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

Skip to comments.

Gunmaker Liability Bill Goes Down in Defeat
Fox News ^ | 3/2/2004 | Fox News

Posted on 03/02/2004 2:16:54 PM PST by GrandEagle

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats gunning for a ban on assault weapons forced down a bill preventing gun manufacturers from liability after the bill's sponsor said the amendment made the measure too unpalatable.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: assaultweaponban; bang; banglist; guncontrol
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last
Looks like there has been some confusion on this one today.
The two ammendments passed but the bill as a whole failed.
1 posted on 03/02/2004 2:16:54 PM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
Someone posted earlier that one of my senators (Craig, R - ID) had asked for it to be voted down precisely because of all the riders.
2 posted on 03/02/2004 2:21:34 PM PST by IYAS9YAS (Go Fast, Turn Left!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
Could this be the beginning of a republican shock and awe campaign. First the massive failure of a gun bill expected to pass and then charges against the NY state mayor for handing out illegal marriage licenses.

This will certainly rattle the cages of the candidates on their big night.
3 posted on 03/02/2004 2:22:16 PM PST by cripplecreek (you win wars by making the other dumb SOB die for his country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
Looks like Fox is a little confused too. I did a double-take on this one:

Nonetheless, Democrats accused the bulk of Republicans of kowtowing to the National Education Association after Executive Director Wayne LaPierre sent a letter to GOP leaders announcing that the NRA opposed passage of the bill with its amendments and note recorded votes for future use.

4 posted on 03/02/2004 2:23:18 PM PST by RedQuill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
I'm glad it failed. Even without AW renewal, it had some ugly amendments
5 posted on 03/02/2004 2:24:33 PM PST by SauronOfMordor (No anchovies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
This will certainly rattle the cages of the candidates on their big night.
Yes, but it is still a big Democrat win.
If it had passed: the AWB was renewed
If it failed you can sue firearms manufacturers out of existence.
6 posted on 03/02/2004 2:25:20 PM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: IYAS9YAS
That's what I heard. But the reader said it was intereting that now everyone was on record in their vote, including Monsieur Kerry.
7 posted on 03/02/2004 2:26:15 PM PST by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RedQuill
National Education Association
LOL! I misssed that one too!
8 posted on 03/02/2004 2:26:26 PM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: IYAS9YAS
Your Senator Craig should be doing Bill 'Shifty' Frist's job as Senate Majority Leader.
9 posted on 03/02/2004 2:26:48 PM PST by The KG9 Kid (Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
The bill's defeat is a blessing in disguise.
10 posted on 03/02/2004 2:27:24 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
it had some ugly amendments
Yes it did. I was just reading them.
11 posted on 03/02/2004 2:27:40 PM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: All
Ten Republicans broke party ranks to extend the ban: Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins of Maine, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine, George Voinovich of Ohio and John Warner of Virginia.

Ten Republicans to be defeated at the polls, at whatever cost, when their times come.

Better an avowed enemy at the gates, than a traitor in the camp

12 posted on 03/02/2004 2:27:53 PM PST by SauronOfMordor (No anchovies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
Better an avowed enemy at the gates, than a traitor in the camp
AMEN!!!
13 posted on 03/02/2004 2:28:54 PM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
With republicans like these, who needs democrats?
14 posted on 03/02/2004 2:29:55 PM PST by aomagrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
If it had passed: the AWB was renewed If it failed you can sue firearms manufacturers out of existence.

A bad trade. The trial lawyers would have figured a way around the anti-lawsuit part, but the AW ban would stand.

Once the AW ban sunsets, even for a month, people will stockpile magazines, and pre-ban-type weapons so that a temporary resumption of the ban would be irrelevant for a long time

15 posted on 03/02/2004 2:30:59 PM PST by SauronOfMordor (No anchovies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
Ten Republicans to be defeated at the polls,...

Fortunately, Fitzgerald is not running for reelection.

16 posted on 03/02/2004 2:31:09 PM PST by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: marty60
marty60 wrote:
That's what I heard. But the reader said it was intereting that now everyone was on record in their vote, including Monsieur Kerry.
Kerry and Edwards were both there for many of the amendment votes.

However, I'm not sure about the final passage vote. All of the earlier votes totalled 99 Senators voting. The final vote was 90-8, or 98 Senators voting. I think Kerry might have been the one that left. We'll have to wait for the senate server to be updated with the roll call vote info (It might be there now, but the server is so swamped, I can't get the results).

Just checked again, Kerry was there for the final vote. He was one of the 90 Nays.

17 posted on 03/02/2004 2:32:56 PM PST by cc2k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
A bad trade.
Its always a bad trade! But I agree with you on this one. It's better with it failing to pass.
18 posted on 03/02/2004 2:33:33 PM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: cc2k
I'm sorry, I meant the amendments. not the final vote. When Craig pulled the rug out, everyone headed for the tall grass.
19 posted on 03/02/2004 2:37:24 PM PST by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
If it failed you can sue firearms manufacturers out of existence.

I don't have a precise handle on it, but the preponderance of "stupid" cases have been getting thrown out. The people have many levels to work on, and not every matter requires a Congressional solution.

20 posted on 03/02/2004 2:40:02 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
but the preponderance of "stupid" cases have been getting thrown out.
The approach from the anti-gunners is that it's ok if they get thrown out. It still costs the manufacturer lots of money. The looser should have to pay all costs associated with these stupid cases.
21 posted on 03/02/2004 2:43:30 PM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
Once the AW ban sunsets, even for a month, people will stockpile magazines, and pre-ban-type weapons so that a temporary resumption of the ban would be irrelevant for a long time

Darn right. I'll be one of them. Need some 30 round clips for my 10/22, among other things.

22 posted on 03/02/2004 2:43:36 PM PST by Jotmo ("Voon", said the mattress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RedQuill
Must have been a Freudian slip!
23 posted on 03/02/2004 2:46:49 PM PST by Alissa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jotmo
The approach from the anti-gunners is that it's ok if they get thrown out. It still costs the manufacturer lots of money.

Yup. The manufacturers are relatively small operations, both in terms of gross revenues and net profits; the Dem party, Soros, et. al., and the various government funded 'social law' groups have more money and free legal volunteer time. Frivolous legal actions, in the absence of a loser pays law, and in the absence of a sound judiciary to quickly throw them out, are a tax. "The ability to tax is the ability to destroy."

24 posted on 03/02/2004 2:48:46 PM PST by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
What needs to be done is to get away from the gun issue entirely and pass a bill protecting all manufacturers, distributors, retailers, etc. in the United States from liability for the criminal misuse of any products they legally make or sell.
25 posted on 03/02/2004 2:49:39 PM PST by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
The looser should have to pay all costs associated with these stupid cases.

One of the many cases for Tort Reform.
26 posted on 03/02/2004 2:51:46 PM PST by BJClinton (Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, I'm a registered Dem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Alissa
...you mean Wayne La Pierre isn't the Director of the National Education Association now???

Rats.

:-(

27 posted on 03/02/2004 2:54:29 PM PST by RedQuill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: templar
United States from liability for the criminal misuse of any products they legally make or sell.
100% with you there.
28 posted on 03/02/2004 2:55:34 PM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
The people have many levels to work on, and not every matter requires a Congressional solution.

True. However, IMO, aggressive misuse of the courts for political purposes needs to be dealt with on a legislative level, in this case a Federal legislative level.

29 posted on 03/02/2004 2:55:35 PM PST by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: templar
I like your idea to broaden the scope of the bill. However, no one has explored the issue of whether this is a federal issue. Where does the Constitution grant the federal government authority to define the scope of state common law?

I am very uncomfortable about turning gun ownership into a federal issue. Around 31 states have already passed gunmaker immunity legislation and 15 more have proposed such legislation, so it wouldn't be impractical to work for this on a state level.

30 posted on 03/02/2004 3:00:59 PM PST by Texas Federalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
The looser should have to pay all costs associated with these stupid cases.

That will never pass. What would all of those trial lawyers in the legislature do after they get voted out. They wouldn't have anyone to sue.

31 posted on 03/02/2004 3:01:59 PM PST by alaskanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: templar
IMO, aggressive misuse of the courts for political purposes needs to be dealt with on a legislative level, in this case a Federal legislative level.

Attempts to misuse courts for political purposes would stop dead, if we had principled judges and an educated public.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, it's worth keeping a keen eye on the content of legislation. I'm all for bills that legislate political cases to be outside the purview of court (the gun/car worked as it was supposed to, therefore it is defective), but I don't want to trade a ban on ugly weapons to get that.

32 posted on 03/02/2004 3:13:21 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Texas Federalist
I am very uncomfortable about turning gun ownership into a federal issue. Around 31 states have already passed gunmaker immunity legislation and 15 more have proposed such legislation, so it wouldn't be impractical to work for this on a state level

Gun ownership is not an issue in this bill (except with regards to riders being placed on it). As far as turning gun ownership into a Fedral issue, that was done back in '34 with the NFA. Unless all 50 states pass the same law protecting manufactures from suit, there will still be suits filed. IN addition, State immunities will not prevent these suits from being brought in Federal courts since virtually all guns are manufactured for sale in interstate commerce and cross multiple jurisidictions. A State law granting immunity will only result in a Federal filing if immunity is not granted on that level as well.

33 posted on 03/02/2004 3:33:28 PM PST by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: templar
State immunities will not prevent these suits from being brought in Federal courts since virtually all guns are manufactured for sale in interstate commerce and cross multiple jurisidictions.

State immunity laws are applicable to suits brought in federal courts. In a product liability suit, federal courts apply the law of the state either where the injury occurred or with the most significant relation to the case (depending on the state where the federal court sits). Generally, this results in the application of the law of the state where the defendant resides, the gun is sold, or the gun is manufactured.

34 posted on 03/02/2004 3:55:33 PM PST by Texas Federalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton
You said the magic words: tort reform. I am relieved that Senator Craig killed the bill rather than allowing it to pass with the poison-pill AW ban. Probably it would have failed in the House, but who can be sure? If this bill continued, there would be the remote chance that the industry protection part would have been vetted until it was meaningless, and the gun ban part would have been "enhanced" with even more restrictions. This is a situation where the best offense is a good defense -- perhaps next year the numbers will be such that we can focus more on passing good legislation than just blocking bad legislation. Now instead of hysterical stories about guns, the media will have to be satisfied with investigative pieces about how many fillings George Bush has and how "presidential" J. F. Kerry looks.
35 posted on 03/02/2004 4:05:04 PM PST by Wilhelm Tell (Lurking since 1997!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
Yes, but it is still a big Democrat win. If it had passed: the AWB was renewed If it failed you can sue firearms manufacturers out of existence.

I see it differently. If the AWB is renewed it will be with us forever; nearly impossible to eliminate and an open door for adding model after model of firearm to the ban list. OTOH if the AWB sunsets it will be very difficult for a new and similar ban to be instituted. As Lott says; it will be seen as the ten year failed waste of time and money that it is.

As for the gunmaker's liability bill? It's just a bill going through the process.

Like almost every bill that has become law it will have its ups and downs and be tortured and teased by political wrangling having nothing to do with the bill itself. It's a good bill with strong support and will very likely be passed within a year's time.

36 posted on 03/02/2004 4:36:14 PM PST by TigersEye (Regime change in the courts. Impeach activist judges!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Wilhelm Tell
I am relieved that Senator Craig killed the bill rather than allowing it to pass with the poison-pill AW ban.

Amen to that! IMO the AP bullet ban and study was enough to kill the whole thing. It was a wide open door to ban almost all centerfire rifle ammo.

37 posted on 03/02/2004 4:39:47 PM PST by TigersEye (Regime change in the courts. Impeach activist judges!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RedQuill
That is an Associated Press story Fox just added to their site.

It is actually an AP oopsie, not one of Fox's.

Though hopefully somebody will catch it and change it now.
38 posted on 03/02/2004 4:40:17 PM PST by rwfromkansas ("Men stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up as if nothing had happened." Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
On the Floor Kerry proclaimed the view (in my words) his steady support for the 2nd. Amend but then went on to say as a hunter he didn't need an assault rifle and that the 2nd didn't give the people the right to carry around military grade assault rifles on the street.

Pray tell us, Senator, if the 2nd isn't about military type weapons for the militia i.e. all able bodied men 18-65), then WHAT THE HELL does it mean?

Where does it mention HUNTING anywhere in the Constitution?
39 posted on 03/02/2004 4:49:43 PM PST by RedMonqey (Its is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list
bttt
40 posted on 03/02/2004 4:55:20 PM PST by TigersEye (Regime change in the courts. Impeach activist judges!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Texas Federalist
In a product liability suit, federal courts apply the law of the state either where the injury occurred or with the most significant relation to the case

I wasn't clear in the way I worded my post. That's what I intended to address when I said they (the same laws) would need to be passed by all 50 states to be effective. This is unlikely to happen in a number of States.

41 posted on 03/02/2004 6:14:04 PM PST by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
I see it differently
Actually I agree with you. It was far better that the bill fail with all of the attachments. My point was that either way the Dems got something. This time we came out for the better.
42 posted on 03/02/2004 6:45:18 PM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RedMonqey
around military grade assault rifles
This statement itself is flawed. I doubt if you could get any member of the military to go to battle with a semi-automatic AR15. The only thing military about these so called "assault weapons" is the way they look.
My mini-14 has the same capability as my AR15. It simply looks different.
Just more of the Dems word games.
43 posted on 03/02/2004 6:49:57 PM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Texas Federalist
I am very uncomfortable about turning gun ownership into a federal issue.

It already is a federal issue, and has been since 1792. "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."

44 posted on 03/02/2004 7:28:38 PM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Excuse me, but what is exactly "center fire" ammo? The definitions I've been hearing make it sound like any rifle or shot gun ammo could be banned?
45 posted on 03/02/2004 7:46:21 PM PST by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
My mini-14 has the same capability as my AR15. It simply looks different

That's why the really bad version of the AWB, by Lautenberg and Corzine in the Senate and McCarthy(and about 67 others) in the House (/H. R. 2038) bans your mini-14 as well, by name. It also would ban:

`(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a pistol grip;

`(iv) a forward grip; or

`(v) a barrel shroud.

`(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

`(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

(they'll get to the .22's later I guess)

And they rather sneaker define "pistol grip":

The term `pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip. And if that somehow leaves a semi-automatic rifle not covered they would also ban:

`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting

event.'.

46 posted on 03/02/2004 8:25:05 PM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: cc2k
Edwards missed the vote on Kennedy's ammo ban, but Kerry voted for it.
47 posted on 03/02/2004 8:28:51 PM PST by Dan from Michigan (""....but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America"")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I agree.


48 posted on 03/02/2004 8:32:07 PM PST by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6
Centerfire ammunition has a primer on the back of the cartridge. The primer is hit with the firing pin and the material explodes setting off the powder. Anything over a Saturday night special can be banned because it may go through body armor. Of course, then they'll have a ban on Saturday Night Specials. Saturday Night Specials are the anti's definition of cheap, low cost handguns.

Rimfire is mostly .22 ammunition that has the primer material spun into the case by the rim. The firing pin hits the rim and the priming material explodes along with the powder.
49 posted on 03/02/2004 8:41:34 PM PST by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6
Excuse me, but what is exactly "center fire" ammo? The definitions I've been hearing make it sound like any rifle or shot gun ammo could be banned?

It's in contrast to rim-fire ammunition (or the much older pin fire, or cap and ball). It means the primer is in the center of the face of the cartridge, rather than in the rim. Rim-fire cases are not re-loadable, while centerer cases usually are, although with some non-US rounds it would take more effort as the primer design does not lend itself to easy replacement as most US made ammunition does, including shotgun shells. Except for rifled slugs, shotguns rounds, even heavy buckshot, is not too likely to penetrate a vest designed to stop pistol rounds.

50 posted on 03/02/2004 8:50:19 PM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 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