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

Skip to comments.

Progress of SB 659 NOTIC! AMENDMENTS!
108th Congress site ^ | 2/27/04 | SELF

Posted on 02/28/2004 12:43:02 AM PST by Ms12Gauge

Bill Summary & Status for the 108th Congress ---------------------------------------------------------

NEW SEARCH | HOME | HELP | ABOUT STATUS ---------------------------------------------------------

S.1805

Title: A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others.

Sponsor: Sen Craig, Larry E.[ID(introduced(10/31/03)

Cosponsors: 1 Related Bills: H.R.1036, S.1806 Latest Major Action: 2/27/2004 Senate floor actions. Status: Considered by Senate. ---------------------------------------------------------

STATUS: (color indicates Senate actions) 10/31/2003:

Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time. 11/3/2003:

Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 363. 2/23/2004:

Motion to proceed to consideration of measure made in Senate by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S1448) 2/23/2004:

Cloture motion on the motion to proceed presented in Senate.

2/23/2004:

Motion to proceed to consideration of measure withdrawn in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

2/25/2004:

Motion to proceed to consideration of measure considered in Senate. (consideration: CR S1532-1554, S1559-1572, S1574-1582)

2/25/2004:

Cloture motion on the motion to proceed to consider the measure invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 75 - 22. Record Vote Number: 16.

2/26/2004:

Motion to proceed to consideration of measure agreed to in Senate.

2/26/2004:

Measure laid before Senate. (consideration: CR S1612-1671)

2/26/2004:

S.AMDT.2620 Amendment SA 2620 proposed by Senator Boxer. (consideration: CR S1612-1616; text: CR S1613)

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to require the provision of a child safety device in connection with the transfer of a handgun and to provide safety standards for child safety devices.

2/26/2004:

S.AMDT.2621 Amendment SA 2621 proposed by Senator Daschle. (consideration: CR S1616-1620; text: CR S1616) To clarify the definition of qualified civil liability action, and for other purposes.

2/26/2004:

S.AMDT.2621 Amendment SA 2621 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.

2/26/2004:

S.AMDT.2622 Amendment SA 2622 proposed by Senator Kohl to Amendment SA 2620. (consideration: CR S1620-1621; text: CR S1620-1621)

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to require the provision of a child safety lock in connection with the transfer of a handgun.

2/26/2004:

S.AMDT.2622 Amendment SA 2622 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.

2/26/2004:

S.AMDT.2620 Amendment SA 2620 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 70 - 27. Record Vote Number: 17.

2/26/2004:

S.AMDT.2623 Amendment SA 2623 proposed by Senator Hatch for Senator Campbell. (consideration: CR S1623-1634; text: CR S1623-1624)

To amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns.

2/26/2004:

S.AMDT.2619 Amendment SA 2619 proposed by Senator Kennedy. (consideration: CR S1634-1639; text: CR S1634) To expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition and to require the Attorney General to promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against body armor.

2/26/2004:

S.AMDT.2625 Amendment SA 2625 proposed by Senator Craig for Senator Frist. (consideration: CR S1639-1641; text: CR S1639)

To regulate the sale and possession of armor piercing ammunition, and for other purposes.

2/26/2004:

S.AMDT.2617 Amendment SA 2617 proposed by Senator Cantwell. (consideration: CR S1641-1649, S1655; text: CR S1641)

To extend and expand the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002, and for other purposes. 2/26/2004:

S.AMDT.2617 Point of order under the Budget Act raised in Senate with respect to amendment SA 2617.

2/26/2004:

S.AMDT.2626 Amendment SA 2626 proposed by Senator Frist. (consideration: CR S1649-1655, S1655; text: CR S1650) To make the provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 permanent.

2/26/2004:

S.AMDT.2617 Motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to amendment SA 2617 rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay. 58 - 39. Record Vote Number: 18.

2/26/2004:

S.AMDT.2617 Amendment SA 2617 ruled out of order by the chair.

2/26/2004:

S.AMDT.2626 Proposed amendment SA 2626 withdrawn in Senate.

2/26/2004:

S.AMDT.2627 Amendment SA 2627 proposed by Senator Mikulski. (consideration: CR S1655-1659, S1662-1663; text: CR S1655)

To exempt lawsuits involving a shooting victim of John Allen Muhammad or Lee Boyd Malvo from the definition of qualified civil liability action.

2/26/2004:

S.AMDT.2628 Amendment SA 2628 proposed by Senator Craig for Senator Frist. (consideration: CR S1659-1662; text: CR S1659)

To exempt any lawsuit involving a shooting victim of John Allen Muhammad or John Lee Malvo from the definition of qualified civil liability action that meets certain requirements.

2/26/2004:

S.AMDT.2628 Amendment SA 2628 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 59 - 37. Record Vote Number: 19.

2/26/2004:

S.AMDT.2627 Amendment SA 2627 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 40 - 56. Record Vote Number: 20. 2/26/2004:

S.AMDT.2629 Amendment SA 2629 proposed by Senator Corzine. (consideration: CR S1663-1666, S1670; text: CR S1663)

To protect the rights of law enforcement officers who are victimized by crime to secure compensation from those who participate in the arming of criminals. 2/26/2004:

S.AMDT.2630 Amendment SA 2630 proposed by Senator Craig for Senator Frist. (consideration: CR S1666-1670; text: CR S1666)

To protect the rights of law enforcement officers who are victimized by crime to secure compensation from those who participate in the arming of criminals. 2/26/2004:

S.AMDT.2630 Amendment SA 2630 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 60 - 34. Record Vote Number: 21. 2/26/2004:

S.AMDT.2629 Amendment SA 2629 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 38 - 56. Record Vote Number: 22.

2/27/2004:

Considered by Senate.

2/27/2004:

S.AMDT.2619 Considered by Senate.

2/27/2004:

S.AMDT.2623 Considered by Senate.

2/27/2004:

S.AMDT.2625 Considered by Senate.

2/27/2004:

S.AMDT.2631 Amendment SA 2631 proposed by Senator Levin. To exempt any civil action against a person from the provisions of the bill if the gross negligence or reckless conduct of the person proximately caused death or injury.

2/27/2004:

S.AMDT.2624 Amendment SA 2624 proposed by Senator Warner.

To improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system.

2/27/2004:

S.AMDT.2632 Amendment SA 2632 proposed by Senator Lautenberg.

To require that certain notifications occur whenever a query to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System reveals that a person listed in the Violent Gang and Terrorist Organization File is attempting to purchase a firearm, and for other purposes. 2/27/2004:

S.AMDT.2633 Amendment SA 2633 proposed by Senator Lautenberg.

To exempt lawsuits involving injuries to children from the definition of qualified civil liability action.


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; guncontrol; gunrights; guns; nra; rkba
I looked up SB 659, curious, after a couple of days of battering around, if they had burdened it with crapola, as usual. I found a NO AMENDMENT note. THEN I happened to scan the list of bills pending and in discussion, and see another bill with a similar title. Clicked THERE< and this is what I found. While we are watching 659, they are cramming all make and manner of GARBAGE on another version. Check out some of the amendment attempts. Good LORD!
1 posted on 02/28/2004 12:43:03 AM PST by Ms12Gauge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ms12Gauge
S.AMDT.2621 Amendment SA 2621 proposed by Senator Daschle. (consideration: CR S1616-1620; text: CR S1616) To clarify the definition of qualified civil liability action, and for other purposes. 2/26/2004: S.AMDT.2621 Amendment SA 2621 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.

I don't know what this amendment included, but you can bet it's BS, if Dashole is involved!

2 posted on 02/28/2004 12:45:33 AM PST by Ms12Gauge (Colorado! Join us to restore your parental rights, and stop CPS from stealing your kids!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ms12Gauge
S.AMDT.2629 Amendment SA 2629 proposed by Senator Corzine. (consideration: CR S1663-1666, S1670; text: CR S1663) To protect the rights of law enforcement officers who are victimized by crime to secure compensation from those who participate in the arming of criminals.

And this makes sense WHY? MAN! The CRAP we are paying these idiots to conjure up is insane! And even MORE insane is the FACT that most people haven't a clue, and couldn't care less. My phone bills are getting outta hand, trying to stay ahead of the idiots in charge, and keep them thinking about we the schmucks who PAY them!

3 posted on 02/28/2004 12:50:22 AM PST by Ms12Gauge (Colorado! Join us to restore your parental rights, and stop CPS from stealing your kids!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ms12Gauge
Please PING everyone on your lists! I don't have much of a PING list anymore. Been away too long. Thanks!
4 posted on 02/28/2004 12:51:23 AM PST by Ms12Gauge (Colorado! Join us to restore your parental rights, and stop CPS from stealing your kids!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ms12Gauge
Bump for later
5 posted on 02/28/2004 1:57:04 AM PST by skip2myloo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skip2myloo
BUMP AGAIN! Thanks! Will try to do this again in the morning.
6 posted on 02/28/2004 1:59:56 AM PST by Ms12Gauge (Colorado! Join us to restore your parental rights, and stop CPS from stealing your kids!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ms12Gauge
S. 1805 (A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition) has become the omnibus gun control bill. Tell your senators to oppose this BS now.
7 posted on 02/28/2004 3:11:24 AM PST by aomagrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ms12Gauge; pro2A Mom; AnnaZ; Mercuria; basil; countrydummy; ATOMIC_PUNK
Looks like the Boxer amendment has been agreed to.
not good. Not good at all.
8 posted on 02/28/2004 9:16:12 AM PST by sauropod (I intend to have Red Kerry choke on his past.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tgslTakoma
Ping.
9 posted on 02/28/2004 9:20:24 AM PST by sauropod (I intend to have Red Kerry choke on his past.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sauropod; 2nd_Amendment_Defender; *bang_list; tgslTakoma; GunsareOK; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; ...
A PING, Cause we ALL should be calling faxing and writing Senators like MAD right now, BEFORE this list of amendments gets out of hand. They are all inSANE!!! >

And, just for fun...

Doctors:

a. The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.

b. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.

c. An accidental death per physician is 0.171. (Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health & Human Services)

Guns:

a. The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.

b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.

c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

10 posted on 02/28/2004 11:31:52 AM PST by Ms12Gauge (Colorado! Join us to restore your parental rights, and stop CPS from stealing your kids!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Looks like the Boxer amendment has been agreed to. not good. Not good at all

While not good, it's not as bad as is was before the Kohl amendment to the Boxer amendment, which (I think) removed the Consumer Product Safety Commission from the approval loop for the "child safety" devices. If they'd been in the loop, you'd have to lock up your gun, with a device that weighed about 10 pounds, and had to either be an integral part of the gun, or permanently attached to it.

11 posted on 02/28/2004 11:52:50 AM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ms12Gauge
80,000,000 gun owners. And all FoxNews seems to cover are things like Haiti, Israel, Iraq and the hunt for Bin Laden, most of which (in reverse order)I'd be interested in hearing about, AS LONG AS I KNOW THAT MY OWN FREEDOMS ARE SECURE.

Hey FoxNews, if you are lurking, the Second Amendment is not a dirty little brown-bag issue. Cover it.

12 posted on 02/28/2004 11:55:50 AM PST by kcar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ms12Gauge; All
Text of the Second Amendment
"A well regulated Militia
being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."


Anyone who actually reads AND understands the 2nd Amendment will see that there is no need or authority for any type of gun registration and there is no need for anyone to have to apply for a license to carry a gun.
Any political party, politician, judge (etc), organization or individual who trys to convince you that:
1) you must register a firearm
2) you must pass a background check
3) you must wait (x) amount of days before you can get your firearm
4) you need to have a license to carry a gun
is either uneducated about OUR rights as citizens
OR is actively working to undermine OUR country.

How Did the Founders Understand the Second Amendment?

CONGRESS in 1866, 1941 and 1986 REAFFIRMS THE SECOND AMENDMENT
The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment right to keep and bear firearms,
originated in the United States Congress in 1789 before being ratified by the States.
On three occasions since then--in 1866, 1941, and 1986--
Congress enacted statutes to reaffirm this guarantee of personal freedom
and to adopt specific safeguards to enforce it.


ON THE DAY BEFORE Thanksgiving 1993,
the 103d US Congress brought forth a constitutional turkey.
The 103d Congress decided that the Second Amendment did not mean what it said
("...shall not be infringed") and passed the Brady bill.

How the Brady Bill Passed (and subsequently - "Instant Check")
When the Brady Bill was passed into law on November 24, 1993,
the Senate voted on the Conference Report
and passed the Brady Bill by UNANIMOUS CONSENT.



13 posted on 02/28/2004 11:59:30 AM PST by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub (Want better gun control? Try eating more carrotts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ms12Gauge
Of course this presumes that the figure for the doctors is really only accidental deaths. At the rate which 'medical misadventures' occur and kill people, maybe they aren't all accidents. ;-)

Now, if you look at ALL firearms deaths - approximately 40,000 (including intentional deaths - murder and suicide) per year, the deaths per gun owners is still only .0005 making your chances of a doctor killing you almost 3450 times greater than being killed by gunfire.

14 posted on 02/28/2004 12:03:26 PM PST by Badray (Make sure that the socialist in the White House has to fight a conservative Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ms12Gauge
Here is the link to the *Bang_List.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/involved?group=152

Just bookmark it for future reference. If you go back to when 1805 was first introduced, you'll see threads that included the Senate live feed with video. There are also contact numbers. The vote on the Bill and the amendments will be on Tuesday.
15 posted on 02/28/2004 12:09:39 PM PST by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ms12Gauge; Mr. Mojo
It's a fact that there are MANY enemies of gun owners. The Senate will vote on Tuesday. Call and write to your Senators and let them know what you think about this. Call Monday and Tuesday. We've got to keep the pressure on them.
16 posted on 02/28/2004 1:05:14 PM PST by NRA2BFree (Proud member of the FR Rabid Right Wing Axis of EvilŪ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRA2BFree
It's a fact that there are MANY enemies of gun owners.

It's fair to say, unfortunately, that a majority of people have by now bought the lies that proponents of a Government of Inherent Authority (i.e. the Left meme) have been pushing.

Notwithstanding that RKBA is enshrined in the Constitution, relatively few people have the requisite understanding of the Framers' intentions, or the patience to learn, or even to defend their rights, that will be necessary to defend this right against the baying of the pack in years to come.

The Pew Center, in measuring America for its socialist knife, produced a typology of the American electorate in 1999. Only two or three of the nine or ten broad lifestyle blocs actually support RKBA. In the GOP, the business bloc or wing of the party is an especial danger. Dealing with money and people, and principally engaged in separating the former from the latter, businessmen have no love of the idea of an armed citizenry. Their guilty consciences love the idea of gun control. They are the most dangerous group to RKBA right now.

Watch out for signs that Bush/Ashcroft are "playing to lose" on RKBA issues. I realize that in the Emerson case, Ashcroft filed a brief stating that RKBA is an individual right. While that is a significant defi to offer the Left, what a lot of people missed was that Ashcroft and his Solicitor General, Ted Olson, didn't throw the other shoe: that the right cannot be infringed. They left the door open to "reasonable" gun control -- the kind the business community likes. The kind that will get your firearm, but not Donald Trump's or Punch Sulzberger's.

17 posted on 02/28/2004 4:02:40 PM PST by lentulusgracchus (Et praeterea caeterum censeo, delenda est Carthago. -- M. Porcius Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NRA2BFree
Just another BUMP! We MUST keep the steady stream of calls and faxes and letters going non stop til they GET it. If only we could all just astral project to DC for the day here and there.. what a statement all of us could make, standing out front.. shouting and passing out copies of the Bill of Rights. *grin*
18 posted on 02/28/2004 5:21:07 PM PST by Ms12Gauge (Colorado! Join us to restore your parental rights, and stop CPS from stealing your kids!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list; Joe Brower; Travis McGee; archy; Shooter 2.5; 45Auto
bang
19 posted on 02/28/2004 7:13:48 PM PST by King Prout (I am coming to think that the tree of liberty is presently dying of thirst.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ms12Gauge
Just another BUMP! We MUST keep the steady stream of calls and faxes and letters going non stop til they GET it. If only we could all just astral project to DC for the day here and there.. what a statement all of us could make, standing out front.. shouting and passing out copies of the Bill of Rights. *grin*

Yep, I agree, so I'll give it a BUMP for the Bill of Rights. I think it would be fun to be there and to toss a few of the anti-gunners in the drink too. lol.. Us girls have to be tough on this stuff. :)

20 posted on 02/28/2004 8:25:20 PM PST by NRA2BFree (Proud member of the FR Rabid Right Wing Axis of EvilŪ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
It's fair to say, unfortunately, that a majority of people have by now bought the lies that proponents of a Government of Inherent Authority (i.e. the Left meme) have been pushing.

Notwithstanding that RKBA is enshrined in the Constitution, relatively few people have the requisite understanding of the Framers' intentions, or the patience to learn, or even to defend their rights, that will be necessary to defend this right against the baying of the pack in years to come.

The Pew Center, in measuring America for its socialist knife, produced a typology of the American electorate in 1999. Only two or three of the nine or ten broad lifestyle blocs actually support RKBA. In the GOP, the business bloc or wing of the party is an especial danger. Dealing with money and people, and principally engaged in separating the former from the latter, businessmen have no love of the idea of an armed citizenry. Their guilty consciences love the idea of gun control. They are the most dangerous group to RKBA right now.

Watch out for signs that Bush/Ashcroft are "playing to lose" on RKBA issues. I realize that in the Emerson case, Ashcroft filed a brief stating that RKBA is an individual right. While that is a significant defi to offer the Left, what a lot of people missed was that Ashcroft and his Solicitor General, Ted Olson, didn't throw the other shoe: that the right cannot be infringed. They left the door open to "reasonable" gun control -- the kind the business community likes. The kind that will get your firearm, but not Donald Trump's or Punch Sulzberger's.

Thanks for the information. I had not heard of the Pew Center, nor their study. Is there a link where I can read about the entire study?

21 posted on 02/28/2004 8:34:33 PM PST by NRA2BFree (Proud member of the FR Rabid Right Wing Axis of EvilŪ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NRA2BFree
Is there a link where I can read about the entire study?

Metasearch on "Pew", "typology", "1999" or similar. That's how I found it after my old link went bad.

22 posted on 02/29/2004 2:28:04 AM PST by lentulusgracchus (Et praeterea caeterum censeo, delenda est Carthago. -- M. Porcius Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST; wku man; SLB; Travis McGee; Squantos; harpseal; Shooter 2.5; The Old Hoosier; xrp; ...
Keep the pressure on your respective Senators, folks, even if you know they're anti-gun. Just do it! The work isn't done yet.

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!

23 posted on 02/29/2004 7:18:18 AM PST by Joe Brower (The Constitution defines Conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ms12Gauge
BTTT
24 posted on 02/29/2004 9:42:42 AM PST by hattend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus; NRA2BFree; Everybody
lentulusgracchus;

Watch out for signs that Bush/Ashcroft are "playing to lose" on RKBA issues. I realize that in the Emerson case, Ashcroft filed a brief stating that RKBA is an individual right. While that is a significant defi to offer the Left, what a lot of people missed was that Ashcroft and his Solicitor General, Ted Olson, didn't throw the other shoe: that the right cannot be infringed. They left the door open to "reasonable" gun control --

_______________________________________


The henhouse door has been open for years [since '68] and there is no longer any need to "watch out". -- The evidence is clear..
The socialists in control of the Republican party are giving only lip service to our RKBA's. They clearly intend to regulate it to death.

25 posted on 02/29/2004 10:01:05 AM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but the U.S. Constitution defines conservatism; - not the GOP. .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
The Second Amendment...
America's Original Homeland Security!

We are winning ~ the bad guys are losing ~ trolls, terrorists and the democrats are sad ~ very sad!

~~ Bush/Cheney 2004 ~~

26 posted on 02/29/2004 11:04:21 AM PST by blackie (Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Well, I don't think they're socialists (yet), but I think Pew Trusts did us a favor when they got the RiNO's to speak up candidly -- that they don't support our RKBA. These guys are going to be a big, fat problem.

Just another flavor of elitist, AFAIC.

Molon labe, etc.

27 posted on 02/29/2004 6:45:14 PM PST by lentulusgracchus (Et praeterea caeterum censeo, delenda est Carthago. -- M. Porcius Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Ms12Gauge
Given all the crap attached, I'd rather so no gun bills being passed this year. No gun manufacturers protection, no AWB renewal, etc. And what does this amendment mean?

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to require the provision of a child safety lock in connection with the transfer of a handgun.

What is a transfer? Any time a 4473 is required? What about private sales? What a stupid law.

28 posted on 02/29/2004 7:24:07 PM PST by cruiserman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ms12Gauge
I've been repeatedly writing my senators to either support an unamended S. 1805 or kill this amendment-o-fest!
29 posted on 02/29/2004 8:49:19 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (You play a good game, Osama, but the game is finished, now you die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ms12Gauge
bttt
30 posted on 03/01/2004 8:11:57 AM PST by TigersEye (Carrying a gun is a social obligation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cruiserman
To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to require the provision of a child safety lock in connection with the transfer of a handgun.

What is a transfer? Any time a 4473 is required? What about private sales? What a stupid law.

They're taking it beyond that: even a trip to a gunsmith's, requiring entry on the 'smith's *bound book* record of work performed, would require return with a NEW trigger lock, which MUST bne of a type *approved by the manufacturer*...whose attorneys will of course insist be only those made/installed by the manufacturer themselves:

SA 2617 - SA 2633 have been proposed, and SA 2620, SA 2621, SA 2622, SA 2628, and SA 2630 have been agreed to by the Senate. SA 2620 is Boxer's "Child Safety Device Act of 2004," which requires licensees to provide a "locking device" with any handgun and gets the CPSC involved in regulation of such "locking devices." SA 2621 makes a variety of changes to the details of S. 1805. SA 2622 is the "Child Safety Lock Act of 2004," which requires licensees to provide the transferee of any handgun with a "secure gun storage or safety device."

SA 2622 also provides for immunity from a qualified civil liability action for a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device with a handgun.

SA 2628 makes an exception for "an action involving "a shooting victim of John Allen Muhammad or John Lee Malvo that meets 1 of the requirements under clauses (i) though (v)."

SA 2630 makes an exception for officers or employees of Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies for civil actions that meet 1 of the requirements under clauses (i) through (v) of subparagraph (A).

Most problematic are SA 2620 and SA 2622, which collectively impose different requirements for devices that licensees must provide with handguns. The "locking devices" of SA 2620 will have to conform to standards to be promulgated by the CPSC, while the "secure gun storage or safety devices" of SA 2622 will have to comply with 921(a)(34). If S. 1805 becomes law with both SA 2620 and SA 2622, a licensee will have to comply with BOTH requirements. The extent to which CPSC follows or departs from 921(a)(34) will determine the extent to which a single device will be adequate to comply with both requirements. Also, while SA 2622 purports to prevent its immunity provision from establishing a standard of care, what liberal trial lawyer wouldn't try to make it do so? For those reasons, I think both SA 2620 and 2622 represent wedges to force open a door to increasing gun control laws.

There are a few potential pitfalls created by SA 2620 and SA 2622. One is that, under SA 2620, a "locking device" has to be "approved by a licensed firearms manufacturer for use on the handgun with which the device or locking mechanism is sold, delivered, or transferred...." Thus, it puts licensed firearms manufacturers in the position of having to approve "locking devices." I am not convinced that manufacturers might face some liability resulting from such approval, particularly when they are forced to comply with CPSC standards. For example, if the CPSC were to require manufacturers to file a form certifying their "locking device's" compliance with a standard and the device were found to somehow fall short of the standard, I could imagine that there might be an attempt to circumvent the supposed legal protection of S. 1805 by alleging that the manufacturer's erroneous certification form was a "false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product," as excluded by SA 2621.

The requirement for such an approved "locking device" could also be problematic for transactions involving used handguns, as there would not necessarily be a manufacturer available to provide the required approval. Thus, SA 2620 could create a de facto ban on the sale of used handguns, particularly in states that require handguns to be transferred through dealers or in any state if a law were passed to close the supposed "gunshow loophole."

Additionally, the provisions of SA 2620 and SA 2622 could be particularly insidious for gunsmiths and pawnbrokers, both of whom are "dealers." For example, if a competition shooter were to take a very specialized competition handgun for a slight tune-up and the gunsmith were to perform some very simple procedure, such as replacing the recoil spring, and return the handgun to the customer, what is to prevent the gunsmith from having violated the requirements of SA 2620 and SA 2622 regarding having to provide a "locking device" and a "secure gun storage or safety device" with the handgun, even if the customer already possessed such devices for the handgun. Likewise, even the return of a customer's handgun to that same customer by a pawnbroker could arguably give rise to such a requirement even if the customer already possessed adequate devices for securing the handgun. Even more insidiously, if the CPSC were to change the standards for a "locking device" prior to the return of the handgun to the customer, an argument could be made that a violation of the provisions of SA 2620 and/or SA 2622 would occur. Moreover, even if a gunsmith or pawnbroker were to provide an improved "locking device" meeting a modified CPSC standard, if such an improved "locking device" were not approved by "a licensed firearms manufacturer for use on the handgun," an argument could be made that the improved "locking device" still did not comply with the provisions of SA 2620.

As can be readily seen from the foregoing examples, S. 1805, as amended, is of dubious effectiveness for limiting civil liability of federal firearms licensees and, more likely, creates legal impediments and pitfalls not only for licensees, but also for firearms consumers. Based on that analysis, I would recommend asking one's Senators to vote against S. 1805, as amended.


31 posted on 03/01/2004 5:48:07 PM PST by archy (Concrete shoes, cyanide, TNT! Done dirt cheap! Neckties, contracts, high voltage...Done dirt cheap!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
I've been repeatedly writing my senators to either support an unamended S. 1805 or kill this amendment-o-fest!

I have been faxing, hoping to be heard. Same message. Frist on my list several times.. taking apart various "amendments" and explaining why they are cloaked examples of absolute socialism.. which we the PEOPLE are prepared to fight, "tooth and nail".

32 posted on 03/03/2004 10:09:16 PM PST by Ms12Gauge (Colorado! Join us to restore your parental rights, and stop CPS from stealing your kids!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: archy
All I needed to know about SA 2620 is the author!!!
33 posted on 03/03/2004 10:12:49 PM PST by Ms12Gauge (Colorado! Join us to restore your parental rights, and stop CPS from stealing your kids!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ms12Gauge
Vote was yesterday. It's over.
34 posted on 03/03/2004 10:16:40 PM PST by alaskanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

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