S. 397 Passed!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seems sad that they should have to pass a bill that seems common sense. But damn I'm glad they did, Chalk one up for the good guys.
~z
 
This is actually tort reform. In America, anyone may sue anyone else for anything... The courts are supposed to protect us from frivolous lawsuits. But the fact is, that they let more go to trail on the basis of some trumped up legal theory, than they deny as being frivolous.
 
Clap.gif
 
Chalk one up for the NRA for making this happen. A very necessary piece of legislation. One of the complaints was that other industries dont have this kind of protection. My response is, why the heck not? Let's extend it to other industries too and bring back some notion of responsibility that is divorced from deep pockets.
 
THIS IS A BIG WIN!!! For those of you, like me, that worked for a long time on this, CONGRATS.!!! :) I wonder at the lack of response over this? This is one of those times, I think we should be allowed to celebrate at "general". Oh well, most, probably wouldn't know what 397 was!!! GREAT DAY for us all!!!! :) Gun control by lawsuit, just took a hit. Price increases by lawsuit, just took a hit. I'm a happy guy! :D www.nra.org to see how your elected officials voted on this, and the various amendments.
 
A victory for the American worker, American gun industry and the firearms enthusiast. Good riddance to nuisance lawsuits. :D
 
I am very pleased! Finally a little bit of reason. :)

I can't help but notice that we as a country shouldn't need this, however. It is sad that we do.
 
If either or both of your Senators voted for the legislation, I'd email or write them and thank them for it. I know I have. :D

And be certain to contact your Representative when they get back from the recess on HR 800! :D
 
Last edited:
Nice to see S.397 passed, though there might be a problem vis-a-vis this gun safety locks, so called business, over which Senator Frist seemingly folded.

At another site, this was compared to the auto seat belt thing, wereas at first it was just install the seat belts, after which, later on their use became a mandated thing.

Senate version is different from House version, which could be a problem for if the thing goes into that conference committee", nobody knows what might come out of the other end, which ladies and gentlemen, could be one hellish problem for our side.

By the way, other things notwithstanding, I still find myself curious as to the lack of counter suits. I make mention of this particularly with respect to what were known as SLAP SUITS. As I recall, I described them in an earlier post, at this, or another site.
 
Yep, unless the safety lock provision gets removed in conference (it wasn't in the house version... some slimy senators added it), we're stuck having to get a safety lock with each handgun we buy.

Government-mandated product bundling. How glorious. I wonder if selling the trigger lock back to the FFL would be considered conspiracy to violate federal law.
 
Yes! There is justice. Now if only we can get a few more passed and a ban on idiotic media reports then itll all be good.
 
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (Passage of S. 397, As Amended )
Vote Number: 219 Vote Date: July 29, 2005, 05:11 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: S. 397 (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act )
Measure 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, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.
Vote Counts: YEAs 65
NAYs 31
Not Voting 4
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State


Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Not Voting
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Not Voting
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Not Voting
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Not Voting
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
 
You'll notice thar Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic Minority Leader, voted yes. Apparantly he is a big NRA supporter. Probably because he's scared of them in Nevada. Politics makes strange bedfellows. What is this business that Feinstein didnt vote?
 
I noticed Feinstein's absence as well. It suprised me, but as far as I'm concerned, when she is not around the senate is a better place.
 
Rabbi, I was curious about that myself. She didn't vote on several of the amendments which were shot down either...? :confused:
 
The Denver Post is a big anti-firearms newspaper. I'm sure thaey won't be taking salazar's side anytime soon.

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_2900899

Dem's gun vote rings
By Mike Soraghan and Anne C. Mulkern
Denver Post Staff Writers

Washington - Colorado Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar gave wholehearted backing Friday to a ban on lawsuits against gun manufacturers and sellers by crime victims, leaving gun-control advocates in the state feeling betrayed and gun-rights forces pleased.

Salazar joined nine other Democrats and 51 Republicans in co-sponsoring the gun-lawsuit ban. Fourteen Democrats voted yes on the bill; 29 voted no.

The Democratic support assured passage of the measure Friday on a 65-31 vote. Colorado Republican Sen. Wayne Allard also voted yes.

The House has not yet acted on the legislation but approved a similar measure last year.

"I was floored," Tom Mauser, president of Colorado Ceasefire Capital Fund, said of Salazar's vote. "It's especially hurtful to me because I have defended Ken Salazar to people."

Mauser, whose work on gun issues was spurred by his son Daniel's death in the 1999 Columbine High School massacre, said Ceasefire members expect to confront Salazar about the bill when he holds a town meeting in Colorado.

"I have heard from a number of our supporters that they're not going to support him anymore. They feel betrayed," Mauser said.

Salazar supported gun-control measures as state attorney general in the wake of the Columbine High shootings. He grew up with guns on a ranch and drew crucial support in his Senate campaign from rural areas of Colorado, where gun rights are popular.

Salazar on Friday called the gun bill "common-sense legislation" and said calls to his office have been overwhelmingly in support.

"Guns are lawful products, just like my 1994 Ford Ranger pickup truck," Salazar said. "If someone uses my Ford Ranger pickup truck in a criminal activity, I don't think Ford should be held responsible."

The National Rifle Association said the ban is needed because groups are trying to shut down the gun industry with lawsuits even though its products are legal.

"The American public does not believe the maker of a product should be sued if a criminal misuses it," said Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist.

Opponents say the bill offers special protections given to no other industry.

Mauser said Salazar's Ford-truck analogy is incomplete.

"What if a Ford dealer sold a Ford truck to a guy who was obviously intoxicated and the man went out and killed somebody?" Mauser asked. "Should he be held responsible for handing over the keys? Yes."

The measure does not bar product-liability lawsuits against gunmakers if a weapon malfunctions, backers said.

Allard's support of the bill surprised no one, since he has consistently opposed gun-control legislation.

With 50 Republicans voting for the bill, supporters needed Democratic senators such as Salazar to avoid a filibuster. Having Democrats listed as co-sponsors before the bill came up for a vote signaled strong support.

Since taking office in January, Salazar has angered his party's liberal wing several times by siding with Republicans.

His first official act as senator was to endorse Alberto Gonzales for attorney general, despite contentions that Gonzales sanctioned torture of prisoners. Salazar voted to make it harder for poor people to use bankruptcy to get out of credit-card debt. And as part of a group of moderates brokering a deal on judges, he agreed not to filibuster some of President Bush's most conservative judicial nominees.

The gun-lawsuit bill was not a major issue in the Senate election last year, but Salazar described himself as pro-gun- rights in the campaign and said he did not support an assault- weapons ban as it had been written into law.

As attorney general, Salazar said he would defend Gov. Bill Owens and Colorado state government against a suit by the city of Denver charging that state laws overruling Denver's gun ordinances were unconstitutional.

Still, the NRA backed his opponent, Republican Pete Coors, contributing nearly $10,000 to the Coors campaign. But the group never criticized Salazar.

"Sen. Salazar has been willing to listen to the concerns of gun owners in his state," Cox said. "And we appreciate his support on this bill."

Yet gun-control advocates say voting with the gun lobby won't help Salazar with gun-rights groups down the road.

Pete Hamm of the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence noted that Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., supported similar legislation, "then (gun-rights groups) did everything in their power to try to kill her politically. It will be interesting to see how nice the NRA is to Salazar when he's up for re-election."

Salazar said he knows some people will be angered by his vote, but he says the middle line he has charted is in keeping with what he told voters.

"I do the best I can to represent the wishes of the people of my state," Salazar said. "I'm comfortable where I am."

Staff writer Mike Soraghan can be reached at 202-662-8730 or msoraghan@denverpost.com.

Staff writer Anne Mulkern can be reached at 202-662-8907 or amulkern@denverpost.com.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top