Senate Democrats Beat Up and Shoot Down Gun Bill

On March 2, by a vote of 52 to 47, the Senate elected to extend for ten years the federal assault weapons ban, a Clinton-era law that sunsets later this year. The 10-year ban, which prohibits certain guns basically just because they look scary, was passed when President Clinton was backed by Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress in 1994.

The amendment extending the ban was just part of a Democratic effort to secretly kill the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (S 1805) by loading it up with poison pill amendments. The original bill would have shielded the gun industry from some of the liberal-backed proliferating lawsuits resulting from the misuse of their products by others. As a result of this ban-extension amendment and two other anti-gun amendments (see below) that passed the Senate narrowly, gun rights supporters and opponents voted together to kill the entire bill, 90 to 8. (see below).

Although President Bush has expressed support for extending the assault weapons ban, gun-rights activists expect that it will never clear the House. Most Democrats, support extending the ban, but many at least privately oppose any bill that might benefit the gun industry by stopping frivolous lawsuits.

Underscoring the importance to Democrats of killing the lawsuit ban, presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) and former presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards (D.-N.C.), a trial lawyer, broke away from the campaign trail to cast their first Senate votes of 2004, joining the close majority that passed both amendments.

A “yes” vote was a vote to extend the Clinton-era assault weapons ban. A “no” vote was a vote against the amendment.

NOT VOTING: 1

Later the same day, by a vote of 53 to 46, in another Democratic move to try to stop the lawsuit-ban bill, the Senate approved another gun-control amendment to the bill that was also unpalatable to gun-rights supporters. This amendment would have required background checks on all buyers at private gun shows. Essentially, the bill would have prevented free commerce in arms between individuals, involving the government every time there is a gun changing hands, and establishing a de facto method for the government to snoop on law-abiding gun owners.

A “yes” vote was a vote to require background checks for private gun transactions. A “no” vote was a vote against the amendment.

NOT VOTING: 1

Days earlier, on February 26, by a vote of 70 to 27, the Senate passed yet another amendment making the underlying lawsuit-ban bill more unpalatable to gun rights advocates. This amendment requires the provision of a child safety device with the transfer of handguns in addition to providing safety standards for child safety devices.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.) introduced this amendment.

“It is an amendment that will protect our children from violence, and what could be more important to us as we gather here every day than to protect our children?” she asked.

A “yes” vote was a vote to require child safety devices on guns sold in the United States. A “no” vote was a vote against the amendment.

NOT VOTING: 3

Entire Bill Defeated

And so despite House passage of the bill last year shielding gunmakers and dealers from liability suits by crime victims, because of the loaded amendments described above that had been added to the bill, the Senate on March 3, overwhelmingly voted against the bill 8 to 90. Even Sen. Larry Craig (R.-Idaho), who sponsored the underlying lawsuit-ban bill, asked supporters to vote against the measure in its amended form. “I now believe it is so dramatically wounded that I would urge my colleagues to vote against it,” he said. In addition, the National Rifle Association encouraged senators to vote against the bill for similar reasons.

A “no” vote was a vote against passing the heavily-amended bill to immunize the gun industry from lawsuits. A “yes” vote was one in favor of passing it.

NOT VOTING: 2