From the Brady site:

[RoeBear]

6: Mikulski Amendment to Protect Lawsuit Brought by Victims of the DC-Area Snipers (108th Congress; 2004-02-26) S. 1805, the Gun Industry Legal Immunity bill. Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) offered an amendment to ensure that victims could continue their lawsuit against the snipers, John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo, who terrorized the nation with a string of random shootings in September and October 2002. A YES vote supported the Brady Campaign/Million Mom March position. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 40-56.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/scorecard/scorecard.php?inds=42

This blurb says it was "to ensure that victims could continue their lawsuit against the snipers". Didn't it have more to do with being able to sue Bullseye, the company that 'lost' the gun that they used?

[MrBenchley]

1. That is funny, roe...

You don't blink when the NRA helps spread the Slime Boatters lies about John Kerry...but you're straining desperately to pretend there's something dishonest about this description of an amendment to a long-dead piece of legislation.

Tell us, roe...what the fuck happened to S. 1805? After all, it wasn't too long ago we had every trigger happy pinhead around here assuring us there was no way on earth it could be stopped....

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheRovingGourmet]

2. Strange. They can sue these vermin with or without an

amendment until the cows come home if they want. And terrorized the nation? It was barely news down here.

[CO Liberal]

3. More Information On That Bill

Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN01805:

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. (introduced 10/31/2003)

Cosponsors (0)

Related Bills: H.R.1036, S.1806

Latest Major Action: 3/2/2004 Failed of passage/not agreed to in Senate.

Status: Failed of passage in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 8 - 90.

Record Vote Number: 30.

* * * * *

ON EDIT - I found the following information on http://www.nealknox.com/:

After the Senate added a string of anti-gun amendments -- including an extension of the so-called "Assault Weapon Ban" and a McCain gun show amendment -- to S. 1805/S.659, the firearms industry liability protection bill, chief sponsor Larry Craig killed his own bill.

He did so after NRA E.V.P. Wayne LaPierre sent an email to Senators
about 3 p.m. asking that they vote against S. 1805 on Final Passage.

There was simply too much wrong with the amended bill to be able to correct it in a Conference Committee, or on the House floor.

So Larry -- and NRA-ILA -- pulled the plug, as he and NRA had repeatedly told me they would do if they couldn't get a bill that could be cleaned up in Conference Committee or on the House floor.

<more>

http://www.nealknox.com/alerts/msg00195.html

* * * * *

So boo-friggin'-hoo. The gun lobby struck out. And America won, IMHO.

[slackmaster]

4. Why are you withholding the real story, CO?

I expect better of you.

The bill failed after it got loaded down with a bunch of anti-gun amendments.

[CO Liberal]

5. I'm Not Holding Out

I found additional info, and revised my post.

And it looks like the amendments came from across the spectrum. For example, it looks like John McCain added an ammendment about gun shows.

Face it - the folks in Washington are wising up to the fact that the gun lobby does NOT have the interests of the American people in mind when they advance legislation. And they acted accordingly.

(Edited to fix typos.)

[MrBenchley]

6. The "anti-gun amendments" crap really is hilarious

How many goddamn times have we been told in no uncertain terms that the AWB is ineffective, that there is no such thing as a "gun show loophole" yadda yadda yadda....

Well, you know what, if an assault weapons ban was "ineffective" and "covered only cosmetics," if there really were "no gun show loophole," the gun lobby would have been happy to let amendments that didn't affect anything go through. But by yanking their bill, they showed what blatant lies those claims are.

[MrBenchley]

7. And the "freedom-loving" "pro-gun" GOP

were at their finest too...Mao's Red Guard didn't jump to obey as fast as the Republicans kowtowed to Wayne LaPierre...