What is a "test vote" in the US Senate?

[Jim Simmons]

There is support in the Senate for the ban on gunmaker lawsuits, according to this story, but what is a "test vote?"

GOP Gun Bill Passes First Senate Vote

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

WASHINGTON — A Republican-led bill to shield gun manufacturers and distributors from lawsuits arising from gun crimes passed its first Senate test Wednesday, but Democrats plan to complicate its future by forcing votes on extending an assault weapons ban and requiring background checks on purchasers at gun shows.

The Senate, with a 75-22 test vote, showed that there is enough support from both parties to get gunmaker immunity legislation through, but Democrats plan to try and add their gun legislation to the package before it heads to the House.

Democrats want "provisions that will close the gun show loophole, that would reauthorize the ban on assault weapons," said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I. "We should require effective safety locks on handguns. We should improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check (search) system."

Those measures are less popular with the Senate's GOP majority and could cause problems for the bill if included. The GOP-controlled House already has said it does not plan to approve an extension of the assault weapons ban.

"Some of our colleagues already announced they intend to play politics with this bill," said Sen. Larry Craig (search), R-Idaho, one of the legislation's main sponsors.

The White House — which supports the gunmaker immunity bill, extending the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole — nonetheless called on the Senate to pass the legislation without amendments.

"The administration urges the Senate to pass a clean bill, in order to ensure enactment of the legislation this year," the White House said in a statement. "Any amendment that would delay enactment of the bill beyond this year is unacceptable."

Republicans, along with some Senate Democrats, have been pushing for the gun immunity legislation for some time. Gun advocates say firearm makers shouldn't be forced to spend millions of dollars fighting off lawsuits designed to win large rewards and bankrupt them for making legal products.

Democrats including Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (search) of South Dakota agreed to back the legislation after gun supporters accepted a specification that firearms manufacturers and distributors would not be immune to lawsuits involving defective products or illegal sales.

But getting the 1994 assault weapons prohibition renewed also is Democratic priority this year. They picked up support Tuesday from GOP Sens. John Warner of Virginia, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.

"Although I voted against the ban a decade ago, over the past 10 years it has reduced crime dramatically and has made our streets safer," Warner said. "The legislation also has protected the rights of gun owners better than many of us predicted."

The three GOP senators' support does not guarantee the amendment's approval in the Senate, but "this gives the effort to renew the assault weapons ban new momentum," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (search), D-Calif., sponsor of the original assault weapons ban.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112508,00.html

[Dan]

From what I gather, this vote invokes cloture, and limits debate to 30 house.

That means no fillibuster.

And believe it or not, STABENOW voted for it. I can't believe it. I'll take it.

Then there's Carl Lenin whose beyond worthless.

[wrinkledshirt]

I called both our beloved Senators' offices today and urged them to support this bill WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS! Sorry, but I can live without this bill more than I can live WITH a permanent ban on firearms that Rosie O'Donnell finds ugly (the irony of which I'll leave you to ponder).

Please let them know how you feel:

Levin, Carl - (D - MI)
269 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6221

Stabenow, Debbie - (D - MI)
702 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4822

[Ktulu]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but...


Senate approves amendment requiring handgun safety locks

JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer


(02-26) 09:09 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

The Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly agreed to require child safety locks on all handguns sold in the United States as part of a Republican-pushed package to immunize gun makers and sellers from lawsuits arising from gun crimes.

Senators voted 70-27 for the legislation after pleas from Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, who said the legislation would help stop children from accidentally shooting themselves with handguns they find inside the home.

"If we were to pass this legislation and it become the law of the land, the number of children involved in the number of accidental shootings would go way down," said Boxer, who cited FBI statistics showing a child killed by a firearm every three hours.

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, a sponsor of the original bill, said gun manufacturers already are working on the problem. Also, he said locks won't guarantee that guns can't be misused and that the amendment would be an intrusion of the federal government into people's homes.

"I don't believe the government ought to be telling people how to store an object in the home," Craig said.

The Senate in 1999 passed similar legislation, but the House refused to approve the measure.

The House passed the gun maker immunity bill last year.

Democrats plan to try and attach their other gun legislation to the bill providing for general immunity from lawsuits when a legally sold gun is subsequently used in a crime. In a test vote Tuesday, that bill got 75 votes, which would be more than enough to pass the Senate next week.

Before the final vote on Tuesday, Democrats plan to force votes on a proposal to require unlicensed sellers to check buyers' backgrounds at gun shows and to extend for 10 years the ban on assault weapons.

Supporters of the gun maker immunity bill plan to argue against most of the Democratic amendments, saying any attempt to make changes simply amounts to an attempt to kill the bill. For example, the GOP-controlled House already has said it does not plan to approve an extension of the expiring assault weapons ban.

The White House, which has indicated support for the assault weapons ban and the gun show measure, called on the Senate to pass the legislation without amendments.

"Any amendment that would delay enactment of the bill beyond this year is unacceptable," according to a White House statement released late Tuesday.

Democrats took that statement as an indication that President Bush was backing off his support for those two separate measures. "For the president to say he's for the assault weapons ban and act against it, that is a flip-flop if I've ever seen one," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

Republicans, along with some Senate Democrats, have pushed for the gun immunity legislation for some time. Gun advocates say firearm manufacturers make legal products and should not have to spend millions of dollars fighting off suits.

Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, agreed to get behind the legislation after gun supporters agreed that firearms makers and distributors would not be immune to suits involving defective products or illegal sales. Daschle said his party's support comes "in part because of the acknowledgment of the need to address some of these concerns."

Other Democrats said the bill was nothing more than a giveaway to the gun industry. "We have huge problems in this country, but we're spending time trying to protect the special interests of a special group," said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/02/26/national1209EST0603.DTL

[Jim Simmons]

I called both our beloved Senators' offices today and urged them to support this bill WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS! Sorry, but I can live without this bill more than I can live WITH a permanent ban on firearms that Rosie O'Donnell finds ugly ,snip.

The thing that makes me nervous is that I don't know what the NRA's position, and the CCRKBA's position is, in the event that a SAW/hi-cap mag ban is attached to this bill. I hope it's for rejection, but I can't get a clear answer out of 'em.

The gun lock thing I can live with. It's the law in Michigan already. I don't like it, but I'd rather see that than see the SAW/hi-cap ban extended or expanded. I'd even continue to support the lawsuit ban now that the gun lock bill is part of it. But no more.

[Sigster]

Latest NRA communication is consistent with quotes from several pro-gun senators. IF (and that's a big "if") an AWB extension or gun show provision manages to get the 51 votes needed to add it to the bill, the congress will either strip the amendment or kill the bill.

Read more..

On Wednesday morning, the U.S. Senate began to debate S. 1805—the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" (formerly referenced as S. 659/S. 1806.) A bi-partisan 75-22 vote allowed debate to proceed, lifting the threat of a filibuster.

The debate continued late into the evening with no substantive movement on the bill and no additional votes were taken. Senators did, however, reach a "Unanimous Consent Agreement" spelling out specific amendments that would be permitted to be offered during the debate in anticipation of a final vote on the underlying measure next Tuesday.

On Thursday, the Senate reconvened and first considered was an amendment by anti-gun Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) that would require all handguns be sold with a mechanical safety device approved by the Consumer Product Safety Commission(CPSC). This amendment was then replaced with a "second degree" amendment by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI). The Kohl amendment is much less restrictive and also provides liability protection for gun owners. The revised amendment passed 70-27.

The Senate next debated an amendment by Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) which would permit current and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms off duty in other states. Arguing hysterically against the amendment, anti-gun Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) revealed his deep distrust of gun carrying even by sworn police officers. A vote on the Campbell amendment was deferred until Tuesday.

Sen. Kennedy then introduced an amendment to ban the manufacture and sale of "armor-piercing" ammunition. Kennedy, who actually condemned the .30-30 Winchester cartridge during debate, wants to institute a "performance-based" standard that would grant any future Attorney General sweeping authority to ban any center-fire ammunition, including most common-place rifle hunting ammunition. The standard proposed by Sen. Kennedy was rejected in the 1980s as overly broad and unnecessary to meet any threat posed to law enforcement officers` safety. A vote on this NRA-opposed amendment will take place Tuesday.

The Senate next debated and voted upon two amendments seeking to gut S. 1805. The first related to the D.C. sniper case, but the proposal by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) was defeated, 56-40. A "law enforcement" exemption offered by Sen. John Corzine (D-NJ) was soundly defeated, 56 to 38.

NRA strongly opposed both amendments. One of the strengths of S. 1805 is that it adopts the same rules for all plaintiffs, no matter how sympathetic or unsympathetic, and no matter how notorious or mundane their victimization. Plaintiffs` rights should depend on settled principles of law, not on emotion or sympathy.

NRA-ILA stands totally committed to enacting S. 1805 without anti-gun amendments, and will continue to vigorously oppose any reauthorization of the 1994 Clinton gun ban and any attempt to ban gun shows.

Please continue to contact your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121 and urge them to support S. 1805 without any anti-gun amendments. Call ILA`s Grassroots staff at (800) 392-8683, or visit http://www.nraila.org/stoprecklesslawsuits.aspx for additional information and to utilize the "Write Your Representatives" feature to contact your U.S. Senators.

[Dave Edwards]

The thing that makes me nervous is that I don't know what the NRA's position, and the CCRKBA's position is, in the event that a SAW/hi-cap mag ban is attached to this bill. I hope it's for rejection, but I can't get a clear answer out of 'em.

The gun lock thing I can live with. It's the law in Michigan already. I don't like it, but I'd rather see that than see the SAW/hi-cap ban extended or expanded. I'd even continue to support the lawsuit ban now that the gun lock bill is part of it. But no more.

Don't know why anyone would be nervous or confused, unless they're reading all of the things that people post on various forums to bash the NRA. Here's your answer on the NRA, from the NRA Instititute for Legislative Action:

http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=984
Internet Rumors Concerning NRA And Clinton Gun Ban


Thursday, February 26, 2004

Recent internet alerts from some "pro-Second Amendment" groups have suggested that the National Rifle Association has either accepted a compromise that would include reenactment of the 1994 Clinton Gun ban and/or the McCain-Reed gun show restrictions, or will not actively fight against their passage in the Senate. Not only are these claims completely false and ridiculous but they are also extremely counterproductive to our legislative strategy and agenda. Gun control groups are spreading the same rumors in hopes of confusing pro-gun senators as to our position in hopes of gaining their support.

The National Rifle Association led the fight in opposition to this ill-conceived ban in 1994, led the efforts to repeal the ban two years later, and is leading the fight to ensure the Clinton gun ban expires on time on September 13. From public speeches, articles in NRA publications, communications to lawmakers and the development of a website (http://www.clintongunban.com/), the National Rifle Association has been vocal and unambiguous about our position on this issue.

It is our hope that supposed "friends of the Second Amendment" will cease to provide ammunition to the enemy by disseminating this false information. Unfortunately, some of these groups seem intent on finding or creating any excuse to defeat S. 1805, perhaps because its passage has been a priority of the NRA for four years. The anti-gunners are seeking to undermine the Second Amendment and the legislative process by seeking to bankrupt firearms and ammunition manufacturers or get gun control restrictions through the courts through dozens of pending municipal lawsuits -- blaming the gun industry for the acts of criminals -- initiated by anti-gun big city mayors and greedy trial lawyers. A single judgement by a rogue judge or jury could wipe out the entire firearms industry making our gun rights worthless. Passage of S. 1805 is critical -- but not worth allowing legislation going to the President including either an extension of the Clinton gun ban or restrictions at gun shows. There will be no compromise. The only choice is a "clean" bill or no bill.

The legislative process in Congress is complex and far from perfect. Fortunately, Congress is a bicameral (two house) legislative body and both the House and Senate must agree on the same bill before enactment. While we are uncertain of the outcome of several pending anti-gun amendments in the Senate, the House is strongly pro-gun and it (or a conference committee) will not accept any anti-gun Senate-passed amendment as part of the final product to be sent to the President.

Pro-gun grassroots activists who want to advance our cause should not be distracted by misinformation and disinformation by our "friends." Instead, gun owners and sportsmen must keep our focus on the real action and contact -- by calls, e-mails, and faxes -- their two U.S. Senators urging them to vote for S. 1805 and against any and all anti-gun "poison pill" killer amendments including, but not limited to, the Clinton gun ban and gun shows. Use the "Write Your Representatives" tool to contact your Senators and call them at 202-224-3121. We appreciate your active support in our cause to defend the Second Amendment and freedom itself.

[Jim Simmons]

Question answered; thank you Dave.