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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last
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]

To: Shooter 2.5
So are you saying that my dad's 22 rifle, or at least its ammunition would qualify for this ban, or slugs for my 12 guage? I just got these guns when he died and I've been trying to educate myself on them. I plan on taking a class.
51 posted on 03/02/2004 9:02:38 PM PST by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
Who will make the military's firearms, the Chinese?

Oh, I forgot. These people (socialist dems, RINOs) despise the armed services, too.

52 posted on 03/02/2004 9:09:36 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (As the oldest generation dies, the memory of liberty fades into obscurity, replaced by an impostor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RedMonqey
that the 2nd didn't give the people the right to carry around military grade assault rifles on the street.

What the heck does he think "bear" means in this context? Maybe "to keep locked up in a safe"?

53 posted on 03/02/2004 9:16:17 PM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6
No, your .22LR (long rifle) uses a rimfire type cartridge and is relatively low powered. It would probably not penetrate body-armor. Neither would ammunition for a .12 ga. shotgun of which there are many types. Shotgun shells are centerfire cartridges but they usually contain multiple numbers of shot. The number depends on the size of the shot. Each projectile of shot travels independently once the shot load leaves the barrel therefore its velocity is reduced compared to a single projectile cartridge and its kinetic energy, expressed as ft. lb's, is less also. Short answer; shotgun ammo, excepting slugs (single projectile), is unlikely to penetrate body-armor.

The same is true with most low velocity 'pistol ammo' even though they are single projectile rounds and are mostly centerfire cartridges. The type of gun itself (pistol, rifle, shotgun etc,) has less (almost nothing actually) to do with the power of the bullet than the amount of powder in relation to the weight of the projectile/projectiles does. Power is defined by weight, velocity and the way a particular projectile acts/reacts to the medium it hits. Some expand, some fragment and some retain their shape depending of course on just what it is that they hit and how much energy they have retained (distance traveled, density of atmosphere, intermediate objects traversed etc.)

54 posted on 03/02/2004 9:32:25 PM PST by TigersEye (Regime change in the courts. Impeach activist judges!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6
So are you saying that my dad's 22 rifle, or at least its ammunition would qualify for this ban

Not *this* ban. .22's are rimfire, not centerfire. After they get rid of the centerfires, there will be plenty of time to ban your Dad's .22.

Interestingly, from 1968 to 1986 rimfire ammunition was "controlled" in the sense that you had to show ID and sign for every purchase of it. I used to buy .22 short for my wife's grandfather's .22 Browning, a beautiful gun that has now passed to my father in law. I would use my green active duty ID card, just to savor the irony of an officer in the US Military having to in essence beg the government to be allowed to buy .22 short.

That was because the ammo was considered "handgun ammunition", even if you don't even own a handgun. (I didn't even own a rifle at the time, only a 20 gauge shotgun) Just as the Kennedy standard would have banned much rifle ammuntion, simply because there are some handguns chambered for it, and because virtually all of it will penetrate a vest designed to stop pistol caliber ammuntion.

55 posted on 03/02/2004 9:47:00 PM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6
Here's something a little less technical and dry to talk about and maybe more immediately important to you. I wrongly assumed that your rifle uses .22LR ammunition because you referred to it as a '.22' Odds are that it is but it could also be chambered for .22WMR. That means Winchester Magnum Rimfire. It could also be a very old gun that is only made to shoot .22 short and/or .22 long cartridges. Those are both in the same 'genus' of cartridges as the .22LR but slightly different lengths respectively. Short, Long and Long Rifle. If the gun is designed to shoot .22LR it will take any of them.

If it is designed to shoot .22WMR that is the only cartridge it will take. The .22S, .22L and .22LR are small enough to fall too far into the barrel of a gun made to shoot .22WMR and would create an explosive barrel obstruction if a .22WMR were to be chambered behind one and fired. (always check the barrel for obstructions before loading and after checking the chamber to ensure that it is unloaded.) The .22WMR is too big to fit in a gun made for .22S, .22L and/or .22LR.

Here's how you tell; the barrel should be marked with the type of ammunition it accepts.

The shotgun may not be as straigtforward as plunking a '.12 ga.' shell in it either. .12 ga. shells come in 2-3/4", 3" and the new 3-1/2" lengths. It is unlikely that your shotgun takes 3-1/2" shells. They are a recent invention made to push steel shot out harder and farther since the enviro-wackos convinced all of our wildlife managers that lead shot is killing all the ducks. (We don't want shotgun ammo to kill ducks, right?)

If your shotgun is somewhat old (or simply wasn't made for it) it may not take 3" shells either. This information will be stamped on the barrel also. AFAIK any shotgun will take a shorter shell than the largest it is designed for. Mine are all stamped with both 2-3/4" and 3". You can't put a longer shell in a gun not made for it. It may be dangerous to do so as the action might close on it scrunching it too tightly into the chamber yet still allowing you to fire it. Check before you buy. I hope this was helpful.

56 posted on 03/02/2004 10:09:28 PM PST by TigersEye (Regime change in the courts. Impeach activist judges!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6
OK, so that post wasn't less technical. 8^O

You can sue me, there's still no law against it. Heh.

57 posted on 03/02/2004 10:12:52 PM PST by TigersEye (Regime change in the courts. Impeach activist judges!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
The trial lawyers would have figured a way around the anti-lawsuit part, but the AW ban would stand.

It wouldn't have been hard. Most of these suits are using the "defective design" argument (Beretta didn't encase the 92 in a block of cement -- a child could pull the trigger!), and that would not have been prohibited under the bill.

58 posted on 03/03/2004 4:56:20 AM PST by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
particularly suitable for sporting purposes
I'm still hunting this clause in our Constitution....
59 posted on 03/03/2004 6:20:04 AM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6
The .22 may not be part of the ban. As I said, the anti's would just say that it is under another law that they dreamed up. The shotgun could possibly go through a vest with some of the more exotic loads. The bottom line is none of us are safe with the anti-gun dem party in control. They have proven themselves to hate all guns unless they own them.

If you don't know that much about firearms, try to find a book called, "Complete Guide to Guns and Shooting" by John Malloy. It's a simple basic text with a great deal of information. If you're interested in a class, enroll in a Hunter safety course by the NRA. They're relatively inexpensive. It's also important to find out exactly what you do own. Check for the name, dates, description of the firearm itself called the Action.

You can Freepmail me and I'll try to help and if I can't, we have a crew of about a dozen people here who have been in the firearms Industry. We check the *Bang_List every day by bookmarking it. It's here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/involved?group=152
60 posted on 03/03/2004 6:44:20 AM PST by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 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