Posted: 3/2/2004 6:32:46 PM EDT
|
If the Democrats really thought that an ammendment to the immunity bill was the best and only way to get the AWB renewal passed than why in the world was it voted down 90 to 9 in the end? Furthermore, why would they have voted it down after achieving sucsess with the renewal ammendment if this would effectivly destroy any possibility of having a renewal or new AWB voted on before the sunset, as many people here are claiming? I bring this up because I have read several times here that the Democrats planned their whole AWB strategy around getting it renewed in an attachment to the immunity bill, hence the return of Edwards and Kerry. If this was the case, then I would expect that once the ammendment was attached that the Democrats would actually push hard for the passage of the complete bill. Is it possibile that another new bill could be introduced for a stand alone renewal or expansion before the sunset in 94, or even as an ammendment to other legislation? I know this had been talked about much, but no where have I seen these issues explained. |
|
You folks should check out Neal Knox's assessment of S. 1805. [url=http://www.nealknox.com/alerts/msg00194.html]S. 1805 Up: Don't Help Schumer Kill It[/url] According to Mr. Knox, we should've let the bill go to the House committee where some of the bad admendment would be striped off baring that we could not kill off the offending admendments, the House could've killed the bill outright, unfortunately, the antis/Dems raised the stakes so high that the pro-gunners folded. I have followed Mr. Knox for many years, now and I find he is right on more times than he is wrong. Too bad the gunners blinked, we could've had the liability exemption bill and have the AWB expired. This was Chuck Schumer's way of killing this bill, and he won. |
|
Quoted: If the Democrats really thought that an ammendment to the immunity bill was the best and only way to get the AWB renewal passed than why in the world was it voted down 90 to 9 in the end? Furthermore, why would they have voted it down after achieving sucsess with the renewal ammendment if this would effectivly destroy any possibility of having a renewal or new AWB voted on before the sunset, as many people here are claiming? I bring this up because I have read several times here that the Democrats planned their whole AWB strategy around getting it renewed in an attachment to the immunity bill, hence the return of Edwards and Kerry. If this was the case, then I would expect that once the ammendment was attached that the Democrats would actually push hard for the passage of the complete bill. Is it possibile that another new bill could be introduced for a stand alone renewal or expansion before the sunset in 94, or even as an ammendment to other legislation? I know this had been talked about much, but no where have I seen these issues explained. Ask yourself the obvious question. Where was the AWB extension bill in the House? There WAS a Gun Maker Immunity bill but no AWB extension. The House appparently is not down with an AWB extension bill so the Democrats next best bet is to see how seriously the Republicans want the GM Immunity bill by attaching the AWB extension in the senate version. They do this because (guessing) enough Republicans have determined the issue will hurt them in elections, either this year or the next round. The AWB however is weak enough in the Senate that they cannot get it as a stand alone bill so their only choice is to attach it as an amendment to something tasty for Republicans. Maybe we have a shift of power in the Senate for the Republicans and they can handle this better but party lines alone dictated it would be close. Some high profile senators have hung their hat on this issue for so long they can't back down now. Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, Kennedy, et al are not seriously challenged by opponents in their states so they can campaign emotionally and get away with it. Their constituents love demagogues. |
|
Neal Knox's approach is nice in theory, but too dangerous. The bad parts of campaign finance reform were supposed to be stripped out in the house / senate conference as well. The bill passed with bad parts intact and was signed and held up to supreme court review. Now we're stuck with an infringement of our 1st amendment rights. The only safe bet was to kill the bill when we had the chance. It can always be brought up again. |
|
Quoted: Neal Knox's approach is nice in theory, but too dangerous. The bad parts of campaign finance reform were supposed to be stripped out in the house / senate conference as well. The bill passed with bad parts intact and was signed and held up to supreme court review. Now we're stuck with an infringement of our 1st amendment rights. The only safe bet was to kill the bill when we had the chance. It can always be brought up again. One thing we had to be wary of is "JoeMentum". Had they succeeded in passing the AWB extension, the momentum and media play surrounding such a Democratic victory in the Senate could have really put a lot more pressure on fence-sitting moderate House members coming up for votes in a few months. Stop the momentum before it has a chance to grow. Nip it in the bud. Just kill it. Larry Craig and the Repubs done good - as good as they could've considering this was the SENATE. |
| The Dems knew the AWB Extension wasn't going to pass..That's why it was only an extension rather than a fortification and a bill to make it permenant..They were testing the water to see who would vote to renew it so they can come in with a bill of their own. Let's just hope the Reps screw it up like the dems did ours.... |
|
Quoted: The Dems knew the AWB Extension wasn't going to pass..That's why it was only an extension rather than a fortification and a bill to make it permenant..They were testing the water to see who would vote to renew it so they can come in with a bill of their own. Let's just hope the Reps screw it up like the dems did ours.... They allready have 4+ stand alone bills... The GOP has stuck said bills where the sun don't shine long before this, and won't pull them out... And after this, I doubt any member of the GOP leadership will be willing to 'play nice' and let them vote on the AWB... We don't have to play ammendment games... The benefits of majority, ya see... |
|
Quoted: You folks should check out Neal Knox's assessment of S. 1805. [url=http://www.nealknox.com/alerts/msg00194.html]S. 1805 Up: Don't Help Schumer Kill It[/url] According to Mr. Knox, we should've let the bill go to the House committee where some of the bad admendment would be striped off baring that we could not kill off the offending admendments, the House could've killed the bill outright, unfortunately, the antis/Dems raised the stakes so high that the pro-gunners folded. I have followed Mr. Knox for many years, now and I find he is right on more times than he is wrong. Too bad the gunners blinked, we could've had the liability exemption bill and have the AWB expired. This was Chuck Schumer's way of killing this bill, and he won. Accurate assessment, IMO. We lost yesterday. Merlin |
|
I think their strategy was this: Put the republicans in a situation, where in order to protect the gun industry's financial interests, they had to damage the individual citizens' gun rights. The democrats and their feckless anti-gun republican allies held a gun to the American Gun Owners head, and forced the Republicans to choose. Had the Republicans allowed the amendments to go through, the Dems would have been able to paint the republicans as "in the pocket of the Gun Industry" and "unconcerned with individuals' gun rights". Thankfully, the Republicans stood their ground. |
|
Remember, eternal vigilance... That said, I think that this (the immunity bill) was a sacrificial lamb. All that we have to do is get a blanket tort reform bill passed, which will accomplish everything this bill would have, and will also stop all those fat fucks suing mcdonalds cause they can't put the big mac down, etc. etc. etc. All of the republican leadership has said that they want tort reform, and a general bill like that (not specifically aimed at gun makers) has a good chance of getting some democrat votes (the ones not on the payroll of the trial lawyers). As the case law builds up more and more, it gets more and more likely that these cases will be thrown out immediately also. This still leaves the issue open to judges in anti-gun areas who will still be able to make the cases go on long enough to still be a pain for the gun makers, but it will get better over time. |
|
Neil Knox is wrong. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she had secured a “commitment” from Daschle not to go to conference unless he received assurance that the assault-weapons ban would remain in the final bill. (From [url=http://www.thehill.com/news/030304/guns.aspx]The Hill[/url]). We had nothing to gain from going to conference. The renewal was not going to be stripped. Either the bill dies now, the conference fails or the Republicans compromise. At least killing it now leaves no chance that the AWB renewal would pass. |
|
Quoted: Is it true that the republicans could have prevented any amendments from being voted on? If they had planned on tanking the whole thing if the AWB got attached, then why didn't they just try to force a vote on the clean bill? It is possible, IIRC, but I'm not sure if they would have had the votes to skip the amendment process. Not 100% sure on the senate rules but I think that requires a 2/3 majority? I still think the best option is to introduce a bill that does this same thing, but for ALL industries, not just gun makers. That would keep the democrats from politicizing, and forces them into showing just how deep in the pockets of the trial lawyers they are. |
| I try and find the good in all situations...this bill did one thing, it drew all of those politicans out and made them take a stand for or against this bill. In the past we've accused several in the GOP of being RINO's...well boys we now have a list of anti-second amendment senators in which to target in November. It should be the mission of every board memember to see that they do what they can to drum up support against those that voted for the Feinstein amendment. Bayh come up in November and Luger in two years. They can count on me to do whatever I need to in order to support their challanger. |
|
The solution to the gun manufacturer suits is a simple one: Loser Pays. In most other countries, it is the loser in a civil case who must pay the winner's legal costs. This has a tremendous dampening effect on frivolous lawsuits. Since the gun grabbers have essentially admitted that the lawsuits are a way to bankrupt the gun industry, Loser Pays would put a stop to these [i]post haste[/i]. Loser Pays also avoids the issue of appearing to favor one industry, and still leaves the courthouse door open for those with a strong case. BTW, we won a big, although not un-alloyed, victory yesterday. |
|
Quoted: I try and find the good in all situations...this bill did one thing, it drew all of those politicans out and made them take a stand for or against this bill. In the past we've accused several in the GOP of being RINO's...well boys we now have a list of anti-second amendment senators in which to target in November. It should be the mission of every board memember to see that they do what they can to drum up support against those that voted for the Feinstein amendment. Bayh come up in November and Luger in two years. They can count on me to do whatever I need to in order to support their challanger. This is exactly what Wayne LaPeiere said last night on ABC news. Sending messages in the Novemeber election. |
|
Here's my version of why they voted it down.... They saw that they have votes for renewal of AWB, loophole, ninja bullets, etc. They felt no need to compromise on the liability. They'll push a "clean" AWB bill after the elections and won't have to give up manufacturer liability to get it. |
|
Here's another scenario to ponder: Had they passed the 1805 with the AWB amendment and the House approved it, we have a final result of gun makers get off the hook from lawsuits but we still can't have bayo lugs & flash hiders. Now, the ANTI's say the lawsuit part of the bill is unconstitutional and it gets thrown into limbo in the courts. We all know how this goes... so the gun makers then AREN'T OFF THE HOOK TIL FURTHER NOTICE (SCOTUS ruling) and we are then STUCK with another 10-year AWB. Something to think about. F.A.S. Out |
|
Quoted: The solution to the gun manufacturer suits is a simple one: Loser Pays. In most other countries, it is the loser in a civil case who must pay the winner's legal costs. This has a tremendous dampening effect on frivolous lawsuits. Since the gun grabbers have essentially admitted that the lawsuits are a way to bankrupt the gun industry, Loser Pays would put a stop to these [i]post haste[/i]. Loser Pays also avoids the issue of appearing to favor one industry, and still leaves the courthouse door open for those with a strong case. BTW, we won a big, although not un-alloyed, victory yesterday. Would be nice... Then we could get rid of the lawyer jokes (ex the ones about defense attorneys), and the annoying 'Warning, this KNIFE may CUT YOU' stickers, etc... |