Mithras61 wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote: Bell didn't bother to cast a vote on these important bills:
HR4635: Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act. NRA position YEA
Defazio Amendment to HR4635: NRA position YEA
HR2356: Campaign Finance Reform Act (Hailed by Sen. McCain on the Senate Floor as the "get the NRA bill!" Didn't work John) NRA position NO
Shays-Pickering Amendment to HR2356 that would have exempted political speech dealing with matters pertaining to the Second Amendment. NRA position YEA
HR2500: Fiscal 2002 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations - Would have prohibited the use of federal funds to destroy national instant criminal background check system records within 90 days as required by federal law. [i.e. would have made NICS records permanent!] NRA position NO.
These were all brought to the floor and passed or defeated before Bell took office. Perhaps he didn't cast his vote for or against because he was elected in November of 2002 and took office in 2003. These were all passed in 2001 or 2002.
These show up on a list of bills when I ran a search on Bell's voting record in Congress. I will check the dates and will correct this if it's wrong. Since you have given dates, I presume you are correct and these bills should not have appeared on the list of Bell votes.
Mithras61 wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:HR2691 Gallegly amendment to funding of Forest Servie or BLM dealing with bear hunting. Bell voted YEA; NRA position NO
Actually, this amendment was to prevent BLM from using Federal funds for baiting bears onto Federal lands for hunting purposes. Maybe the bears should be hunted on their natural ranges...
This is very misleading. The amendment would "restrict the use of funds by the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management to administer any action related to the baiting of bears
except to prevent or prohibit such activity."
This is an anti-hunting vote and trying to cast it in terms of not liking the baiting part is unconvencing. The Forest Service or the BLM should retain the flexibility to allow or prohibit the baiting of bears depending upon the bear population in a given area, the number of bears that need to be harvested as part of wildlife management. Restricting the use of federal funds in this manner is far too close to the prohibiting the use of federal funds to hold hearings on restoration of firearms rights.
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Meehan Amendment to HR1036 - Would allow any suit based in negligence. (All of the suits were brought in negligence.) Bell voted YEA; NRA position NO.
Mithras61 wrote:Actually, it would allow suits brought specifically on the basis of the manufacturers or sellers of firearms negligently allowing the firearms to fall into the hands of criminals. That usually means that a seller or manufacturer must take reasonable measures to ensure that the firearms they sell or make are not sold to or stolen by criminals. The bill as it was written would have prevented lawsuits against sellers or manufacturers even when they were negligent in their storage or selling practices.
Every one of the politically motivated suits against gun manufactures were based on alleged negligence in the distribution system in some form or fashion. The Meehan Amendment would have exempted from the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
any lawsuit that had a negligence claim in the pleadings. It would have absolutely gutted the bill and everyone on Capital Hill knew it. The Meehan Amendment was not adopted, being defeated 144-280, with 140 Democrates voting for it and only 2 Republicans in favor.
Sanchez Amendment to HR1036 to allow certain suits against certain transferors using the vague term "knowing or having reasonable cause to believe . . ." [This would be an entirely new statute that could be used against any company or individual, not just gun manufacturers.] Bell vote YEA; NRA position NO
Mithras61 wrote:The Sanchez amendment would have allowed lawsuits against gun dealers and manufacturers who sell or transfer guns or ammunition to drug addicts or individuals certified as "mentally defective." Perhaps the specific language of the amendment could have been modified to change "knowing or having reasonable cause to believe . . ." to language that was more appropriate, but I really don't feel that attempts to keep guns out of the hands of drug dealers & mental defectives is such a bad thing.
First of all, the language was atrociously broad and there was no attempt to narrow it by it's author (Sanchez) or it's 132 Democrat supporters before Bell voted for it.
The Sanchez Amendment applies to any "transferor" not just manufacturers or dealers.
In addition to the overly-broad language I've already pointed out, I have a big problem with the grossly overbroad language such as "unlawful drug user" or "adjudicated mental incompetent." As broadly worded, it could mean anything from a meth addict to a wife using her husband's prescription antibiotic until she can get to the doctor. It doesn't say "convicted drug user."
How is anyone to know if a person has been "adjudicated mental[ly] incompetent? With the "having reasonable cause to believe" language, the sky is the limit for prosecution. BTW, who is the "transferor?" Is it just the person who handed the gun to the possible drug user, or does it include the dealer that sold him the gun and the manufacturer that sold it to the dealer? Before you argue that this is an absurd question, it must be realized that this is precisely the tortured logic used by the plaintiffs in the politically motivated suits.
You may not have a problem with more federal laws dealing with guns, but I do. Blatantly selling or transferring guns to drug users and mentally incompetent persons are already unlawful in most states and this is better left to the states. It is certainly preferable to draft prohibitive statutes that are much clearer.
Mithras61 wrote:I will agree however that he voted to not revoke the gun ban in D.C., so I'll give you one of those votes.
And this is probably the most telling of his votes when it comes to the right of self-defense. The D.C. gun ban doesn't have anything to do with bear hunting, or with keeping guns away from drug dealers and mentally incompetent people. It goes to the heart of the right of self-defense. What good is the right if people are denied the means of self-defense? Chris Bell voted to deny the citizens of D.C. the ability to defend themselves and we are supposed to believe that he supports the rights of Texans to carry guns for self-defense? That stretches credibility a bit thin.
Mithras61 wrote:But my count is quite different than yours, even giving you the votes as cast being "against gun owners." The count as you posted was actually only four (4) times "against," not six, and it doesn't really look to me like four against. More realistically from my viewpoint it was one for gun owners, one against gun owners, one against bear baiting using Federal funds, one against blanket immunity to lawsuits, and one for not allowing lawsuit immunity to people selling guns to those forbidden by Federal law from owning guns.
No offense, but this looks like it was written by a campaign worker for Chris Bell. Even accepting the rationale behind these statements, which I do not, it cannot be seriously argued that the votes we agree he cast were not anti-gun and anti-hunting votes.
Please remember how we got to this discussion. You posted that Bell wasn't anti-gun and pointed out that he voted for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. But as we see now, that was hardly "the rest of the story" as Paul Harvey would say. Say what you will, but the Sanchez amendment was designed as a killer amendment that would have gutted the bill and Bell voted for it.
The characterization of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act as "blanket immunity to lawsuits" is precisely the language that the bill's opponents used and it is flat wrong. The bill still allows suits when federal laws are violated.
Mithras61 wrote:Using your logic, I guess the NRA is in favor of blanket immunity for gun sellers and manufacturers from lawsuits, using Federal funds to enhance personal enjoyment of bear hunting on Federal lands, and in favor of putting guns in the hands of drug dealers & mental defectives.
I am against frivolous lawsuits brought against gun manufacturers and dealers for the sole purpose of putting them out of business, as admitted by the representatives of the cities filing suit and the attorneys representing them.
I am in favor of letting the Forest Service and BLM use their expertise in spending their budgets as they deem necessary to manage wildlife.
Your statement that I and the NRA support ". . . putting guns in the hands of drug dealers & mental defectives . . ." doesn't deserve a response. It’s the all-to-familiar rhetoric I heard from the CHL opposition for years.
Chas.