If I understand this right, Mikulski wants an amendment that would exempt any case involving Malvo/Mohammad from protection that would be provided by the protection bill. Ludicrous.
While senators accuse judges of legislating from the bench, she’s advocating judging from the floor of the senate. Dumb.
They’re voting on the armor piercing bullets amendment, which is lame. It increases penalties for using armor piercing bullets in crime. Unfortunately, it looks as though they have defined armor piercing bullets to be any centerfire rifle cartridge. Of course, they need that definition as cop killers don’t really exist.
Looks like they’re back on topic. Craig is discussing how none of these laws would have stopped the DC snipers.
Kennedy babbled on about cop killer bullets, which coincidentally have killed exactly zero cops because they don’t exist. Mumbling about Al Qaeda buying these non-existent rounds at gun shows.
Kennedy opposes the law enforcement carry bill (I guess because he doesn’t want off duty southern police roaming through Mass).
Other stuff about handgun .50 cals taking out helicopters.
Looks like they’re voting to add a child safety lock amendment which requires child locks on all guns and that they meet some sort of standard set by some arbitrary official.
This idea is lame. Sure, they may come with locks but if people don’t put them on they don’t function. Plus, someone said 90% of current guns come with them any way.
Update: I’m hearing an awful lot of Ayes.
More: Frist said Aye.
Still more: Amendment passed, will be attached. Reed says to reconsider. The special privilege law enforcement bill (allows current and retired police to carry nationwide) is up next.
Unimportant update: Dodd is lying through his teeth. Now he says he represents more gun manufacturers than any other senator (he is in CT) but he calls the immunity bill unforgivable.
Unimportant update again: Dewine wants to name the CCW bill after somebody. Because that is apparently important. Don’t these morons have better things to do with their time and my money?
would the child lock amendment “require” me to have a child lock on my gun at all times when not is “use”…or is it just a requirement for all guns sold?
I’m blogging up a storm on the debate, if your interested.
I think simply to sell it.
Watching this on my computer and watching Kennedy and having a large desire to slap him. The usage of dead bodies to achieve his goal is revolting.
He has no shame at all. Even police should hate him.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
February 26th, 2004 at 7:09 pm
I’m not watching myself, but one of the criticisms of the bill (and one that causes me to believe that it shouldn’t pass) is that it gives a free pass to dealers like Bulls Eye who act (from where I stand) negligently.
February 26th, 2004 at 9:01 pm
I’m not real familiar with all the aspects of the bullseye case. I’ve always been lukewarm about the gun immunity thing. I support it because it pisses anti gunners off and is a victory for progun folks. But in honesty i could care less. And if its passage leads to anti gun legislation, then kill it.
My understanding in the bullseye case is that they violated no laws but may have engaged in questionable behavior. The real culprit from my reading is the criminals who stole the weapon and the atf for not investigating 230+ stolen guns.
February 26th, 2004 at 10:02 pm
As I understand it, you are correct in saying that Bull’s Eye didn’t break any laws. However, they did lose their license (though the guy apparently just transfered it to a friend and the shop operates as it did before) in the aftermath of the sniper investigation.
But that’s where I see a problem…how can someone that has lost over 200 guns in 2 years and didn’t even know that the sniper gun in question was gone until the ATF told him, not be considered negligent or in breach of some law? As I see it, the threat of litigation is what keeps most businesses honest…more so than government regulation. And lets face it, the NRA is going to make sure that gun dealers face as little regulation as possible.
Also, according to Brady 1% of gun shops are the suppliers of 57% of the guns used in crime. I find this a bit shocking to say the least, (but view it with a grain of salt given the source).
February 26th, 2004 at 10:38 pm
First, the brady stats are misrepresented. You’ll note that I never quote the NRA for stats for the same reasons i don’t quote brady and the vpc.
THe problem with these gun lawsuits is that people are suing to bankrupt honest business because some one beyond their control misuses the product, like suing Ford because the drunk driver who killed a family of six was driving a mustang.
And if the volume of guns stolen is an indication, where was the atf? It does sound to me like it is possible that maybe bullseye was “accidentally” losing guns based on the sheer volume. WHich is an abuse of the law.
February 27th, 2004 at 5:26 am
THe problem with these gun lawsuits is that people are suing to bankrupt honest business because some one beyond their control misuses the product, like suing Ford because the drunk driver who killed a family of six was driving a mustang.
I think this goes to the bigger question of under what circumstances should a company get sued for negligence in general. There are laws and procedures to ensure that truly frivolous lawsuits (both gun-related and not gun-related) don’t see the light of day, with penalties for the lawyers involved. I believe in some aspects of the bill, but in general think it goes too far. I think that cities shouldn’t be allowed to sue manufacturers unless there is a huge unforeseen pattern of abuse. And no dealer should be sued for properly selling a firearm to someone who passed all the legal hurdles with proper paperwork filled out and what not, no matter what the buyer may have ultimately done with the weapon.
However, in cases of negligence, there is no reason that a dealer should be immune. As to the where was the atf comment..that’s a good question. But two wrongs don’t make a right. If the dealer was at fault and the atf was also at fault, it doesn’t excuse the dealers actions.