Gun Maker Protection Bill Passes Preliminary Senate Vote

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-02-25 04:41pm

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly ... 08,00.html

GOP Gun Bill Passes First Senate Vote

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

WASHINGTON — A Republican-led bill to shield gun manufacturers and distributors from lawsuits arising from gun crimes passed its first Senate test Wednesday, but Democrats plan to complicate its future by forcing votes on extending an assault weapons ban and requiring background checks on purchasers at gun shows.

The Senate, with a 75-22 test vote, showed that there is enough support from both parties to get gunmaker immunity legislation through, but Democrats plan to try and add their gun legislation to the package before it heads to the House.

Democrats want "provisions that will close the gun show loophole, that would reauthorize the ban on assault weapons," said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I. "We should require effective safety locks on handguns. We should improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check (search) system."

Those measures are less popular with the Senate's GOP majority and could cause problems for the bill if included. The GOP-controlled House already has said it does not plan to approve an extension of the assault weapons ban.

"Some of our colleagues already announced they intend to play politics with this bill," said Sen. Larry Craig (search), R-Idaho, one of the legislation's main sponsors.

The White House — which supports the gunmaker immunity bill, extending the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole — nonetheless called on the Senate to pass the legislation without amendments.

"The administration urges the Senate to pass a clean bill, in order to ensure enactment of the legislation this year," the White House said in a statement. "Any amendment that would delay enactment of the bill beyond this year is unacceptable."

Republicans, along with some Senate Democrats, have been pushing for the gun immunity legislation for some time. Gun advocates say firearm makers shouldn't be forced to spend millions of dollars fighting off lawsuits designed to win large rewards and bankrupt them for making legal products.

Democrats including Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (search) of South Dakota agreed to back the legislation after gun supporters accepted a specification that firearms manufacturers and distributors would not be immune to lawsuits involving defective products or illegal sales.

But getting the 1994 assault weapons prohibition renewed also is Democratic priority this year. They picked up support Tuesday from GOP Sens. John Warner of Virginia, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.

"Although I voted against the ban a decade ago, over the past 10 years it has reduced crime dramatically and has made our streets safer," Warner said. "The legislation also has protected the rights of gun owners better than many of us predicted."

The three GOP senators' support does not guarantee the amendment's approval in the Senate, but "this gives the effort to renew the assault weapons ban new momentum," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (search), D-Calif., sponsor of the original assault weapons ban.

Good and bad. Gunmaker immunity bill, I like that. AWB, on the other hand...

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-25 04:43pm

Question: Why does anyone need assault weapons anyway? Expecting a war? Its overkill for any civilian application; cops don't even normally carry them.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-02-25 04:45pm

Rogue 9 wrote:Question: Why does anyone need assault weapons anyway? Expecting a war? Its overkill for any civilian application; cops don't even normally carry them.

Because they're fun and cause a negligible impact on crime. Then there's the fact that the AWB is based on cosmetic things mainly. The AWB is a crock of scheisse, and anyone who actually studies it and is honest with themselves knows that.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-02-25 04:53pm

Rogue 9 wrote:Question: Why does anyone need assault weapons anyway? Expecting a war? Its overkill for any civilian application; cops don't even normally carry them.

some people like going hunting maybe? or shooting skeet? or even recreational target practice? *shrug*

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-02-25 05:16pm

Darth_Zod wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:Question: Why does anyone need assault weapons anyway? Expecting a war? Its overkill for any civilian application; cops don't even normally carry them.
some people like going hunting maybe? or shooting skeet? or even recreational target practice? *shrug*

Since when did you need an assualt weapon for that?

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-02-25 05:24pm

Since when did you need an assualt weapon for that?

Since when did you need guns for that anyway? Why not just skeeting with dull butter knives?

Simple, one does not need an assault weapon to shoot skeet, anymore than one needs a gun period to shoot skeet, it makes things simple, if you want to base an aurgment on "Why do you need it? a heck of alot of things would get outlawed quick if we applyed it to other things from Oprea and Broadway to Bagle Toasters and Playboy

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-02-25 05:26pm

I just heard that the Senate voted cloture, which means that the bill cannot be filibustered and there is now 30 hours for debate before the vote.

I think that amendments still can be attached by the Senate. However, an AWB renewal attached to the bill would doom it in the House.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-02-25 05:29pm

Mr Bean wrote:
Since when did you need an assualt weapon for that?
Since when did you need guns for that anyway? Why not just skeeting with dull butter knives?

Simple, one does not need an assault weapon to shoot skeet, anymore than one needs a gun period to shoot skeet, it makes things simple, if you want to base an aurgment on "Why do you need it?

Right, because you can use butter knives to shoot skeet.

Really, all you need is a rifle or a shotgun right? So why go all the way to using assualt weapons?

a heck of alot of things would get outlawed quick if we applyed it to other things from Oprea and Broadway to Bagle Toasters and Playboy

Does their presence cause a potential danger like assualt weapons do?

If you're saying that merely not needing it isn't a factor, then shouldn't also agree that people should be allowed to have nukes? There are clear alternatives to something like an automatic rifle for shooting skeet, like a non-automatic rifle, or a shotgun, can you say the same for the examples you've listed?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-25 05:32pm

Actually, in Utah you can have nukes, there's just a law against detonating them. Seriously!

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-02-25 05:35pm

That's Utah. But fine, switch with something like a working tank or battleship or something.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-02-25 06:49pm

Actually, I'm pretty sure there are places in the US where you can own (and operate, though probably only on private property) a working tank. I know there's people that own tanks, although I'm not sure if they're in working order.

With a tank, what's the danger? Unless the guy is a complete nut, he's not going to run amok in a tank which is basically a big "HERE I AM, COME ARREST ME AND BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF ME" sign. Even moreso, it's not likely he's going to be reckless and endanger others with it; he's probably going to keep it on his own property and run it very rarely, since tanks suck down fuel like a pornstar does semen. If you're really worried about private citizens in tanks, you might do better to address the security issues that let some nut steal a tank from the National Guard down in California.

And a battleship is simply ludicrous. Not only would extremely few people have the money to keep it in any state of operation (let alone hire/support a crew to run it), it's almost certain that they wouldn't be able to get their hands on any ammunition for the big guns.

Does their presence cause a potential danger like assualt weapons do?

Oh, give me a fuckin' break, I think you have a lot more to worry about from handguns which can be concealed in a pocket and waved around by any punk shithead.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-02-25 07:02pm

Rogue 9 wrote:Question: Why does anyone need assault weapons anyway? Expecting a war? Its overkill for any civilian application; cops don't even normally carry them.

You muxt remember, that according to the AWB, even a civilianized semi-auto-only M4 carbine is considered an assault weapon, even though the .223cal Remington rounds it fires are considered varmint ammo by hunters (the criteria by which AWB classifies an M4 as an assault weapon: retractible buttstock, pistol grip, detachable magizine, ammo capicity greater than 10 rounds). Gun owners often choose military-style firearms (even if they are semi-auto only versions) because they are built to higher tolerances than "civilian style" ones, and thus are more reliable and easier to maintain.

Hunting rifles chambered for .308 Winchester or .30-06 Springfield are much more powerful than .223 Remington. All three rounds can defeat the level-II body armor worn by most cops.
This demonstrates one important thing the drafters of the AWB did not seem to consider: Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people

.

Oh well, the AWB expires in September, and from the looks of it, the legislators in the (Republican dominated) Congress seem content to simply let it die, even though Shub wants to renew it. GOOD RIDDENCE!

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-02-25 07:09pm

Uraniun235 wrote:
Does their presence cause a potential danger like assualt weapons do?
Oh, give me a fuckin' break, I think you have a lot more to worry about from handguns which can be concealed in a pocket and waved around by any punk shithead.

Which needs to be addressed as well. The presence of one does not negate the presence of the other.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-02-25 08:18pm

How would you suggest we "address" the pervasive ownership of handguns throughout the United States?

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-02-25 08:27pm

Uraniun235 wrote:How would you suggest we "address" the pervasive ownership of handguns throughout the United States?

How is that relevant?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-25 08:33pm

(the criteria by which AWB classifies an M4 as an assault weapon: retractible buttstock, pistol grip, detachable magizine, ammo capicity greater than 10 rounds)

Okay, I withdraw my objections. That's the dumbest set of criteria for "assault weapon" that I've ever heard.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-02-25 08:52pm

neoolong wrote:Since when did you need an assualt weapon for that?

What's the difference between a semi-auto AR-15 firing 5.56 for hunting and wooden furniture traditional 5.56 rifle for hunting? The answer: precisely nothing. But "assault weapons" include stuff like the former. Why? Why is a box magazine, a pistol grip, and plastic furniture makes a gun more dangerous, damned if I know.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-02-25 08:57pm

Uraniun235 wrote:Actually, I'm pretty sure there are places in the US where you can own (and operate, though probably only on private property) a working tank. I know there's people that own tanks, although I'm not sure if they're in working order.

Ahem

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-02-25 08:59pm

neoolong wrote:Really, all you need is a rifle or a shotgun right? So why go all the way to using assualt weapons?

Guess what virtually all useful close-quarters combat weapons are? Guess what is most often used in violent and gang crime?

If you guessed "small calibre handguns, just as used for self-defense" and "shotguns, just as farmers have and always will need on their property," you guessed right. Those are the only things which could be banned to effect gun violence significantly, and its never going to be done.

A semi-automatic rifle is fucking useless for gang combat or an armed robbery; and you can still get semi-automatic rifles in the same bullet calibres and ranges as the so-called "assault weapons." The difference: a pistol grip and a box magazine.

Its just like heavy calibre Magnum handguns and stuff being accused of being in gang war: that's bullshit--they take so much training to use effectively that they're not issued to lawmen, and only groups like the FBI have the training time to use heavier calibres like 10 mm Auto. Furthermore, they're fucking huge (impossible to conceal) and fucking expensive (hard to buy and you can't dump it after a kill).

No one would concievably use these weapons for what they are reported to be for. Its just an idiotic farcical name and looks game, that has precisely zero reflection in reality or common sense.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-25 09:00pm

There's a guy who owns a tank and has it sitting in his yard overlooking the Western Kentucky Parkway between my university and home. I don't know who it is; I've just seen the tank.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-02-25 10:16pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
(the criteria by which AWB classifies an M4 as an assault weapon: retractible buttstock, pistol grip, detachable magizine, ammo capicity greater than 10 rounds)
Okay, I withdraw my objections. That's the dumbest set of criteria for "assault weapon" that I've ever heard.

It not as bad as the anti gun groups which define handguns as anything with a barel length of less then twenty inches however.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-02-25 11:06pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:
(the criteria by which AWB classifies an M4 as an assault weapon: retractible buttstock, pistol grip, detachable magizine, ammo capicity greater than 10 rounds)
Okay, I withdraw my objections. That's the dumbest set of criteria for "assault weapon" that I've ever heard.
It not as bad as the anti gun groups which define handguns as anything with a barel length of less then twenty inches however.

BWHAHAHAHA! I guess then the G36 AR is a handgun! (barrel length 18.9in).

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2004-02-25 11:13pm

Rogue 9 wrote:There's a guy who owns a tank and has it sitting in his yard overlooking the Western Kentucky Parkway between my university and home. I don't know who it is; I've just seen the tank.

Hmmm....what kind of a tank is it?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-25 11:36pm

Not sure. Its old, though. Korean War vintage at least. Its behind a scrubby tree line and I'm always moving past it at 65 miles per hour when I see it.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-02-26 12:26am

Ma Deuce wrote:
BWHAHAHAHA! I guess then the G36 AR is a handgun! (barrel length 18.9in).

So is the M16, I kind of misspoke they generally say 20 inches or less to be sure of including it, the AK-47 is also a handgun by that definition, heck the only assault that isn't at or below the limit I can think of its the L85, and by only 10mm.