Dear Mr. :
Thank you for contacting me about gun commerce legislation. I appreciate hearing from you.
As you know, in March the Senate considered S. 1805, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This bill would have required the Department of Commerce to maintain a list of businesses and individuals who notify the Department that they manufacture or sell firearms, or represent organizations that manufacture or sell firearms for interstate or foreign commerce. It further protected any person or business, or representative of a person or business who lawfully engages in interstate or foreign commerce of firearms from restrictions on commerce. These restrictions include civil penalties or other limitations ordered by federal, state, or local courts.
After consideration the Senate rejected S. 1805 by a vote of 8-90. I voted against final passage of this bill. Like many Americans, I believe that lawful manufacturers or sellers of firearms should have the right to participate in legal interstate and foreign commerce.
However, I am concerned about how this bill would have affected legitimate lawsuits against firearms manufacturers and sellers for their negligent acts. This bill's prohibitions against restrictions on commerce could provide an unintended shield for firearm manufacturers and sellers that engage in dangerous and harmful activities. I was also concerned that this legislation singles out one industry for special protections, while others do not receive similar treatment.
During consideration of S. 1805 several amendments were offered to the bill. These included amendments to: provide reciprocity for law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons; to regulate the sale of armor piercing bullets; to close the gun show loophole; and to ensure that the families of fatal shooting victims could access the federal courts. These Amendments passed along with several others. Since S. 1805 received only eight supporting votes, it is clear that while supporting reasonable gun safety measures the Senate rejects the idea of special treatment for one industry.
As a U.S. Senator, I support common sense gun control legislation that reduces gun violence while providing the least possible inconvenience to law abiding gun owners. Rest assured, should legislation similar to S. 1805 come before the Senate, I will keep your concerns in mind.
Again, thank you for contacting me. If I can be of service in the future, please be in touch.
United States Senator
I've been up now for about 18 hours, and really don't feel like pointing out the BS contained in her email.
This seems to be a recurring Democrap theme: Placate the gun owners untill after the election, and THEN we'll f*ck 'em over.
Thought you guys would want to see this.
None of which is reflected by the bills she supports and votes for....
When you have some spare time give her office a call and ask them exactly which of the current lawsuits she finds to be legitimate? Let them know you are asking because you'd like to research the difference between those, if they know of any that are legitimate, and all the totally bogus lawsuits that have either gotten thrown out of court, dropped by the plaintiffs, or the plaintiff flot out lost the case.
If they give you the run around ask them if you can simply list a few for them and they can tell you legitimate or not
Penelas v. Arms Technology, Inc.,
Dismissed December 13, 1999
Ganim v. Smith & Wesson, Inc (Bridegport Ct v. S&W)
On January 27, 1999 the City of Bridgeport, Connecticut filed suit against 18 gun manufacturers, 3 industry trade associations, and numerous local gun dealers and pawn shops.
Dismissed December 10, 1999.
Appeal Dismissed by the Supreme Court of Connecticut October 9, 2001.
City of Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.
On April 28, 1999 the City of Cincinnati in filing a lawsuit against 16 gun manufacturers and 3 gun industry trade associations
Suit dropped May 14, 2003.
City of St. Louis v. Cernicek
On April 30, 1999, the City of St. Louis filed a lawsuit against 25 gun manufacturers and distributors, 2 dealers, and 3 industry trade associations.
Dismissed July 27, 2004.
City of Boston v. Smith & Wesson Corp.
On March 27, 2002, Boston settled and dismissed it's case.
A pledge was made to form a joint council with the City of Boston to address the continuing problem of gun violence in Boston.
City of Camden v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp
On June 21, 1999, the City of Camden filed a lawsuit against 19 manufacturers and distributors and 3 industry trade associations.
The case was dismissed by the trial court.
Sills v. Smith & Wesson Corp.
On September 29, 1999, Mayor James H. Sills, Jr., and the City of Wilmington filed suit against twelve gun manufacturers and three industry trade groups.
The court granted defendants' summary judgment motion..
There are more but anyone can see where it leads to.
The first line that jumped out at me was:
OK, so you voted against the FINAL passage. How did you vote before the bills own sponser requested it be killed?
You'll notice she makes reference to several amendments that were tacked onto this bill...EXCEPT for the attempt for an AWB renewal.
well then...you other 10%...Here ya go!
Is this the same Patty Murray that went to the high school last year and said Osama Bin Laden was a good and respected person in Iraq? She said Bin Laden is building schools, daycare centers and many homes for the deprived people of Iraq.
I hear OBL is the only one that got a personalized reply!