Page 1 of 1
C_SPAN2 Debate on Gun Liability bill on NOW!
Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:27 pm
by Cruiser
See debate NOW!
Go to C-span.org and click to view CSPAN2 to watch the debate. -Collin
Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:29 pm
by medphys3
Are they voting on this today, or just debating amendments?
Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:55 pm
by Cruiser
They seem to have enough votes to pass, the anti-guns are even saying that in their speechs. But they are still stalling and repeating themselves.
Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:37 pm
by Brian_Horton
I heard that Barbara Boxer is going to be a radio show today discussing this bill and complaining about how the Senate is putting off voting on an important defense bill to debate and vote on this one. Of course if you put off providing legal protection of the gun industry from frivolous lawsuits then you may not have a gun industry to buy guns from.
Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 6:44 pm
by Scott
Brian_Horton wrote: Of course if you put off providing legal protection of the gun industry from frivolous lawsuits then you may not have a gun industry to buy guns from.
Hmmm... could be a dangerous game, but if push came to shove, they could demand that industry protection be a part of the defense budget for that exact reason.
OTOH, why wouldn't they make the wording of this bill broad enough so as to protect all industry from frivolous lawsuits? Let the Left face the spectre of "unintended consequences" for a change!!
Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 6:57 pm
by jmwildenthal
Putting the liability with the defense bill is probably a bad idea. Many of the larger bills have to go to conference committee where things can get added and deleted. I believe that S397 is worded the same in the House version, making a conference committee unnecessary if it is passed as is.
Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 9:28 pm
by williampelish
jmwildenthal wrote:Putting the liability with the defense bill is probably a bad idea. Many of the larger bills have to go to conference committee where things can get added and deleted. I believe that S397 is worded the same in the House version, making a conference committee unnecessary if it is passed as is.
All I know that SWB(an Amex Stock AKA SMith and Wesson) got a big boost from this bill today. If it passes it will help in many ways.
Will
C-Span2 Debate on Gun Liability bill on NOW!
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 8:23 am
by ballistic
I've been watching this the past few days and I'm squirming with ennui. S. 397 is the U.S. Senate bill, H. 500 is the U.S. House of Reps. bill. The usual suspects are all weighing in with the same illogical, nonsequitor rants from before. And the heavyweights (Schumer, Boxer, Feinstein, Kennedy) haven't even weighed in yet. The proposed amendments which are passed will probably be removed in the conference committee. You've got to feel for Sen. Larry Craig for having to endure this again. However, the bill will pass this time and the anti's know it. They're just putting on the big stall.
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 8:39 am
by Cruiser
I also have been watching it. I get the feeling that the Anti's that speak against it have not even taken the time to read, much less study the actual Bill. I have read it and it covers everything the pro's say. It is simple and to the point, not cluttered up with confusing ammendants. Just the way a good Bill should be.
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 3:01 am
by TonyW
I got an e-mail alert from GOA this morning that said the bill passed but they put a ammendment on it requiring gun locks be included with each gun sold. To quote a bit from the e-mail:
Those who think it's no big deal will tell you that even though the provision requires gun dealers to include the sale of a "lock-up-your-safety" device with every handgun sold, there are no penalties for the gun owner if he or she does not use the trigger lock. Right. NOT YET.
For once it would be nice of the Reps stood up and passed something that was 100% pro-2A.