between this Senate and House compared to a decade ago.

If you look at the voting, there are a fair number of Democrats that have finally took a stand. Gun control as a political issue can be suicide if you are against it, even for Democrats, especially southern and plain States Dems.

With that said, I think we should avoid a blanket anti-law suit ban against gun manufacturers. They should be held accountable for product liability just as much as any other manufacturer.

I think the law should target ONLY frivolous lawsuits that deal with use, which 99% of them are. I lived in Cincinnati when the City tried, unsuccessfully, to bring suit against several gun manufacturers simply because they offered an inexpensive line of guns. The claim was that they made guns, pistol, especially, more accessible to the inner city.

The reality of it is, these guns are made for those who cannot afford a SiG or 900.00 Kimber. They did not realize that they were discriminating against class in the suit. I mean, why should someone that is poor and lives in a bad neighborhood NOT be allowed to purchase, legally, a gun?

Its a joke.

I mean, when was the last time you saw a suit against an auto manufacturer because it was used in a a drunk driving accident or a robbery that got a civilian killed?

Because that is the comparison.

You should NEVER be able to sue ANY company over a misuse of its product....EVER. They should make the law cover other businesses as well rather than just selectively target JUST gun manufacturers.

Just my 2 cents on the subject. :)

Geezah
08-02-2005, 11:20 AM
Durandal,

pm in bound, hope you and the bird :P had a good time woot

We did. It was a family affair. My folks this time. A couple cousins and their kids, a couple friends of the family and our parents.

Took my annual trip to the Wright Brothers Memorial, which is always fun. Was waiting on a ferry and ended up chilling with some Coast Guard newbs on their patrol craft, got a tour (no pics, I was taking a walk while we waited and left my camera in the car. I did get a nice shot of it intercepting a small craft when we were on the ferry though.

We need to get together with the other guys and go shooting. Its been a couple weeks and I feel the need!

Good to hear you had a good time, check your PM ;)

Geezah
08-02-2005, 11:23 AM
The antis make up scary names for everything. Saturday Night Specials(not sure if this is an anti) Cop Killers and not forgetting Assault Weapons.

Watching it live on C-Span was a riot, I'll give Ted Kennedy a A+ for entertainment value.

The SNS was the term they used for affordable firearms.

Werewolf01
08-02-2005, 11:46 AM
Hasn't anybody ever wanted to ask Teddy to show them a bullet that wouldn't kill a cop or a car that people wouldn't drown in if you drove it off a bridge while you are drunk?

joe mama
08-02-2005, 11:55 AM
I think you meant:

Hasn't anybody ever wanted to ask Teddy to show them a bullet that wouldn't kill a cop or a car that people wouldn't drown in if you drove it off a bridge while you are drunk, then, leaving your companion in the submerged car, walked home and consulted with family lawyers for 8-12 hours before calling the police?

Werewolf01
08-02-2005, 02:52 PM
I think you meant:

Hasn't anybody ever wanted to ask Teddy to show them a bullet that wouldn't kill a cop or a car that people wouldn't drown in if you drove it off a bridge while you are drunk, then, leaving your companion in the submerged car, walked home and consulted with family lawyers for 8-12 hours before calling the police?

My bad. :oops:

;)

nagant_m44
08-02-2005, 04:15 PM
no, he actually meant


I think you meant:

Hasn't anybody ever wanted to ask Teddy to show them a bullet that wouldn't kill a cop or a car that people wouldn't drown in if you drove it off a bridge while you are drunk, then, leaving your companion in the submerged car, walked home and consulted with family lawyers for 8-12 hours, then sleeping off the alchohol before calling the police?

Geezah
08-03-2005, 09:30 AM
A letter from the FOP owning Senetor Kennedy woot
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/461_1123076639_fop1(medium).jpg