Thursday, February 26, 2004

Here's a link to the amendments voted on in the Senate today.

It seems there was a mistake & that the Craig AP ammo bill was not passed as of yet.

However a Frist amendment that looks eerily similar to the Mikulski amendment was passed.

Agreed to
Frist Amdt. No. 2628; To exempt any lawsuit involving a shooting victim of John Allen Muhammad or John Lee Malvo from the definition of qualified civil liability action that meets certain requirements.

compare that to this:

Mikulski Amdt. No. 2627; To exempt lawsuits involving a shooting victim of John Allen Muhammad or Lee Boyd Malvo from the definition of qualified civil liability action.

Matter o' fact, fresh from here's the Frist amendment that passed. Page 1 & Page 2

For comparison here's the Mikulski amendment. Page 1 & Page 2.

Y'all can read right? Looks similar right? More or less there's only one difference - The Frist amendment says that vicitims of the DC snipers are excepted if they can meet the requirements of the Lawful Commerce In Firearms Act.

Look at the text of the Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act (as proposed) here. Note the requirements specified in the Frist amendment - "...meets 1 of the requirements under clauses (i) through (iv)" Now look at Section 4 (5) (A) i through iv. Any case that meet those requirements would not be prohibited from filing a lawsuit - so if my take is right they just said the DC snipr victims are excepted as long as they meet the requirements that anyone else has to meet to be excepted.

Good news don't last long though - they're voting on an exception for law enforcement which again would gut a substantial part of the bill. Two NJ cops are suing some gun makers because they were shot by a criminal a while back. If this gets through then the Brady's will simply start picking cops to use for their lawsuits against gun makers.

I'll have more when the vote's are totaled.

No comments: