Death for the sniper! News from ABC

[FatSlob]

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20040309_979.html


Death penalty couldn't happen to a better candidate.

[MrBenchley]

1. Dupe...

It's in Guns in the News...

Tough week for the Bullseye Gun shop...they're still on the hook for lawsuits, and now they've lost their best customer....

[slackmaster]

4. Senator Carl Levin disagrees

From a floor speech expressing Senator Levin's objections to the gun industry immunity bill:

"On Thursday, October 24, members of the sniper task force arrested John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Boyd Malvo at a rest stop on I-75 in Frederick County. They were charged with shooting the victims with a Bushmaster semiautomatic assault rifle. Both were prohibited under Federal law from possessing a gun. Malvo is a juvenile and Muhammad was the subject of a domestic violence restraining order. Both have been convicted of capital murder in Virginia.

The sniper rifle used by Malvo and Muhammad was later traced to Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Takoma, WA. Bull's Eye representatives claim not to have any record of sale of the weapon, cannot account for how the snipers obtained the assault rifle. Malvo later admitted he had shoplifted the gun.

Just for clarity, the Senator's position is that Bullseye may have been negligent in their inventory control. But he does accept that Malvo (Not Muhammad) stole (not bought) the rifle.

[-..__...]

2. Won't this deny justice to the families of his victims?

Muhammed is named as a defendant in the Bushmaster lawsuit; how is Brady and company going to get their money from a dead man?

[FatSlob]

3. Don't know, and don't care.

I just can't wait till they bury the pig.

[MrBenchley]

5. No, the bill to give Bushmaster and Bullseye immunity

fell apart....

You might have read about it...it was in the papers...

"Those who say that negotiating with the gun lobby is like making a deal with the devil owe the archfiend an apology.
For months, the National Rifle Association has lobbied hard for passage of a bill that would make the gun industry immune to civil lawsuits. The measure -- the NRA's top legislative priority -- had already passed the House, and this week was close to passage in the Senate as well, until NRA lobbyists stepped in at the last minute and ordered that the bill be killed.
Why the sudden change of heart? Because Democrats and moderate Republicans had succeeded in attaching two quite sensible, reasonable gun-safety measures to the bill. One amendment extended the 1994 ban on military-style assault weapons that's set to expire in September; the other closed a loophole that permitted people to buy firearms at gun shows without having to undergo instant background checks.
The NRA and its supporters want to give the gun industry an immunity to being sued that no other American industry enjoys. As they have demonstrated, they want that immunity only on their terms, with no compromise and no tolerance for any effort that might reduce the toll in lost and broken lives attributed to guns. And while that absolutist approach is troubling, the docile willingness of so many in Congress to accommodate that extremism is more troubling still."

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0304a/05guns.html

"Larry Craig is both the senior Republican senator from Idaho and an active member of the NRA's board of directors. It is continually clear that his public responsibility is to follow his private organization's political line. Craig was part of the NRA's push to enact legislation fixing court cases that have arisen over claims of negligence in the manufacture, marketing, and sales of firearms.
When Craig's bill reached the Senate floor last week, he faced difficulty defeating two attempts -- from the middle -- to amend it. One added an extension of the ban on 19 kinds of assault weapons, passed a decade ago, that is due to expire this fall and which Bush claims to want extended. The other closed the gun show loophole and subjected gun transactions among individuals attending these shows to a simple criminal background check.
Liberals and moderates in both parties combined to win both votes with minimal suspense. Faced with a conflict between its campaign to fix court cases and to eliminate all restrictions on firearms, the NRA decided it no longer supported its own bill. This forced Craig to follow orders. Not only was the bill killed, but the extension of the assault weapons ban that Bush said he wants remains unpassed by a Congress ruled by his own party."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/03/09/top_wedge_issues_backfiring_on_gop/

[-..__...]

6. Odd thing about that.

The anti-gun folks were caterwauling that S 659/S 1805 would give "unprecedented immunity to an industry that others would not have"... "grant special privilages"... "treated differently"... etc.

Yet, within the context of the bill, some wanted to extend an exemption
via an amendment that would allow the Bushmaster lawsuit to proceed.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SP02627:

S.AMDT.2627
Amends: S.1805
Sponsor: Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. (submitted 2/26/2004) (proposed 2/26/2004)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To exempt lawsuits involving a shooting victim of John Allen Muhammad or Lee Boyd Malvo from the definition of qualified civil liability action.

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S1700

IOW, some victims should be treated differently than other victims.

[MrBenchley]

7. And the GOP and the gun lobby opposed that too

Who is surprised that those scumbags did so?

[-..__...]

8. As did 10 Democrats.

And 3 Repubs voted in favor of the amendment>.

[MrBenchley]

9. What a shame Wayne's zombies killled the whole thing....

"Mr. Craig's bill showed disdain for crime victims and public safety. Beyond that, his shameless attempt to create a special exemption from legal liability for gun interests closely aligned with the N.R.A., and potentially the N.R.A. itself, amounts to an apparent conflict of interest warranting scrutiny by the Senate Ethics Committee. An ethics complaint filed recently by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence correctly notes that while senators may serve on the board of an outside organization, they may not use their official position to promote legislation that benefits, or even appears to benefit, that group.
The more-or-less moribund House ethics committee no longer accepts complaints from the public. But it, too, has a duty to address this issue, given that two Republican representatives, Don Young of Alaska and Barbara Cubin of Wyoming, serve on the N.R.A. board with Mr. Craig, and served as sponsors of an immunity measure approved by the House last April."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/08/opinion/08MON2.html?pagewanted=print&position

[slackmaster]

10. Oh, so you WOULD have approved of gun maker liability protection?

I guess everyone has a price.

[demsrule4life]

11. I have said more then a few times

pro gun.

[MrBenchley]

12. Yeah, but YOU also say Ed Asner is a communist

[slackmaster]

13. "Yeah..."?!?

:shrug:

[Stoker]

14. However it's spun..

In September, the AWB goes bye-bye.

Smells like victory to me.

Stoker

[jhfenton]

15. "a better candidate"

I agree that their murders make an emotionally compelling case for the death penalty, but emotion shouldn't be a factor in our justice system.

[FatSlob]

16. The justice system isn't emotional

but I am...and I'm thrilled.

[jhfenton]

17. Other than emotion...

Other than emotion and revenge, though, I haven't run across any compelling arguments for the death penalty.

Given the irreversibility of the death penalty, the fallibility of our justice system, and the questionable morality of state-sanctioned executions, I'd opt for life imprisonment without parole.

[CO Liberal]

18. Yet...

...many pro-gunners want to be able to administer the death penalty to the intruders they envision are out there waiting to break in to their homes.

:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

19. For that matter...

they want harsher and harsher punishment of criminals, but are willing to do nothing that might inconvenience a criminal trying to get his hands on a gun.

Anything for gun industry profits.

[jhfenton]

22. "inconvenience"

I'm all for inconveniencing criminals. Sadly, most "gun control" measures are written to inconvenience law-abiding citizens while having minimal impact on criminals.

[MrBenchley]

23. Sez you...

Of course, you also pretend the National Review is non-partisan.

[slackmaster]

20. In most states what you describe would be an illegal homicide

Here in California the ONLY justification for using deadly force is to protect yourself from a reasonable fear of death or injury.

If you shoot someone as punishment and the person dies as a result you have committed murder.

[jhfenton]

21. Death penalty

I'm sorry if you don't understand the difference between self-defense -- where the only goal is to stop an attack on one's person -- and premeditated state-sanctioned executions.