On October 20, 2005, the US House of Representatives voted on HR 493.
The resolution passed by a vote of 283 yeas to 144 nays.
Here is the text of the resolution:
In the House of Representatives, U.S.,
October 18, 2005.
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill (S. 397) to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. The bill shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.
This resolution, if you can read through the legal phraseology, removes liability from manufacturers, and others who deal in firearms and ammunition based on someone who purchases their firearms or ammunition using them incorrectly or improperly.
Proponents of the Second Amendment are in support of this measure, as am I, for it will eliminate the frivolous law suits associated with this industry by victims of criminals and others who improperly use firearms. These lawsuits have always been both a "get rich" scheme for those who could not get compensation from the actual criminal because they are usually too poor to pay it and a mechanism for the anti-gun types such as most liberals and the ACLU to impose severe, unfair, and unnecessary costs on the industry as a means to harm or destroy it.
The bill will now go to the President who will eagerly sign it and it will become the law of the land. I applaud the congress and the President for removing this ridiculous liability from people who never deserved to have it hanging over their heads. It has put several companies out of business and has added huge costs to the price of owning a firearm - a right guaranteed by the US Constitution.
But there is another lesson here especially for conservatives. Take a look at the voting breakdown in the House:
Republicans voting for: 223
Republicans voting against: 4
Percentage for: 98.2
Percentage against: 1.8
Democrats voting for: 59
Democrats voting against: 140
Percentage for: 29.6
Percentage against: 70.4
We are able to right these wrongs and strengthen our Constitutional rights because, as you can see from the numbers above, Republicans support them by an overwhelming margin while Democrats oppose them most vigorously.
Those of you out there that are attacking the President, the Republican party, and conservatives in general had better pay heed to things like this. These attacks, whether over the Miers nomination or complaints about spending do nothing but weaken the Republican party and its ability to make sure that it retains the numbers in both houses of congress and the White House to protect our rights.
This bill passed the Senate on July 29, 2005 with a vote of 65 yeas and 31 nays. In the senate, the breakdown was:
Republicans voting for: 50
Republicans voting against: 2
Percentage for: 96.2
Percentage against: 3.8
Democrats voting for: 14
Democrats voting against: 29
Percentage for: 32.6
Percentage against: 67.4
The percentages in the US Senate approximate those in the US House. The bottom line is that the Democrats, who stand to benefit by gaining seats in both houses based on silly partisan bickering going on in Republican ranks, will trample on our rights with great glee. If you think this bill would ever have passed with a Democrat majority in either house, you are sadly mistaken. And if you think for one second that a Democrat president would sign it if it did, here's a little reality smack. Here are some who voted against the bill in the senate:
Many of those above have had or still have designs on the White House. All voted to trample on our Second amendment rights. None of them would have signed this law as president.
I will only add the following to Scaramonga's very pertinent point:
This legislation wouldn't have seen the light of day with the donkeys in charge. Be assured that legislation which would have the exact opposite affect would have. Change doesn't happen overnight. And when it comes to who we elect to set the legislative agenda and sign it into law, the stakes absolutely can not be higher. Keep things in perspective and stay on target.