Reply #100: Washington DC Slams Senate Push to Repeal Gun Law

[MrBenchley]

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Washington, D.C., officials and business leaders on Monday joined parents of children shot to death on the streets of the nation's capital to protest a Senate attempt to overturn the city's anti-gun laws -- some of the country's strictest.
The measure is a proposed amendment to a bill expected to pass on Tuesday shielding gun makers, dealers and distributors from lawsuits seeking to hold them responsible for gun crimes.
Senate sources said the vote on the D.C. amendment, which comes in the wake of the shooting deaths of several teenagers over the past six months in troubled sections of the city, is likely to be close.
Led by Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig, a board member of the powerful National Rifle Association, supporters say the underlying liability bill is needed to protect a legitimate industry from "frivolous" and "junk" lawsuits. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040301/us_nm/congress_guns_dc_1

Speaking of the scummy Senator Craig....

"Senate Ethics Rule 37(2) states: "No Member, officer, or employee shall engage in any outside business or professional activity or employment for compensation which is inconsistent or in conflict with the conscientious performance of official duties." The Senate Ethics Manual states:
The legislative history of this provision states that it "should be read to prohibit any outside activities which could represent a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest." The Committee has interpreted this paragraph to prohibit compensated employment or uncompensated positions on boards, commission, or advisory councils where such service could create a conflict with an individual's Senate duties due to appropriation, oversight, authorization, or legislative jurisdiction as a result of Senate duties.
Therefore, the Senate Ethics Rules bar Senator Craig from serving on the NRA's Board where that service conflicts with his Senate duties. Nothing could present a more obvious and glaring conflict than that presented here, where an agent or representative of the NRA (Senator Craig) is attempting to carve out unique and unprecedented immunity from the civil justice system for the NRA, some of its members, and the rest of the gun industry. What makes the conflict here particularly extraordinary is that Senator Craig is using his legislative position to carve out a narrow, special exemption to the law that only applies to his organization and its gun industry members and allies, in order to further their financial interests.
The facts here present a grave conflict of interest - and unquestionably an appearance of a conflict. Either violates Rule 37(2). This is not a case where a Senator's organization falls within a broad class of citizens affected by legislation. Here, the lobbyist and the lobbied are the same (the NRA); and the class of beneficiaries of the legislation is very narrow: the gun industry. Nor is this a case where a Senator merely shares beliefs or policy views with an organization. Here the NRA and some of its members are financial beneficiaries of the proposed legislation."

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/alerts/reader/0,2061,569594,00.html