Larry Craig and Dianne Feinstein strike deal on S 397

[LAR-15]

Senate moving to protect gun industry

By Joanne Kenen
Reuters
Thursday, July 14, 2005; 6:09 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The gun industry is likely to win sweeping protection against civil liability lawsuits in the U.S. Senate this month, reflecting a more firearm-friendly Senate after the 2004 elections, lawmakers said on Thursday.

Last year the Republicans killed their own bill, meant to shield gunmakers, gun distributors and gun sellers against many liability suits, after gun opponents attached amendments to it, including an extension of the 1994 ban on assault rifles.


But the November elections left a bigger Republican majority and the Senate is now a more conservative and more pro-gun rights body. Several Democrats, particularly from rural states, also back the immunity measure.

Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig, lead backer of the legal protections bill, said he was confident it would win Senate approval with few unpalatable amendments. A vote is likely in the next two weeks.

Even if mostly Democratic gun control advocates do manage to attach some amendments, Craig said the strategy this time would not be to dump the bill but remove anything objectionable in conference with the House (of Representatives).

"We hope we can defeat amendments and keep the bill clean except for the one amendment I agreed to let Senator Feinstein pass.," Craig said in a brief interview.

California Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a co-author of the 1994 assault weapons ban that Congress allowed to expire last year, said she would still try to amend the liability bill, but in more modest ways than last year.

For instance, instead of trying to reinstate the assault weapons ban, she said she would try to limit sales of powerful 50 caliber weapons so that they could only be sold through federally licensed dealers, not at gun shows.

"Senator Craig said he would vote for my sniper rifle bill if that is all I offered. I really don't like the underlying bill but it's probably the only way to get restrictions on ultra deadly sniper weapons. I accept Senator Craig's compromise. If it passes the senator has assured me he will fight to keep it even in conference"

The Senate Republican majority gained four seats, and some of the new Democrats are also opposed to tightening gun controls.

 

[LAR-15]

Senate moving to protect gun industry

By Joanne Kenen
Reuters
Thursday, July 14, 2005; 6:09 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The gun industry is likely to win sweeping protection against civil liability lawsuits in the U.S. Senate this month, reflecting a more firearm-friendly Senate after the 2004 elections, lawmakers said on Thursday.

Last year the Republicans killed their own bill, meant to shield gunmakers, gun distributors and gun sellers against many liability suits, after gun opponents attached amendments to it, including an extension of the 1994 ban on assault rifles.


But the November elections left a bigger Republican majority and the Senate is now a more conservative and more pro-gun rights body. Several Democrats, particularly from rural states, also back the immunity measure.

Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig, lead backer of the legal protections bill, said he was confident it would win Senate approval with few if any unpalatable amendments. A vote is likely in the next two weeks.

Even if mostly Democratic gun control advocates do manage to attach some amendments, Craig said the strategy this time would not be to dump the bill but remove anything objectionable in conference with the House (of Representatives).

"We hope we can defeat amendments and keep the bill clean," Craig said in a brief interview.

The liability bill is anathema to gun control groups. They said it wipes out legal rights of victims of gun violence, including police injured in the line of duty or families harmed by attacks like those of the Washington-area sniper in 2002.

The bill is a top priority for the National Rifle Association, the main U.S. gun rights lobby, which says it is needed to protect firearms manufacturers, distributors and sellers from politically motivated and frivolous lawsuits.

GUN-BAN ADVOCATES

"Unfortunately, as long as gun-ban advocates are able to burden firearm manufacturers with the costs of defending themselves in court, the entire gun industry is at risk of being eradicated," the NRA said on its Web site.

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said claims that the bill weakens law enforcement is a "red herring." He called it a "narrowly worded" bill to protect law-abiding businesses.

But the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says this year's bill goes even further than last year's by making it harder for regulators to move against rogue dealers.

Brady center president Michael Barnes said that even in a "tougher political environment" the group hopes to rally opposition to the liability bill and attach amendments, including one to require background checks at gun shows.

"We'd like to close loopholes that would allow criminals and terrorists to buy weapons without background checks," Barnes said, adding, "It's hard to believe that we wouldn't be able to muster a majority now" given the fears of terrorism.

California Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a co-author of the 1994 assault weapons ban that Congress allowed to expire last year, said she would still try to amend the liability bill, but in more modest ways than last year.

For instance, instead of trying to reinstate the assault weapons ban, she said she would try to limit sales of powerful 50 caliber weapons so that they could only be sold through federally licensed dealers, not at gun shows.

Feinstein said she was realistic about what she could hope to achieve in the current Senate. The Senate Republican majority gained four seats, and some of the new Democrats are also opposed to tightening gun controls.

 

[scout26]

ultra deadly sniper weapons

as opposed to just "regular deadly sniper weapons".

Pass the bill in the senate with Feinswine amendment and then remove it in conference. Give the Democrats a taste of their own medicine.

"Sorry Diane we just couldn't get the House to buy into your asinine theories."


(Yes, I'm in a grumpy mood....SNARL.....)

 

[hkOrion]

Feinstein said she was realistic

I don't know what reality she lives in, but it's not the same as the rest of us. and it makes me feel SO much safer to know that those eevil .50 cal assault rifles are out of the hands of people who like to spend $3 a round.... right....

 

[SIGarmed]

Hello Mcfly! .50BMG rifles are sold by FFL holders at gun shows! Ignorant? Either Feinstein is bluffing or this is just an act to fool her constituents once again. No private party sales! For once can't they be honest?

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

hkOrion... I know what you mean. Has that idiot Feinstein asked herself, "How many people have been killed with these weapons, if they're so 'ultra deadly'?"

I can't even believe she used a "term" like "ultra deadly."

Why, she could have used "ultra-mega-gazillion-heinous-killer-deadly"! She could have won herself more credibility!

"Senator Craig said he would vote for my sniper rifle bill if that is all I offered. I really don't like the underlying bill but it's probably the only way to get restrictions on ultra deadly sniper weapons."

Someone really needs to put her publicly on the spot and ask her about this "ultra deadly" nomenclature.

WHY is it "ultra deadly," senator?
Has it killed a lot of people?
Does it hold a lot of ammunition?
Does it fire more rapidly than other guns?
Is it more concealable (*guffaw*) than other guns?
Is it easier to use, and be accurate with, than other guns?
Are there more of these around than there are other guns?
How, exactly, would someone use a bullet from one of these guns to bring down an airliner? What part would they have to hit? Why did DOZENS of such rounds fail to bring down WWII bombers every time, if ONE bullet from one of these rifles can bring down an airliner "from over a mile away"?

I have NOT YET EVER seen any rebuttal in a public news story or article, or in any public forum apart from THR, to a claim that it would be so easy for a terrorist to use a .50BMG to take down an airliner. WHY NOT? It's one of the biggest overstated lies in the history of attempted gun control!

-Jeffrey

 

[Old Fuff]

>> Feinstein said she was realistic about what she could hope to achieve in the current Senate. The Senate Republican majority gained four seats, and some of the new Democrats are also opposed to tightening gun controls. <<

Sen. Feinstein seems to be a bit slow between the ears. Maybe after the 2006 elections the Republican majority will gain a few more seats because of her efforts.

 

[Standing Wolf]

As far as I'm concerned, this is the Republican party's last chance. If this bill ends up being signed into law with any leftist extremist infringements on our Second Amendment civil rights, they can count on my vote going elsewhere.

The Republicans have been talking big and delivering nothing too long.

 

[taliv]

you know, one semi-positive possible outcome of the Democrats consistent lying is that some terrorist might be STUPID enough to try shooting a jet with a 50, instead of something far more likely to hurt somebody.

 

[Ben Shepherd]

Standing Wolf: Agreed- I've already been talking to other parties.

 

[boofus]

If they blow this bill again I too will be voting for someone else. The ATF barrel ban isn't helping secure my vote any either.

This is the Repugs' final chance to do right. They are the majority party so they had better act like it and listen to their constituents instead of people that voted against them.

 

[LAR-15]

The first article is a parody (I made it up).

The second article is the real one.

 

[LAR-15]

Proposed by Feinstein:

To regulate .50 caliber sniper weapons designed for the taking of human life and the destruction of materiel, including armored vehicles and components of the Nation's critical infrastructure.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 28, 2005
Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. CORZINE, and Mr. DURBIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To regulate .50 caliber sniper weapons designed for the taking of human life and the destruction of materiel, including armored vehicles and components of the Nation's critical infrastructure.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Fifty Caliber Sniper Weapons Regulation Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) Certain firearms originally designed and built for use as long-range .50 caliber military sniper weapons are increasingly being sold in the United States civilian market.

(2) The intended use of these long-range firearms, and an increasing number of models derived directly from them, is the taking of human life and the destruction of materiel, including armored vehicles and components of the national critical infrastructure, such as radar and microwave transmission devices.

(3) These firearms are neither designed nor used in any significant number for legitimate sporting or hunting purposes and are clearly distinguishable from rifles intended for sporting and hunting use.

(4) Extraordinarily destructive ammunition for these weapons, including armor-piercing and armor-piercing incendiary ammunition, is freely sold in interstate commerce.

(5) The virtually unrestricted availability of these firearms and ammunition, given the uses intended in their design and manufacture, present a serious and substantial threat to the national security.

SEC. 3. COVERAGE OF .50 CALIBER SNIPER WEAPONS UNDER THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT.

(a) In General- Section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining firearm) is amended by striking `(6) a machine gun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive device.' and inserting `(6) a .50 caliber sniper weapon; (7) a machine gun; (8) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (9) a destructive device.'.

(b) Definitions-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 5845 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining terms relating to firearms) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(n) Fifty Caliber Sniper Weapon- The term `.50 caliber sniper weapon' means a rifle capable of firing a center-fire cartridge in .50 caliber, .50 BMG caliber, any other variant of .50 caliber, or any metric equivalent of such calibers.'.

(2) MODIFICATION TO DEFINITION OF RIFLE - Section 5845(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining rifle ) is amended by inserting `or from a bipod or other support' after `shoulder'.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall only apply to a .50 caliber sniper weapon made or transferred after the date of enactment of this Act.

 

[Standing Wolf]

These firearms are neither designed nor used in any significant number for legitimate sporting or hunting purposes and are clearly distinguishable from rifles intended for sporting and hunting use.

Even if the Second Amendment were about hunting and sport shooting, only a fool would believe such a patently absurd statement.

 

[Spot77]

Isn't it time we produced a .49 bmg cartridge? Or better yet, a .55 cal?

 

[R.H. Lee]

If it passes, rechamber and neck it down to .495 or up to .510, then it ain't a .50 any longer.

 

[clange]

(3) These firearms are neither designed nor used in any significant number for legitimate sporting or hunting purposes and are clearly distinguishable from rifles intended for sporting and hunting use.

This sporting use bull???? needs to stop. Now.

Industry immunity is good, but this sporting use crap is the biggest threat we're currently facing, bigger than any one ban. If the republicans dont do anything about it over the next three years i doubt i will ever vote for another R at the federal level. I'm tired of never gaining any ground. They've got the people, they need to fight, not defend.

 

[RevDisk]

If it passes, rechamber and neck it down to .495 or up to .510, then it ain't a .50 any longer.

If I'm not mistaken, the ATF can classify any caliber over .50 as DD. Take a glance at the new kit/C&R ban if you think the ATF would be lenient.

 

[LAR-15]

ATFE rarely rules in gun owners favor.

 

[rick_reno]

When are the Republicans going to realize they're in charge? There is nothing to be gained by throwing a bone over the fence to those mangy democratic dogs on the other side of the fence.

 

[dasmi]

but it's probably the only way to get restrictions on ultra deadly sniper weapons.

ULTRA DEADLY! EXTREME!! SNIPER WEAPONS!! HOLY CRAP THE SKY IS FALLING! YOU ARE MORE DEAD WHEN KILLED BY A .50 BMG THAN A .308!! WE MUST BAN THIS EVIL CALIBER!!

I really don't like that woman.

 

[beerslurpy]

I'm getting seriously sick of this sporting purposes crap. They need to break Ron Paul's bill out of committe already and pass it. Now.

 

[Flyboy]

When are the Republicans going to realize they're in charge? There is nothing to be gained by throwing a bone over the fence to those mangy democratic dogs on the other side of the fence.

I submit to you that they already do know, they just share many of the same objectives.

 

[dasmi]

I submit to you that they already do know, they just share many of the same objectives.

I'm afraid I agree.

 

[gunsmith]

S Wolf is right again

Standing Wolf for Senate!