I find this hard to believe.

[strut]

Fairfax, VA -- The National Rifle Association (NRA) is pleased that Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) has joined 54 of his colleagues as a co-sponsor of S. 659, the " Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act." This legislation will protect America' s firearms manufacturers and dealers from malicious lawsuits aimed at bankrupting a law-abiding American industry.



Senator Daschle' s decision to support this measure, as a co-sponsor, sends a clear message that support for this common-sense legislation transcends party lines. We hope that fellow senators will follow the fortitude of the U.S. House of Representatives and vote to protect one of America' s oldest industries from frivolous lawsuits.



S. 659 has the support of the top 6 leaders, from both sides of the aisle, in the United States Senate. President Bush has indicated that he will sign this bill into law if it reaches his desk. To date, 33 states across America have passed lawsuit preemption laws.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now maybe we can see how many of his puppets will follow his lead. If there are several more demmies come to co-sponsor this very important bill I will be glad, not only to gain enough to block a filibuter but it also proves our point on how the demmies do whatever their leadership and party wants them to do.

[hntngirl]

[]Wow! Things that make you go " Huh!" !

[whelen36]

the end is nigh , but really that is strange , or could they have a secret agenda ???

[RedAllison]

I smell a rat in the mix. I' m greatful that Dashole came to his senses but you have to ask for what reason, as that is so uncharacteristic of him? He either got alot of money and flack from various makers of other products that were asking themselves, " Today its the gunmakers, who will be tomorrow?" . That or he is cowtowing to the typical " election on the horizon" and under the current climate of gunownership in this country, they cant look to weak to their constituents.

A lead Damocrap stand up to the Trial Lawyers Association??? Come on, how much was the payoff and how much did it cost the NRA?

At least the miserable bum is behind it. I would just like to know what kind of tradeoff or backroom deal it took to get it? Whatever it was you can bet we will be paying for it for a LOOOOONG time to come!
RA

[strut]

I smell a rat in the mix.

Me too Red, The sneaking little ******* smells a vote somewhere, He votes against every gun bill that comes up until its time to campaign and theres an election coming up.

[James B]

Well Sturgis is the home of Dakota Rifles and a good size town for SD with quite a few voters. Also Rapid City has a lot of voters and is home of Black Hills Ammunition. This could be part of the reason. He is also up for re-election next time. His home town of Aberdeen is SD' s third largest city and an absolute haven of waterfowl hunters. Its time for him to humor the states voters for a while before election.[:@]

[fng]

What was the full text of the bill?

Dashole wouldn' t sign something like that unless there were grave concessions for conservatives involved.

[stork]

My thought too fng. What are we giving up to get this? Maybe I' ll have time to read up on this tonight.

[strut]

FNG heres the bill, or all i can find on it.

S. 659: " Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act"

U.S. Sens. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) have introduced S. 659 to block the baseless lawsuits being brought by anti-gun groups and greedy trial lawyers in an effort to bankrupt the American firearms industry. S. 659 recognizes that these lawsuits for what they are: a shameless attempt to advance a stalled anti-gun legislative agenda and a flagrant abuse of the judicial system.

More than 30 state legislatures across the nation have already acted to prohibit localities from filing these junk lawsuits, and now, members of both parties in Congress recognize that a federal remedy is needed. S. 659 has attracted more than 50 co-sponsors.

Specifically, S. 659 seeks " To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others." S. 659 requires that any " qualified civil liability action" pending on the legislation' s date of enactment be immediately dismissed by the court in which the action was brought.

The legislation, further seeks to " preserve a citizen' s access to a supply of firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting." S. 659 finds that:

(1) Citizens have a right, protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, to keep and bear arms.
(2) Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms that operate as designed and intended, which seek money damages and other relief for the harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals.

(3) The manufacture, importation, possession, sale, and use of firearms and ammunition in the United States are heavily regulated by Federal, State, and local laws. Such Federal laws include the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National Firearms Act, and the Arms Export Control Act.

(4) Businesses in the United States that are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale to the public of firearms or ammunition that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are not, and should not be, liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended.

(5) The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our Nation' s laws, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty, invites the disassembly and destabilization of other industries and economic sectors lawfully competing in the free enterprise system of the United States, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on interstate and foreign commerce of the United States.

(6) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, and private interest groups are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years of the common law and jurisprudence of the United States and do not represent a bona fide expansion of the common law. The possible sustaining of these actions by a maverick judicial officer or petit jury would expand civil liability in a manner never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, by Congress, or by the legislatures of the several States. Such an expansion of liability would constitute a deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In product liability cases, plaintiffs traditionally have been able to sue for compensation for injuries because: 1) a product was defective, 2) the defect posed an unreasonable danger to the user, and 3) the defect caused the injury. A " defective" product is one that doesn' t operate as a reasonable manufacturer would design and make it, as a reasonable consumer would expect, or as other products of its type. Courts uniformly have held that a defect must exist in the product at the time it was sold, and that a plaintiff' s injury must have been the result of that defect. Defendants can' t be held liable for injuries that occur only because a properly operating product is criminally or negligently misused.

S. 659 seeks to prohibit causes of action against firearms/ammunition industry products for " the harm caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended." It also seeks to protect the First Amendment right of manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and trade associations, " to speak freely, to assemble peaceably, and to petition the Government for a redress of their grievances."

S. 659 defines " qualified civil liability action" as " 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." The definition does not include:

(1) an action brought against a transferor convicted for transferring a firearm knowing it would be used in a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;
(2) an action brought against a seller for supplying a firearm or ammunition to another person when one knows, or should know, that other person is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person and others or negligence per se;

(3) an action in which a manufacturer or seller knowingly and willfully 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;

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

(5) an action for physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended.