Senate Narrowly Passes Assault Weapons Ban

[peterh]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4480127§ion=news

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate on Tuesday voted 52-47 to extend for 10 years the 1994 ban on the sale of assault weapons, which had been set to expire in September.

The White House has said President Bush would sign the bill, but the influential National Rifle Association opposes extending the ban and the measure faces an uphill struggle in the U.S. House of Representatives.





Two thumbs up for the Dems for not buckling under in an election year and a tip of the cap to John Warner and a couple of other Repugs for breaking ranks….

[trumad]

1. Notice the 2 next to the 5?

My sig line says it all...

[librechik]

17. good for these guys for showing up--

IMO the Pukkkes insisted on this vote today in order to screw up Primary Day campaigning--It was a vote of conscience, and Kerry and Edwards both have it in spades!

[underpants]

2. I heard Sen. Warner this morning "There is no need for these..."

hunters and sportsmen do not need these.........."

Something like that. Of course the other Va. Senator was set to vote FOR repealing the ban.....Sen. Allen.

[DarkPhenyx]

4. and the anti-AW ban people kept saying...

...that the establishment of need wasn't important. I kept telling them that w/o need they didn't have a case.

[FeebMaster]

9. That's right,

you have mentioned need an awful lot with respect to guns. You never did say what possible need a person could have for owning 5 guns though.

[DarkPhenyx]

24. You are right.

I didn't.

[Columbia]

73. Still waiting for your shipment of prohibited goods to me

Including all your clothes except for one set, the lease/title to your home, your stove, and all your guns. All the things you don't need.

[DarkPhenyx]

118. They aren't all things I don't need.

I already established a need for all of it previously, as hasn't been done by anyone for assault weapons, nor are they prohibited, as the current waepons covered under the AW ban are. It is your contunied obstenance which wants to deny this. That's ok though. It's the normal reaction when this subject is broached.

[Columbia]

127. Actually you said those were things you did NOT need

But if you want to change your story after the fact, that's fine by me.

Here's a link to where you said you don't need a stove or knives - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x40743#40867

Here's a link to where you compared need to you wanting to smoke dope - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=40743#40933

Here's a link to where you said you don't TV, a car, clothes or a computer - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=40743#40819

Finally, here's a link to where I answered your question, but you declined to acknowledge it - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=40743#40853

[mobuto]

3. Still got a problem

The House isn't going to vote for it, and the Republicans will just remove the AWB extension in Conference. That way, John Warner, Judd Gregg and the others can claim they voted to keep America safe, without actually doing so.

[wuushew]

5. Everybody should pay attention to the most important part

President Bush would sign the bill

Whether you are for or against this bill, gun grabbing fear amongst "swing voters" will be trumped by pure anger from shrub's base.

[Bandit]

27. Bush* said he would sign the bill ~ You believe Bush*?

Not much of anything coming out of his mouth has any resemblance to truth so why would anyone believe him on this one?

[salinen]

6. Imagine the absurdity

of a bill designed to limit the purchasing of personal people killers. The vote should be 100-0.

[MrBenchley]

21. The party of goons and loons had to yank their plan

to overturn DC's gun laws too....

"Senate Republican leaders decided not to include a rider that would have overturned the city's stringent gun ownership laws. The measure would have been included in a bill limiting liability suits against gun manufacturers that is supported by President George W. Bush and the majority party in the House and Senate.
The rider was pulled from consideration Tuesday morning. It was part of a bill being sponsored by Majority Leader Bill Frist that would limit the liability of gun manufacturers for death and injuries caused by their products.
D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey had said that his officers had confiscated 385 guns since the first of the year."

http://www.nbc4.com/print/2889069/detail.html?use=print

A good day for sanity and public safety....

[nayt]

128. yes

because we all know how safe those laws have made DC...

[peterh]

7. In a related bill…also voted on today…..

US Senate Votes To Require Check On Gun Buyers At Shows

WASHINGTON (AP)--The Senate voted Tuesday to require background checks on
buyers at private gun shows, giving Democrats rare victories on gun legislation
that would also deny crime victims the ability to sue gunmakers and dealers.
The Senate also voted Tuesday to extend for another decade a ban on
military-style assault weapons.
Democratic presidential contenders John Kerry of Massachusetts and John
Edwards of North Carolina broke away from the Super Tuesday campaign trail to
cast votes with the 52-47 majority on the assault weapons ban and the 53-46
majority on the gun show bill.
The White House had preferred both Democratic bills be kept off the
legislation immunizing the gun industry from liability suits, the National Rifle
Association's top priority this year.



Dang….we’re on a roll today….

[FeebMaster]

11. I guess

once the "gun show loophole" is closed, we'll have to get started on that dang private sale loophole.

[DoNotRefill]

54. Depends on how you look at it....

Bush now has political cover to do whatever he wants. Is that a GOOD thing?

[displacedtexan]

8. The NRA is almost bankrupt.

No money, no unanimous repuke backing.

[papau]

10. So does the NRA/Gun folks get a quid pro quo of the no liability Bill

That is the way I read this - the NRA will prevent defective gun lawsuits forever into the future!

Or wrongful use, or conspiracy to sell to gangs, etc suits.

[FeebMaster]

12. It has nothing to do

with defective guns. Maybe you should read the bill.

[papau]

23. The liability bill is not limited as far as I can see - could you point

out how a product liability suit would go forward?

[Columbia]

26. Exceptions

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:s.01805:

(5) QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTION-

(A) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified civil liability action' means a civil action brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include--

(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;

(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;

(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including--

(I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law;

(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or

(III) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code;

(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product; or

(v) an action for physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable.

(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- As used in subparagraph (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment' means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.

(C) REASONABLY FORESEEABLE- As used in subparagraph (A)(v), the term `reasonably foreseeable' does not include any criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product, other than possessory offenses.

(D) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- The exceptions described in subparagraph (A) shall be construed so as not to be in conflict and no provision of this Act shall be construed to create a Federal private cause of action or remedy.

[papau]

29. Thanks - but a marketing plan to gangs is OK, and defects are OK as long

as reasonably foreseeable (and the courts have ruled that there is little that is done with a gun or occurs with a gun that is not "forseeable"

I am refering to:

an action for physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable.(C) REASONABLY FORESEEABLE- As used in subparagraph (A)(v), the term `reasonably foreseeable' does not include any criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product, other than possessory offenses.

So the only thing they are liable for is getting the paperwork done.

[Columbia]

32. You are misinterpreting the legislation

Those exceptions are when lawsuits are EXEMPTED from the legislation - meaning they are allowed to continue.

[DoNotRefill]

35. Nope...

they're liable if they produce a defective product, too. What they would NOT be liable for is if they sell a gun legally to a dealer, and the dealer legally sells the guns to a person, and that person sells the gun to a criminal who uses it to commit a crime. In THAT case, the manufacturer wouldn't face liability, just as an auto manufacturer isn't sued when they make and sell a car that some bonehead drives while intoxicated.

[papau]

38. guess I am reading it incorrectly -

what defects are you allowed to sue for - quality not above a minimum?

What determines the min quality?

A Chicago marketing plan was to establish stores just outside the line, with sales to the gangs in Chicago - can the city sue?

[DoNotRefill]

42. It depends.

Were the sales legal where they occurred? If so, then it's legal. If it was illegal, they have no liability protection.

The quality issue is one of defects that cause harm. An example of this is if they use inferior metal for the barrel, and the barrel explodes, hurting somebody. Another example is if an included safety device failed, hurting somebody.

[papau]

49. Seems Globe says my read of a give away to the Gun/NRA folks is correct

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2004/03/02/gun_bills_gaping_holes/

Home > News > Boston Globe > Opinion > Editorials

GLOBE EDITORIAL
Gun bill's gaping holes
3/2/2004

FAMILIES OF the victims of the Washington-area snipers would be unable to hold accountable the gun store that somehow "lost" the assault rifle used in the attacks if a bill before the Senate becomes law. This legislation would bestow on gun makers and gun dealers an almost total immunity from civil suits that no other industry enjoys. Senators should reject the measure, which has already been passed by the House.

Firearms and tobacco are already the only two consumer industries that are not subject to federal consumer safety regulations. Tobacco, at least, has been held accountable in suits brought by states and individuals on behalf of smoking's millions of victims and the budget-busting medical bills that government health programs have to pick up because of tobacco use. That legal recourse also would be denied to victims of guns under the bill.

The two shooters in the sniper case are responsible for the deaths they caused. But the gun store in Washington state that cannot locate records of the transaction involving its assault rifle also should be held to account for the negligent or irresponsible way it has trafficked in such dangerous goods.

Each year, several thousand children are shot to death in the United States. Many such killings could be prevented if all manufacturers were required to install safety devices. If one or two courts ruled on behalf of victims and required the gun makers to pay substantial awards, they would be quicker to include foolproof devices on their products. Senators have included an amendment in their version of the immunity bill that mandates child safety locks on all new handguns, but it would be better to do that through separate legislation and just kill the immunity bill.

Other suits now pending in courts aim at both makers and dealers for establishing a distribution system that makes it all too easy for firearms to wind up in the hands of criminals through easily detected "straw purchasers." With Congress so cowed by the gun lobby that it won't crack down on this leaky distribution system, civil suits provide leverage for cities that are particularly victimized by gun violence.

The immunity bill is opposed by many police organizations. William J. Bratton, chief of police in Los Angeles and formerly head of the Boston and New York City departments, recently said it is "crazy" to give gun makers and dealers immunity. With such a law, he asked, "What incentive do they have to make guns with safer designs or what incentive do the handful of bad dealers have to follow the law?"

Those are questions that senators should ask -- and answer honestly -- before they follow the House in passing this badly conceived legislation.

[NickB79]

126. I usually don't put a huge amount of faith in data from editorials

They're not really known for being dead-on factually, or above bending data to reflect their own beliefs.

As for the issue of the gun liability bill protecting the dealer that owned the rifle used by the Beltway Snipers, their info seems off if I'm interpretting the proposed (now dead) bill correctly. Simply put, the bill stated that, if a gun dealer made a legal sale of a firearm to a customer who can legally own firearms, and that customer then used said firearm in a crime, the gun dealer couldn't be held responsible as long as the sale was on the up-and-up. Background check done, made sure it wasn't a straw purchase, 4473 form filled out properly, etc. The gun dealer that sold the gun to the Beltway Snipers, on the other hand, apparently DID NOT conduct a legal sale. There is no record of him selling that rifle to anyone; it simply disappeared. They can't locate the 4473 form with that gun's serial number on it required for a background check, or in any other way confirm the dealer made a legal sale. More likely than not, he sold it out the back door for cash illegally. That would mean that this particular gun dealer would NOT be protected by the gun liability lawsuit.

Once again, people simply do not read the bill before going on an anti-gun, blame-the-NRA rant.

[Robbien]

13. This is a gun package bill

The main bill is to protect the corporates (gun manufacturers) from the liability of being sued by people harmed by guns.

The attachments take away

...Some high powered bullets
...Assualt Weapons
...Gunshow loophole


In our corporatist world, this package bill will surely pass the senate. It still has to go to conference in the house where they have already said they will strip the attachments.

[FeebMaster]

14. I'm surprised so many people

here want to give Ashcroft the power to regulate ammunition.

[mobuto]

16. Who cares?

What, you were going to shoot Ashcroft?

[FeebMaster]

39. I don't understand.

A lot of people on this forum seem to dislike Ashcroft. I just find it surprising that so many are happy to give him the power to regulate ammunition. Maybe the two groups are mutually exclusive. Maybe the Ashcroft haters don't want him regulating ammunition and the people who have no problem with him want him regulating ammunition. I don't know.

[mobuto]

46. No I don't like John Ashcroft

but my personal dislike for him doesn't change the fact that this nation would be a lot safer place with fewer guns on the streets. If you are worried about Ashcroft's power, then the solution is to vote his boss out of office, not to emaciate the Justice Department.

[Columbia]

48. Gun control is not about reducing the number of guns on the street

But about reducing the number of guns in law-abiding hands.

[mobuto]

58. That's nonsense

But about reducing the number of guns in law-abiding hands.

Criminals buy their guns the same places everybody else does. And to the extent that they don't, they steal them from people who do. You reduce the number of guns out there, you reduce the number of gun-related homicides. Its really simple, and its an idea that practically every police force and association in the country subscribes to.

Now some guns are obviously more of a threat than others. That's why gun control advocates target handguns and assault rifles, not hunting rifles or ordinary shotguns. I strongly support hunting, and I enjoy target shooting. But I can't see why we need AR-15s, .50 sniper rifles and handguns freely available to the public.

[Columbia]

62. That's a laugh

That's exactly why prohibition worked so well and the war on drugs is working so well too right?

Let me clue you in on something, criminals will ALWAYS get guns, no matter what law you enact. As you said, it is really quite simple.

[mobuto]

66. Yes, you're absolutely right

Criminals will always have guns. But what they've found in most parts of the developed world is that while you'll never eliminate gun crime, you can reduce it enormously through effective regulation. Britain has a lot more crime, per capita, than the United States. But they only have a fraction of our per capita homicides, because its extremely rare for violent criminals to be able to get their hands on a gun.

[Columbia]

Actually, no

A UN report recently stated that Britain actually has one of the highest rates of crime in developed countries.

If your theory holds true, then Switzerland would also have a high rate of gun crime since they have a high rate of gun ownership. However, they don't and your theory doesn't hold.

The US does not have a gun problem. We have a crime problem which is really just an extension of fallout from poverty and the failed war on drugs.

[mobuto]

74. That's what I just said.

A UN report recently stated that Britain actually has one of the highest rates of crime in developed countries.


I know. Reread my post, and you'll see that's what I said. They have a very high crime rate, but their MURDER rate is very low. Why? Because while there are a lot of criminals out there, they don't have access to guns.

If your theory holds true, then Switzerland would also have a high rate of gun crime since they have a high rate of gun ownership.

There are other factors at stake than rates of gun ownership. Switzerland is a homogenous, settled, largely agrarian country that's been at peace for three hundred years and bears little resemblence to the United States as a whole. You might compare Switzerland to Iowa or Wyoming - all have high rates of gun ownership, but they lack the socio-economic conditions that permit violent crime.

We have a crime problem which is really just an extension of fallout from poverty and the failed war on drugs.

I disagree. I think we have a gun problem AND a problem with the war on drugs AND a problem with poverty. These are not mutually exclusive.

[Columbia]

78. Finally a shred of sense

"There are other factors at stake than rates of gun ownership. Switzerland is a homogenous, settled, largely agrarian country that's been at peace for three hundred years and bears little resemblence to the United States as a whole. You might compare Switzerland to Iowa or Wyoming - all have high rates of gun ownership, but they lack the socio-economic conditions that permit violent crime."

This is the only rational thing I've seen you post all day. These same factors are the ones that affect the US negatively in certain parts. Guns, of which, are the very LEAST of these factors (if any at all). Either way, it does not justify the prohibition of law-abiding citizens their right to defend their home and family with the most effective tools they see fit.

On a side note, are you aware what link is related to 97% of all gun homicides commited in the United States?

[mobuto]

99. How about a nuclear weapon?

Either way, it does not justify the prohibition of law-abiding citizens their right to defend their home and family with the most effective tools they see fit.


You ackonwledge that guns can have a role in increasing murder rates. And yet you still don't want them regulated since that would impinge on law-abiding citizens' ability to defend their homes and family. So if that's the sacred test, why don't I have the right to defend my home with land mines, poison gas, armored personel carriers or Harrier jump jets?

[FeebMaster]

100. I'm invoking McFeeb's Law

and declaring myself the winner of this debate. Thanks for playing.


On edit: Almost 100 posts before the bomb was dropped as it were. I'm impressed.

[Columbia]

107. Doh!

You beat me to it while I was typing!

I'm surprised it took that long too. :)

[FeebMaster]

109. Well in all fairness

he was talking to you, so it's only right that you invoke McFeeb's Law, but I just couldn't resist.

[Columbia]

117. It's ok

Hey, you know what you should do? You should start a wikipedia article so you can claim McFeeb's Law for posterity. Put a link from the Godwin's Law article too.

[FeebMaster]

119. I thought I'd just sit back

and see how far it spreads on it's own. I figure sooner or later it will have spread all over the internet.

Maybe I can copyright it or something. Get $0.05 for every use. Retire and live the good life.

[Columbia]

105. I hereby invoke McFeebs Law

You actually probably could legally use all those things to defend your home (land mines I'm a little sketchy on).

Actually, I never acknowledged that guns have a role in increasing murder rates. I did say they MIGHT be a factor, a small one, but you misinterpret in which direction it factors twowards. My personal belief is that they have a role in DECREASING murder rates. However, statistically this almost impossible to prove as the situations involved use of deadly force or brandishing to prevent an attack are so varied that it would be difficult to quantify.

[pinto]

112. 97% link in gun homicides: the victim knows the perp?

[Columbia]

114. Nope, close though

Guess again

[pinto]

121. victim shot with own gun?

[Columbia]

122. Nope, getting colder

[DoNotRefill]

71. That's horseshit, and you should know better.

"But they only have a fraction of our per capita homicides, because its extremely rare for violent criminals to be able to get their hands on a gun."

Britain also has very few homicides committed WITHOUT guns, when compared to the US homicide rate for those murders committed without guns.

If Britain's low homicide rate is caused by of scarcity of guns instead of the simple fact that people there don't kill each other, then their non-gun homicide rate should be much higher.

[mobuto]

98. Actually the statistics work

According to the UNODC, Britain has far more homicides committed without guns than with guns (1.22/100,000 for non-gun vs .12/100,000 with guns).

If Britain's low homicide rate is caused by of scarcity of guns instead of the simple fact that people there don't kill each other, then their non-gun homicide rate should be much higher.

I never said it was. But what I did say is that scarcity of guns results in low rates of gun-homicide. Criminals don't smuggle large quantities of guns into the country, or anything along those lines. And since guns are more lethal than other weapons, they have the tendency of allowing more murders (as opposed to assaults) than otherwise would occur.

[DoNotRefill]

108. Hmmmm....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/0,2759,178412,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,2763,1131902,00.html

"A father and son, described as quartermasters to the underworld, were found guilty yesterday of supplying criminals with thousands of deactivated guns, and tools to convert them back to live weapons."

http://www.nisat.org/blackmarket/europe/Central_Europe/United_Kingdom/2001.03.25-Yard%20swoops%20on%20arms%20haul%20in%20London.html



Looks like they're smuggling in more than enough for criminal needs...

[NickB79]

69. Criminals shop at gun stores?

"Criminals buy their guns the same places everybody else does."

Thats weird, because the instant background checks search for criminal records of the applicant and deny them if they find any. And I can't remember the last time I bought a stolen gun from someone on the street, so I don't think I shop for guns where criminals do.

"You reduce the number of guns out there, you reduce the number of gun-related homicides."

But oddly enough, we have more guns in this country than any other time in history, and the number of homicides committed using firearms have reached lows not seen since the 1970's. That rate began falling in the early 1990's (about a year or so before the 1994 AWB went into effect), and at the same time, gun sales were booming as people benefitted from the growing economy. Similarly, over that same time period, over 30 states legalized conceal-carry legislation, putting more guns on the streets. Only over the past 2-3 years has that trend reversed, coinciding with the tanking economy. Odd, don't you think?

[mobuto]

87. Yes criminals shop at the same places everybody else does

Your instant background check doesn't apply to our nation's gun shows, for instance, nor does it apply to people who have yet to commit a crime, nor does it prevent criminals from stealing guns from persons with clean criminal records, nor does it prevent criminals from getting their girlfriends or their roommates to buy their guns for them, etc. The way it is now, anybody who wants a gun can get one. Very easily.

But oddly enough, we have more guns in this country than any other time in history, and the number of homicides committed using firearms have reached lows not seen since the 1970's.

And that's despite the chilling effects of the AWB! The reason violent crime declined in the 1990s was because socio-economic conditions improved, prison sentences got much longer and drug dealers' tactics changed. We've been able to avoid meaningful gun control by building prisons every 150 feet and locking up more of our citizens than any other country in the world. That's hardly satisfactory.

[DoNotRefill]

94. Heh...

"Your instant background check doesn't apply to our nation's gun shows, for instance, nor does it apply to people who have yet to commit a crime, nor does it prevent criminals from stealing guns from persons with clean criminal records, nor does it prevent criminals from getting their girlfriends or their roommates to buy their guns for them, etc. The way it is now, anybody who wants a gun can get one. Very easily."

Instant background checks do apply to gun shows, just not to private individuals. EVERY dealer at a gun show is by law required to conduct background checks. As for the rest of your list, everything you mentioned is illegal. Theft of a gun is a felony. Roommies or girlfriends buying guns for criminals is a felony (called a "straw purchase", in case you aren't up with the lingo). If you want to get a gun, and are willing to break the law, you can. How will your plan make that any different? After all, if you're willing to break a bunch of laws already, what does breaking one more mean?

As to the chilling effect of the AWB, WTF are you talking about? If you knew anything about the gun market, you'd know that manufacturers just left off the "evil features" like muzzle breaks and bayonet lugs. The AW ban did NOTHING to reduce the raw firepower available. If anything, it spurred on a buying spree of "neutered" AWs, INCREASING the raw firepower available. And while this buying spree was going on, crime continued to drop, as it had before the ban.

[NickB79]

95. Yes, background checks DO apply to gun shows

The VAST majority of gun dealers at gun shows are licensed dealers. As such, they are REQUIRED by law to do background checks, even at gun shows. They simply call the info into the BATF using their cellphones. Many gun shows don't even allow non-dealers to sell their private collections any longer due to liability concerns. Have you been to a gun show? Every table you look to has someone on the phone with a 4473 form in front of him calling in the background check.

[FeebMaster]

81. Freely available, right.

Yeah they're giving them away.

[mobuto]

15. Russ Feingold voted AGAINST the Assault Weapons Ban

Why did he do that?

[Columbia]

18. Maybe he's smart enough to realize that it's a feel good measure

That does nothing to reduce crime?

[Robbien]

19. Russ Feingold is against the liability bill

he has repeatedly said that since Bush&Co has come into office, Bush is more interested in protecting the rights of gun manufacturers rather than the rights of American citizens.

So Feingold is against the whole gun bill package and has voted No right down the line on every amendment and will vote no to the final vote on the package bill.

[NewJerseyDem]

63. Feingold voted for the Corzine amendment

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00022

[Dolomite]

45. Russ said several times he wouldn't vote to renew the AWB.<nt>

[swinney]

20. Flabbergasted

How any human could vote to Ban Assault Weapons?

I need an AK-47 mounted on my Jeep for hunting squirrels.

My neighbor has mean looking dog so I need protection.

I cannot hit target with .22 rifle so I need automatic AK-47.

Darn you Liberals. How can you do this to me?

Have you not heard of the Second Amendment? I belong to a Militia.
The North Carolina Hesse Jelms kill all N----- Militia. I need assault weapons darn it.

I want to kill. It is in my liberal blood.

[mobuto]

22. In all fairness

Automatic AK-47s would be illegal regardless. All machine guns, in fact, have been illegal since the 1930s. Its possible to support the AWB (I do) without mischaracterizing it.

[FeebMaster]

44. Technically, machine guns

aren't illegal, at least not in most states. They're just heavily regulated and extremely expensive due to all the regulations.

[mobuto]

47. Ok, fine

Machine guns aren't illegal, it just requires a lot more effort to get them than any two-bit drug dealer is going to provide.

[DoNotRefill]

50. Ummm....

drug dealers engage in commerce of prohibited substances, right?

If drug dealers wanted machineguns, what makes you think they'd get them legally? If they can smuggle in tons of cocaine, they can smuggle in tons of machineguns, can't they?

[mobuto]

68. Except they don't

My city has been torn apart by gun-related violence for decades, now. And you know what? I don't think I have ever heard of any one being machine-gunned. I'm not going to say it hasn't happened, but if it has, its extraordinarily rare. Drug dealers get what weapons are easily available. In Colombia, they're RPGs and M-16s. In this country, they're handguns. In England, they're knives and brass knuckles and whatnot. Well, handguns are a hell of a lot more lethal than brass knuckles.

[DoNotRefill]

79. So, by your line of reasoning...

if we got rid of all legal firearms in this country, drug dealers would use knives and brass knuckles and whatnot?

That's not remotely realistic...

[NickB79]

51. Yes

And that extensive effort required to legally own one has been in place since the 1930's. It is independent of renewal of the 1994 AWB, since the AWB does not even address fully automatic weapons.

[mobuto]

70. Yup

The solution therefore is to increase the power and scope of the AWB, put heavy regulations on hand guns, and watch the murder rate fall.

[Columbia]

72. Haha

The only thing that would fall is the Democrats from power. Is that something you want? If so, keep on keepin' on with your authoritarian anti-gun bent.

[mobuto]

80. Authoritarian?

There's no need to name-call. I understand the problems Democrats face in states with long histories of high gun ownership. I've worked on campaigns in such states and I know what we're up against. What needs to be made clear to voters is that nobody is trying to take away anybody's right to hunt or to sport shoot. Hunters are great people and they're not the enemy.

[FeebMaster]

83. Yeah.

Until they get around to banning sniper rifles.

[NickB79]

90. I can already imagine how that would go

Definition of a sniper rifle:

-fires a high-power cartridge (um, like my .308 uses?)
-uses a high-magnification telescopic sight (again, like my deer rifle?)
-has the ability to hit a target at a half-mile (not unreasonable, given a skilled hunter shooting at a deer-sized target)
-has "tactical features" that make it more portable (like my synthetic stock to reduce weight?)
-has a "hair trigger" (which means any trigger you don't need a tow truck to pull)

Ugh, slippery slope ahead.

[FeebMaster]

93. Well with the Kennedy amendment

they won't have to bother. John Ashcroft or whoever else happens to be in charge when they get around to it can just ban the ammunition.

[NickB79]

96. Note to self

Buy more reloading supplies. Hmmm, I don't know if 8 lbs of gunpowder will last me, maybe I should get 16.

[FeebMaster]

103. That's an interesting point.

If it had passed and they decided that all .308 ammunition was armor piercing and therefor illegal, I would guess that they wouldn't look kindly on manufacturing it for yourself.

[Columbia]

89. Yup

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=authoritarian

Main Entry: au·thor·i·tar·i·an
Pronunciation: o-"thär-&-'ter-E-&n, &-, -"thor-
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority <had authoritarian parents>
2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
- authoritarian noun

I apologize if you don't like the label, but gun control IS an authoritarian idea, especially the broad type you advocating. There is no getting around it. The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting.

[NickB79]

76. Except that the murder rate has been dropping as MORE guns

become available. Gun sales boomed throughout the 90's, as did concealed-carry legislation in 30+ states. Sales of AR-15's and AK47 clones weren't even phased by the AWB; manufacturers simply removed the bayonet lugs, collapsible stocks and flash hiders, and sold 10-rd mags instead of 30-rd. There are still hundreds of thousands of pre-ban high-capacity magazines available that are perfectly legal to own and sell that fit these modified rifles. As the number of guns in the US went up, the crime rate still fell. We saw the murder rate fall already, but it seems it was independent of the 1994 AWB.

[FeebMaster]

77. Actually

someone who wanted a machine gun regardless of the law could get one a lot faster and a whole lot cheaper than if they decided to take the legal route.

[Columbia]

25. Most people share your sentiments

As in they are misled about what the AWB really is. They believe it is a ban on automatic weapons, but in reality is a ban on certain cosmetic features on semi-auto weapons. Don't be ashamed though, a lot of Senators don't know what it is either.

[mobuto]

28. Certain cosmetic features?

In 1994, the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was passed. This law banned rifles that had detachable magazines and two or more of the following characteristics:

A folding or telescoping stock
A pistol grip
A bayonet mount
A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one (a flash suppressor reduces the amount of flash that the rifle shot makes. It is the small birdcage-like item on the muzzle of the rifle)
A grenade launcher.


So which two of the above do you consider essential?

[Columbia]

30. Which do you consider excessive?

And grenade launchers are already regulated as destructive devices so don't pretend that this legislation in anyway stopped the sale of grenade launchers.

edit fer spellin'

[mobuto]

52. Which are excessive? LOL

All of them. Pistol grips especially, because they make it possible to shoot from the hip. Now I don't pretend to know a whole lot about hunting, but if I had to guess I'd wager that most firing is done either from the shoulder or prone. The only purpose of a pistol grip is to kill people. On certain weapons, pistol grips are combined with the stock to reduce the overall length of the weapon, enhancing concealability. Again, that's great for shooting up banks and schools, but not so useful for legitimate purposes.

Folding stocks reduce the overall length of the weapon, again for purposes of concealement.

Bayonet stocks - bayonetings aren't a major scourge, but remember than bayonets are not useful for anything other than killing people. Unless you can run 25mph through underbrush, then you might bayonet a deer.

[Columbia]

56. You show incredible lack of knowledge

Beware the evil, killer pistol grip.



I started this post to list all the inaccuracies in your post, but frankly I've done that too much today and it's getting awfully tiring. Maybe someone else will come along and do it.

[NickB79]

57. Shooting from the hip?

"The only purpose of a pistol grip is to kill people."

That seems to follow the usual "pistol grips let you shoot from the hip, killing more people" argument. If you want to kill someone, you need to first hit them, and that requires accuracy. Firing from the hip is one of the least accurate ways of firing a weapon, as you have much less control over exactly where the muzzle of your rifle is pointing. It isn't called "spray and pray" for nothing; you have to pray you actually hit something.

Also, as has already been addressed, a folding stock on a 16-20" barrelled rifle still leaves you with 2 feet of weapon to conceal, weighing 6-9 lbs. Not exactly as simple as it sounds.

As for bayonets, exactly, they aren't a major scourge. Why waste time and money enforcing something that no one uses for criminal activities? They're not needed, but they're also not a danger.

[DoNotRefill]

75. The use of bayonet lugs....

goes far beyond mounting bayonets. They're also used to mount other accessories, like bipods (useful for prone shooting) and flashlights (useful for target identification in self-defense situations).

You obviously don't know much about the practical aspects of shooting. You can shoot just as effectively from the hip with a normally stocked rifle as you can with a rifle that has a pistol grip. A prime example of this is the 1918 Browning Automatic Rifle, which was meant to be predominantly fired from the hip while moving forward. It didn't have a pistol grip, and had a "regular" stock, and worked just fine in the from the hip capacity.

BTW, when was the last time somebody got impaled on a pistol grip? Because that's the ONLY way a pistol grip can kill somebody...

[FeebMaster]

86. Overall length

of rifles and shotguns has been regulated since 1934. 26" minimum as I recall.

[Romulus]

31. A better question

is to ask which of those banned featues affect the functioning of the firearm so as to make it "more lethal" than any other semi-automtic firearm.

[saigon68]

33. Bayonet mount:

All armed robbers use bayonets to scare their victims into giving up the cash.

[Spider Jerusalem]

34. Of those, grenade launchers are already regulated...

and as to the others, the folding stock increases portability, but doesn't really make the weapon very concealable (these ARE AK-47/M-16 class weapons we're talking about); I wasn't aware that there was a serious problem with people being bayoneted, so disallowing bayonet lugs likewise seems silly; it is NOT POSSIBLE to eliminate the muzzle flash from a firearm, all the flash suppressor does is reduce the amount of muzzle flash exposure a shooter recieves when firing the weapon; and a pistol grip permits of easier firing from the hip than a straight stock, but accuracy goes to hell and full-auto weapons (the only weapons where firing from the hip rather than the shoulder is really effective) are already banned.

This is a totally ridiculous law, designed to appease people who know absolutely NOTHING about the subject but want the government to crack down on guns...nothing more, nothing less...

[DoNotRefill]

41. Well, the legislation put an end to random drive-by bayonetings....

didn't it? Oh, wait....when was the last random drive-by bayoneting BEFORE the ban???

I've not heard of many people being killed by a rifle stock, being it collapseable or not. Actually, for sheer lethality, a fixed buttstock is better than a folding buttstock, since you can beat somebody to death ("buttstroke" them is the technical term) with a fixed stock, and it's harder to do with a folding or collapseable stock, since they break much easier.

The legislation banned integral grenade launchers. Where do you get grenades for them? Are rifle grenades a real problem? Hell, are ANY grenades a real problem?

It was stupid when it was passed the first time, and it's stupid now.

[mobuto]

53. You left out pistol grips

the purpose of which is to allow one to shoot from the hip, and in many cases it is to reduce the length of the rifle thus concealing the weapon. Shooting from the hip is inaccurate, which means its not used for hunting, but it is quick - which makes it attractive for gangs. Concealed weapons are convenient for robberies, terrorism, etc. Folding buttstocks again enhance concealability.

[NickB79]

60. How often are rifles used in robberies?

The vast majority of firearms used in crimes are cheaply made small-caliber pistols and sawed off shotguns. The percentage of pistol-gripped, folding-stocked firearms used in crimes are miniscule.

Oh, and sawed-off shotguns are very concealable and deadly but lack a pistol grip or folding stock. Hmmm.....

[mobuto]

64. Pistol-grip shotguns

are just as concealable as the sawed off variety.

But I agree with you that assault rifles aren't the biggest problem. That's why the next step is to go beyond this to put heavy restrictions on the availability of all handguns.

[NickB79]

82. Actually, pistol-gripped shotguns are LESS concealable

As has already been pointed out by other posters, the pistol grip protrudes down below the gun, making it more cumbersome to deal with concealed. A straight-gripped shotgun, simply sawed off at the wrist, would be much more concealable because the whole gun becomes essentially a straight line shape.

[DoNotRefill]

84. Not true...

Shotgun barrels must by law be 18 inches long. If you cut it down to 4 inches, it's much more concealable than a shotgun with a legal barrel and a pistol grip. And you neglected to mention that if you're sawing the barrel off a shotgun, you already have the tools at hand to saw a conventional stock off, too.

[FeebMaster]

91. They still have to conform

to the minimum length of 26" to be legal and have since 1934.

[DoNotRefill]

67. Folding buttstocks enhance concealability?

Say what? Does the presence of a folding stock negate the overall length requirements for rifles (16 inch barrel, 26 or 28 inch overall) in Federal law? That's a new one to me, and I hope you can cite the code that says that...

As for shooting from the hip, how exactly does a pistol grip make that easier? I've got rifles without pistol grips, and they shoot just as well from the hip as rifles WITH pistol grips. The only difference is the angle of your wrist, which doesn't really matter. After all, as you pointed out, accuracy isn't an issue when shooting from the hip...

Pistol grips make rifles HARDER to conceal, since they protrude below the action of the gun conspicuously, while a normally stocked rifle doesn't have that protrusion.

Look at pics of them side-by-side, and you'll see what I mean. A "regular" stocked rifle is much slimmer than a pistol gripped varsion.

[FeebMaster]

88. And as we all know

people in gangs who intend to commit robberies, terrorism, etc. are very interested in obeying laws, especially firearms laws.

[DoNotRefill]

40. Hate to tell you this....

but the "right" people will ALWAYS have guns. Even if they didn't, they'd still be able to raise a lynch mob if they wanted to go after you. Would you be safer in a world where only the right has guns and where mob violence rules, or in a world where you have equal access to weapons that you can use to defend yourself?

I live literally next door to a crack house. If they can get and sell crack, they obviously don't give a shit about the law, be it the drug laws or the gun laws. Since crack isn't an indigenous product, they obviously can import stuff from overseas, too. If they can import cocaine, they can import illegal guns. I feel a LOT safer with an ultra-high capacity "assault" rifle in the house, complete with a 75 round ammunition drum on it. Could they "get me" if they wanted? Probably. But a lot of them would die trying, and it wouldn't be because I ran out of ammo or was changing magazines.

[saigon68]

36. Actually the ruling class does not want peasants to own guns.

They (The Peasants)may decide one day to take their guns and their pitch-forks and in a serious way go after their tormenters.

They (The Ruling Class)remember Budapest 1956 and Warsaw Ghetto 1943, in an all too serious way.

[mobuto]

55. The Ruling Class?

Are they related to The Powers That Be?

There is no ruling class. Sorry.

[Columbia]

59. Ever listen to Edwards speech, "Two Americas"?

You should, it's very enlightening.

[mobuto]

102. Oh sure I have

And I agree that there are huge divisions of wealth and opportunity in this country. But there is no ruling class.

[Columbia]

123. Who do you think can afford armed bodyguards?

Certainly not lowly serfs such as you and me.

[saigon68]

124. You can't debate with certain people

When the public is armed, their rights aren't so easily taken away.

[leanings]

37. I always find it amusing

to watch people rail and scream and shudder about what a totalitarian and facist government we live under and then turn around and applaud whilst that same government defangs and declaws the citizenry.

[saigon68]

61. You are right

I could engage in a debate with the above---- who refuses to believe there is a "RULING CLASS" but I won't--, waste my time.

[Zhade]

104. Well-said.

Remember, Hitler tracked the guns, too - before he confiscated them.

[saigon68]

120. Old Adoph didn't like it when the Jews of Warsaw (1943) obtained guns

And took revenge on the SS thugs who were exterminating them. Many of these concentration camp "Graduates" went on to form the country of Israel.

Some democrats want to be subjects of Asscraps right wing security forces.

[slackmaster]

43. Thus effectively killing the gun manufacturer liability bill

There will be no assault-weapons ban renewal.

[NewJerseyDem]

65. They'll just take it out in conference

However, I believe that the gun liability bill will pass the Senate and the House and the final product won't have the assault weapons ban extension.

[Mr. Brown of MD]

85. I dunno if S. 1805 is going to pass

That's the gun liability bill in the Senate. Senators Reed (D-RI) and Craig (R-ID) just finished their closing remarks, and both urged that the bill not pass.

Most Dems think that it's a flawed bill that hasn't been fixed enough to merit passage. Apparently Republicans have come to think that it was a "clean" bill that has been "dramatically wounded" and should no longer be supported.

The final vote is happening right now. So I guess we'll see what happens.

-CollegeDude
6 minutes to go

[NewJerseyDem]

92. I guess it will be defeated

It seems as if only the democrats who supported it and a few republicans will vote for it. That is surprising but good.

[Columbia]

97. It's dead

[Robbien]

106. Yep, dead. Gun package bill failed.

[NewJerseyDem]

110. Democrats refused to let bill go to conference

Apparently, the democrats killed the bill by announcing that they would stop a conference from taking place and therefore preventing the republicans from stripping out the assault weapons ban and other gun control provisions in the back rooms of conference negotiations. Also, the NRA called up republicans and told them to vote no because the assault weapons ban was involved. It seems to me that democrats did a very good job in out-maneuvering the republicans and defeating this bad bill.

[DoNotRefill]

113. Of course....

this means the AW ban will sunset in under 200 days...

[NickB79]

115. So, can the gun liability protection bill be reintroduced?

Or is it completely dead?

[NewJerseyDem]

116. It will be reintroduced

I'm not even sure if it is technically dead and may still exist.

The republicans are going to try to get it passed but they aren't going to get the bill passed unless they accept the assault weapons ban. Every time that the republicans bring the bill back, the democrats and their republican allies will simply amend the bill to include the assault weapons bill and then the republicans will vote against the bill because it isn't "clean."

My guess is that the republicans may try to bring it up close to the election if they think they can get a few senators to switch their votes to win reelection. They might just wait to next year and see if the new senate makeup is more gun-friendly.

[NickB79]

125. Thank goodness

There's still hope yet that it can be passed. Good news then, the AWB is less then 200 days from sunsetting AND we can still get the liability protection needed. Not nearly as gloomy of a day as it seemed then.

[Dolomite]

101. You called it! <nt>

[DoNotRefill]

111. Gone, Daddy Gone....

the entire bill just went down to defeat, 90 to 8.

[nayt]

129. looks like

i'll be replacing that ass-ugly dragunov stock on my wasr-10 with the classic pistol grip combo on september 14. and finding a 30-round mag for my sks.