Final Vote on S 397

[Jesse]

Be sure to take note on how you Senators voted. Check out the proposed amendments that were voted down especially the Kennedy AP ammo ban amendment. This is the fifth year IN A ROW he has proposed such a ban... (worded as a "redefinition" in the amendment). The letter from the Dept. of Defense supporting S 397 was a nice touch.

Daschle being defeated in 2004 is the main reason this bill passed in my opinion. The NRA's pressure and Republican gains helped sway minority leader Harry Reid to allow an up or down vote. Reid is a rare Democrat. He is from Nevada and is pro-gun.

http://www.nraila.com/

[NRAJOE]

:right:

[Stopper]

Just got an alert from JPFO and they have found language in this bill that would give the U.S. Attorny General the ability to define exactly what is "armor piercing" (illegal) ammo. If he conducts tests against level 1 vest's, then you can guess just what types of ammo will be labelled armor peircing and hence be illegal. That would even include .22 longs, probably. So contact your rep and tell them to watch themselves very carefully. We can't give ONE person the go/no go decision making on this. No appeals etc... fi this passes.

Just more backdoor &*%#$@! anti-gun politics

[Jesse]

Originally Posted by Stopper

Just got an alert from JPFO and they have found language in this bill that would give the U.S. Attorny General the ability to define exactly what is "armor piercing" (illegal) ammo. If he conducts tests against level 1 vest's, then you can guess just what types of ammo will be labelled armor peircing and hence be illegal. That would even include .22 longs, probably. So contact your rep and tell them to watch themselves very carefully. We can't give ONE person the go/no go decision making on this. No appeals etc... fi this passes.

Just more backdoor &*%#$@! anti-gun politics

Check the date on the alert. It may be the Kennedy Amt. that was scrapped. I am unaware of any AP provisions that passed in S 397. All anti-gun provisions were killed except the trigger lock sold with all guns provisions.
The NRA would have pushed to have the bill killed with any poison pill amendments.

[Stopper]

whew! thanks Jesse!

[Gunnie Ed]

trigger locks sold with guns is a good idea; it allows you to keep your retarded spawn from blowing his dumb slef away, and if you don't have childeren that are that stupid, then you can sell it. win/win.

[Stopper]

you don't have to use it either.

[Big Dog]

The gun lock provision changes squat. We go to the store and buy a new gun any time the last few years, we get a friggen cheapo lock with it. It goes into the trash once we get home, or maybe on luggage if it ain't too long.
If we gotta do it for used guns, no biggie.

[Gunnie Ed]

exactly.

[SPOCAHP ANAR]

A gun with a lock on it is a 300$ baseball bat.

I keep all my guns empty and the ammo stored separately except one. Children are never alone in the house with said gun. Half of my collection is stored off site at another location under 2 locks. A lock on a gun doesn't replace comon sense.

[Jesse]

Originally Posted by Stopper

Just got an alert from JPFO and they have found language in this bill that would give the U.S. Attorny General the ability to define exactly what is "armor piercing" (illegal) ammo. If he conducts tests against level 1 vest's, then you can guess just what types of ammo will be labelled armor peircing and hence be illegal. That would even include .22 longs, probably. So contact your rep and tell them to watch themselves very carefully. We can't give ONE person the go/no go decision making on this. No appeals etc... fi this passes.

Just more backdoor &*%#$@! anti-gun politics

http://www.ncgun.com/node/101

Follow the above link for more info. It seems that the Khol Amendment is the language that JPFO and GOA was referring to. This language was not in the House bill so I'm guessing the NRA is working to get the language removed in conference committee.

[Jesse]

I am posting the following e-mails sent to me by Rob Seidman Assistant to the EVP (Wayne LaPierre) of the NRA:

Don’t Gut S. 397

Defeat the Reed Substitute Amendment (#1642)

This amendment would render S. 397 meaningless. It would allow the very lawsuits S. 397 is intended to prevent. The Reed substitute:

· Allows lawsuits by individuals on any theory at all.

· Allows lawsuits by private interest groups.

· Allows lawsuits by any state Attorney General, or in some states the state police or state’s attorney.

· Allows lawsuits by cities, counties and government agencies (“governmental units”) on any theory, if approved by state legislatures. Would provide for no limits at all on the District of Columbia, which is not defined as a “state.”

· Allows lawsuits for injunctive relief.

· Would not dismiss any pending cases. New York City’s case against the industry (with a trial scheduled for September 7th) would proceed. The Washington, D.C. case (under a local law that allows liability “without regard to fault or proof of defect”) would proceed.

This amendment would completely gut S. 397, and we respectfully urge you to oppose it. Due to the importance of this issue, the NRA will consider this vote in its future candidate ratings and evaluations. If you have any questions, please contact NRA Federal Affairs at (202) 651-2560.

The National Rifle Association

Respectfully Urges You to

Vote “No” on the Reed Substitute

[Jesse]

Support Sensible Policies for Police Safety

The National Rifle Association Urges You to Vote “NO” on the Kennedy Amendment

Sen. Kennedy’s amendment, like similar proposals going back to the 1980s, would ban virtually all hunting rifle ammunition. This legislation is unnecessary and is opposed by law enforcement organizations such as the Fraternal Order of Police.

This issue was laid to rest by research conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATFE). The study was done following Clinton-Gore Administration calls for legislation similar to the Kennedy Amendment.

· BATFE`s study concluded that: "(E)xisting laws are working, no additional legislation regarding such laws is necessary."

The existing laws were adopted in 1986 and prohibit the manufacture and importation, for private use, of handgun bullets made of special, hard metals and (in a 1994 amendment) specially-jacketed lead bullets. These bullets were invented for use by law enforcement and military personnel. NRA helped draft the 1986 provisions and did not object to the 1994 amendment. (18 U.S.C. 922(a)(7) and (8), and (b)(5), and 921(a)(17)(B) and (C).)

· Legislation similar to the Kennedy Amendment was first proposed in the 1980s and was opposed by both the Departments of Justice and Treasury, and rejected by Congress.

· Gun control advocates` groundless claims mislead the public, and the resultant publicity endangers police officers. BATFE’s 1997 study urged Congress to "avoid any experimentation with police officer lives that could conceivably lead to numerous additional officer fatalities."

The Kennedy Amendment is nothing but political posturing that would have no effect on law enforcement officer safety, but a dramatic effect on American gun owners. The Senate soundly defeated it last year by a bipartisan vote of 63-34, and should do so again.

The National Rifle Association respectfully urges you to vote “No” on this amendment. Due to the importance of this issue, the NRA will consider this vote in its future candidate ratings and evaluations. If you have any questions, please contact NRA Federal Affairs at (202) 651-2560.

The National Rifle Association Urges You to Vote “NO” on the Kennedy Amendment

[Jesse]

Preserve Fairness for All Plaintiffs

Oppose the Corzine and Lautenberg Amendments

These amendments would allow lawsuits by police officers (Corzine) and persons under 17 years of age (Lautenberg), even if the suits did not fall within any of the other exceptions in the bill. In other words, these amendments would allow exactly the type of suit that S. 397 is intended to prevent, as long as the plaintiff was a certain age or had a particular occupation.

The Corzine and Lautenberg amendments would gut S. 397. Therefore, the National Rifle Association strongly opposes these amendments. One of the strengths of S. 397 is that it adopts the same fair rules for all plaintiffs bringing cases against the gun industry. Plaintiffs’ rights should depend on settled principles of law, with equal justice for all. If a lawsuit has enough merit (under traditional tort standards) to be allowed under this bill, that cause of action should be available to all plaintiffs, regardless of age or occupation.

· Under S. 397, if any person can show that a manufacturer or dealer violated the law, or knowingly sold a gun to a person who was likely to use it in a harmful way, or that a gun was defective, the dealer or manufacturer could still be sued.

· Under the Corzine or Lautenberg amendments, a police officer or a juvenile could sue a manufacturer or seller even if no law was broken, no product was defective, and no one knowingly sold any product to a dangerous buyer. This is exactly the type of baseless suit the bill is supposed to prevent.

· The “carve out” concept is totally consistent with anti-gun activists’ overall legal theory. They want to be able to sue anyone and everyone in the firearms industry, at any time, for any reason-but never to sue the criminal.

· In fact, any “carve out” amendment poses a great risk that an anti-gun judge could choose to allow lawsuits by plaintiffs who are not mentioned in the bill, but who are in some way similar to those given special favor in the amendments. This type of amendment would gut S.397, rendering it ineffective.

· The Senate defeated the Corzine amendment last year by a bipartisan vote of 56-38, and should do so again.

Therefore, the NRA opposes these amendments, and urges you to vote “No.” Due to the importance of this issue, the NRA will consider these votes in future candidate ratings and evaluations. If you have any questions, please contact NRA Federal Affairs at (202) 651-2560.

The National Rifle Association Urges You to Vote “NO”

On the Corzine and Lautenberg Amendments