Violence Policy Center Hails Senate Defeat of Immunity Bill

[billbuckhead]

Violence Policy Center Hails Senate Defeat of Immunity Bill, Urges Congress to Focus on Passing Effective Assault Weapons Legislation

Washington, DC—The Violence Policy Center (VPC) today hailed the Senate's resounding defeat of legislation to limit the civil liability of gun manufacturers (S. 1805). The Senate defeated the measure on a vote of 90 to 8 after amendments to require background checks at gun shows and extend the current federal assault weapons ban for 10 years were added to the bill today.

VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand states, "The gun industry, which is already exempt from federal health and safety regulation does not deserve protection from civil liability for irresponsible business practices. Congress should focus now on passing an effective assault weapons ban. The gun industry has eviscerated the current ban, putting America's police and public at risk. According to FBI data, from 1998 through 2001 one out of five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon."

For more information on the need to strengthen the federal assault weapons ban, please visit the VPC's web site at <www.vpc.org.>

[FeebMaster]

1. That's rich.

"The gun industry has eviscerated the current ban, putting America's police and public at risk."

[Dolomite]

2. Pfffft!

"Congress should focus now on passing an effective assault weapons ban."

Right. Good luck with that whole thing and let me know how it works out.

The Brady's sacrificed any hope for a gun show “loophole” bill, a trigger lock law, and a 10 year extension to the so-called "assault weapons ban" for their own sake and fiscal prosperity.

In the 17 States left that haven't already curtailed frivolous gun industry lawsuits, they'll still get to be there and play with the courts - bilking money out any frustrated Million Mom within earshot.

Oh and one more thing: PINK PISTOLS!

[MrBenchley]

3. Amen to that

Today's Senate vote shows that the ban is necessary and would pass handily.

[jhfenton]

4. 52-47 = Handily (?)

Straight up in a stand-alone bill, the AWB can't even get to a vote.

[MrBenchley]

6. Handily

No wonder the GOP and the gun lobby want it bottled up in committee.

[slackmaster]

20. 52 isn't anywhere near enough for cloture

No AWB renewal will see the light of day.

[jhfenton]

5. Today's Senate vote shows...

...that 52 Senators are willing to ignore the facts.
...that 52 Senators are willing to ignore the Constitution.
...that 52 Senators are willing to violate their oaths of office.
...that 52 Senators are willing to betray their constituents.
...that 52 Senators cannot be trusted with power.
...that America is no longer a free country.
...why "process federalism" is a euphemism for the Supreme Court abdication of their responsibility to be the safeguard for the Constitution.
...why I am cynical, angry, and sad.

[MrBenchley]

7. No,, it shows

how extremist the RKBA crowd really is.

"America is no longer a free country"
Gee, fenton, and here you were telling us just a little bit ago that the bill concerned only "cosmetics" and didn't really do anything.

[slackmaster]

8. It's not within the purview of the federal government

To legislate how things are allowed to look.

[CO Liberal]

9. Awwwwwww.........

:nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity:
:nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity:
:nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity:
:nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity:
:nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity:
:nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity:

Actually, today's vote showed the when the NRA doesn't get its way, it takes its ball and goes home crying.......

[FeebMaster]

10. So CO

did you have a chance to think about the Kennedy Amendment? Even though it's gone now.

[MrBenchley]

11. Very reminiscent

of the GOP after impeachment deservedly fell apart...when they childishly blocked the censure resolution.

[-..__...]

12. Actually...

it showed that they're not about to sell out the little guy for the sake of the people with more influence and money. Many of us thought they would (myself included). However, when it came down to a do or die situation, they stuck to their guns (pun intended).

They could have let the bill pass to the House with the amendments attached (where they almost certainly would have been stripped), but they didn't.

Granted, the immunity bill didn't pass. In return for that us "little guys" will almost certainly regain our rights to posses "assault weapons", nor will we have to undergo background checks for private sales of firearms at gun shows, nor will we be required to purchase a gun lock with every sale from a licensed dealer, nor will we be treated as second class citizens when it involves CCW.

Take in to consideration that 33 states currently have some form of liability protection against the gun industry; then failure of the bill to pass has even less importance.

What we can't achieve on the Federal level, we'll take to the states. CCW is an example of that.

For gun owners, we may have taken one step back, but we also took at least 4 steps forward... I can live with that.

[MrBenchley]

13. Too too funny....

The Republicans were perfectly willing to sell out crime victims for the corrupt gun industry....just like they're willing to put assault weapons on the street and let criminals buy guns at gun shows..

[MrSandman]

14. You hear of any assault weapons on the street...

I will gladly get them so they don't get in criminal hands.

[-..__...]

15. Dude, check you attitude at the door.

Up until now, I haven't seen any comments condemning or applauding either party for this bill or any of the amendments. There were Democrats voting in favor of our RKBA, and there were Republicans voting against it.

I post and lurk in a number of gun related forums, and trust me, there's going to be a lot of fall-out or support for the legislators that supported or condemned this bill... regardless of their affiliation

There was a fair amount of following party politics on both sides; but, if you examine the votes what it really came down to is regional difference of opinion.

[MrBenchley]

16. Who are you trying to kid?

""Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry touted his credentials as a lifelong hunter to deliver a scathing rebuke on Tuesday against President Bush (news - web sites)'s failure to support a ban on assault weapons.
As the Republican-led Senate handed Democrats a high-profile victory..."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040302/ts_nm/campaign_guns_candidates_dc_3

[-..__...]

17. Suuuuuuuuuure

Does the "big lie" theory ring a bell?

[MrBenchley]

18. The Big Lie is what the RKBA crowd uses every day

Whether it's misrepresenting the meaning of Second Amendment, distorting Americann history, or peddling John Lot's crackpot pseudoscience, the RKBA crowd relies on Big Lies.

How often have the gun huggers tried to trot out the phony British bloodbath crap? How many times have they dredged up that crapass O'Leary poll?

[slackmaster]

19. Tell us again how the Roman Catholic Church supports gay rights

Are they ordaining openly gay priests yet?

How about their position on gay marriage?

[-..__...]

28. And Mary Rosh, and Ted Nugent, and racists at gun shows....ad nasueam

:think:

In addition to Godwins and Beevuls law, I hereby propose the skipping record law.

[Columbia]

30. Actually, I'd call it

The "Pee Wee Herman Law"

as in "I know you are, but what am I?" fame.

[MrBenchley]

33. Hey, they're your playmates

don't blame me because they're scum.

[CO Liberal]

21. One Thing Is Clear After Yesterday's Vote

The NRA says "Jump" and the Republicans ask "How high?"

Any Senator who blindly follows the NRA and ignores the voters they represent should resign their office, IMHO.

[MrBenchley]

22. Hell, Craig is on the NRA board

which was a clear ethics violation.

Good job, Democrats...they showed what a scummy bunch the GOP is yesterday...in spades.

[jhfenton]

25. I just read that charge in a press release from the Brady bunch.

I have to go check the Senate ethics rules. Can you point me to the rule that prohibits being an uncompensated, volunteer board member of a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization that benefits indirectly from legislation? Craig has ZERO financial interest in the NRA, and ZERO financial interest in the outcome of the legislation. Unless you can point me to a rule being violated, I believe the charge is a red herring.

[MrBenchley]

26. As the Brady Center points out

rule 37(2) has historically been interpreted "to prohibit compensated employment or uncompensated positions on boards, commission, or advisory councils where such service could create a conflict with an individual’s Senate duties due to appropriation, oversight, authorization, or legislative jurisdiction as a result of Senate duties."

To quote the letter further...

"Nothing could present a more obvious and glaring conflict than that presented here, where an agent or representative of the NRA (Senator Craig) is attempting to carve out unique and unprecedented immunity from the civil justice system for the NRA, some of its members, and the rest of the gun industry. What makes the conflict here particularly extraordinary is that Senator Craig is using his legislative position to carve out a narrow, special exemption to the law that only applies to his organization and its gun industry members and allies, in order to further their financial interests.
The facts here present a grave conflict of interest – and unquestionably an appearance of a conflict. Either violates Rule 37(2). This is not a case where a Senator’s organization falls within a broad class of citizens affected by legislation. Here, the lobbyist and the lobbied are the same (the NRA); and the class of beneficiaries of the legislation is very narrow: the gun industry. Nor is this a case where a Senator merely shares beliefs or policy views with an organization. Here the NRA and some of its members are financial beneficiaries of the proposed legislation."

"I believe the charge is a red herring"
Yeah, but YOU also try to pass off Crazy Bill Buckley's extremist right wing propaganda rag as non-partisan on your website.

[-..__...]

27. So?

I guess there was no conflict of interest or ethics problem with Dianne Feinstein having served on the advisory panel of Ceasefire, Inc (now defunct :nopity:), while she was advocating firearms legislation in the Senate?

http://www.nraila.com/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=14

Yes, I know it's an NRA website, and that the NRA always lies :eyes:.

[MrBenchley]

34. No, there wasn't.

Ceasefire wasn't going to benefit financially from any of Feinstein's proposed legislation.

Yeah, it IS an NRA website....telling to see the RKBA crowd's scummy playmates.

[jhfenton]

36. "non-partisan"

Yeah, but YOU also try to pass off Crazy Bill Buckley's extremist right wing propaganda rag as non-partisan on your website.

Non-partisan, meaning "not affiliated with a party." I've explained this before. Try to remember it this time.

I would also call "The Nation," "American Prospect," and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities "non-partisan."

I'll take a closer look at Rule 37(2). Sorry if I don't take the word of the virulent anti-gunners on its meaning.

[MrBenchley]

37. Who ARE you trying to kid, fenton?

Crazy Bill Buckley is non-partisan the way Fox Noise is "fair and balanced."

"I would also call "The Nation," "American Prospect," and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities "non-partisan.""
Funny you don't link to any of them on your website, fenton....but then you don't even pretend to be a Democrat there, either.

[slackmaster]

39. Mr. FBuckley smoked weed

He can't be all that bad.

[slackmaster]

23. And what is the best way to deal with the "Republican question"?

I'd say getting more Democrats elected might help.

Ignoring the interests of gun owners isn't helping.

[slackmaster]

24. Just as I've said repeatedly, they're shooting themselves in the foot

VPC won't be satisfied with a renewal of the present AWB. They're going to push for a more "comprehensive" ban and mark my words, will end up with nothing as a result.

http://www.vpc.org/press/0403awpass.htm

There were only 52 votes in the Senate to support a 10-year renewal with a sunset in 2014. That's 8 votes shy of enough to stop a fillibuster and 15 short of a veto-proof majority. Support for a permanent ban or a stricter ban will be even weaker.

Edited for spelling.

[-..__...]

29. There's an odd twist to this.

For a change there are going to be Republican senators who will suffer for their votes. The Repubs who voted for the ban are in jeopardy of losing their seats; right now, there are a lot of pissed off Republican gun owners out there that will remember how their senator voted come reelection time... especially Snowe and Collins (Bushmaster is located in their state). The Democrats who voted against the ban have gained respect and admiration from gun owners that would otherwise vote Republican.

There's no clear indication of whether or not those pro-gun Republicans who felt betrayed will vote for pro-gun Democrats, but the message is out there... some of those Republican senators just lost a serious block of voters.

[MrSandman]

31. And that was not a vote for legislation,

but to amend pending legislation.

[slackmaster]

32. The math of what happened yesterday was interesting

Multiple overlapping subsets of Senators gave majority approval to three major amendments independently of each other, which resulted in a package that was totally unpalatable to the majority.

I believe Senator McCain said something to the effect that the process was "messed up". I agree with him. All of those issues - Liability protection, the misnamed gun show "loophole", "assault weapons", concealed carry for retired cops, even Kennedy's absurd 30-30 ammo ban that was soundly defeated, deserve a fair hearing based on their merits. There is no rational reason to create a nexus, other than killing the liability bill which was clearly the intent of those who offered the disparate amendments.

Though I disagree with the positions taken by the Senators whose amendments got into the mix I have to give them kudos for the masterful manner in which they played from the minority position. That was some clever work, and they got the best outcome one could expect in their situation, i.e. a stalemate. Unfortunately for the American people no real work got done.

[MrSandman]

35. I am surprised that one of the Senators...

Will admit things are "messed up." I think it is broken...look at the debt.

[slackmaster]

38. Debt, jobs, education, environment, military readiness

Yes, the whole system is broken big-time and we have a room full of Senators deliberately doing nothing.

[MrSandman]

42. A question...

Did lobbyists connect to the PDA's, or did the Senators use them to confer with their office staff...it does go to accountability.

[Beren]

40. How does the AWB save lives?

Would someone please explain to me how, exactly, the Assault Weapons Ban has saved lives by placing restrictions on specific semiautomatic rifles?

In 1994, of murders committed where we know what type of firearm was used, roughly 5% were committed using rifles.

In 2004, of murders committed where we know what type of firearm was used, roughly 5% were committed using rifles.

How has the AWB helped? Murderers most often use handguns, not rifles or shotguns. Pre-ban magazines for handguns are commonly available or easily stolen.

Something else I've heard is that "our police are under seige in the streets and we cannot risk having them outgunned by assault weapons." Yet, the actual data shows that police have always been far more at risk of dying from their very own service weapon than any "assault rifle."

It seems all the AWB does is inconvenience law-abiding individuals.

[FatSlob]

41. It didn't

What we have is authoritarians trying to incrementally destroy liberties. This is done by banning guns that look scary, but are functionally no different than any other gun. Once they do that, then they'll decide to go after rifles like the Remington 700 (the world's premier hunting and target rifle) as being a "sniper" rifle and scary because it is too accurate. Then they'll go after shotguns, because they "spray hundreds of projectiles at once" and cause "massive wounds" that "doctors can't fix". Also, the authoritarians will go after your handguns because they can be "hidden". Basically, in my opinion, the authoritarians will never be satisfied until the government holds a monopoly on the tools of force.

[Baclava]

43. Bullshit....Look for yourself

Here are some facts (from Bureau of Justice study)

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/leok.htm#leokweap

[slackmaster]

44. What are you trying to say?

The greatest proportion of the recent decline in such murders is attributable to the decline in handgun murders.

Some handguns are assault weapons but most are not. Please explain.

[Baclava]

45. What?

"Most law enforcement officers are killed with firearms, particularly handguns"..."handguns" not "assault weapons"

[slackmaster]

46. Thanks

Sorry I'm being a bit dense today.