Gun Vote II

Quote of the Day:

"Daschle issued a statement telling South Dakotans that 'as a hunter and gun owner, I am against gun control, period.'" Associated Press, June 8, 1990.

After voting for two pieces of gun control yesterday, Daschle aides deflected criticism by "saying the South Dakotan likes to hunt, and he supports gun rights." At least they are sticking to the script--from 1990! South Dakota Politics has a better explanation of the vote--Feinstein made him do it. The gun control amendments killed the overall bill, which was designed to protect gun makers from frivolous lawsuits. Many of the gun companies which were to receive liability protection fled Feinstein's California, i.e. lawsuit central, to move to sane South Dakota to avoid constant legal battles. Ah, but Feinstein has said Daschle won't let South Dakota interests get in the way of the national Democratic agenda on guns. Here's a snippet from a Wall Street Journal (Dec. 15, 1999) story about one of those gun companies fleeing California for Sturgis, South Dakota:

Sturgis quietly has become a mecca for small gun companies. Drawn by South Dakota's lack of corporate or personal income tax, among other business-friendly attractions, at least four manufacturers have moved to the Sturgis area, including the well-known Dakota Arms Inc., a maker of hunting rifles, which came from Northfield, Minn., and Cor-Bon Inc., an ammunition manufacturer from Detroit. Three other firearm-related companies are in nearby Rapid City, which has a tidy airport and convenient highway connections.

Not only did Daschle vote for two pieces of gun control, he also effectively killed the gun maker liability bill, which Feinstein didn't like. The gun makers in Mecca, er South Dakota, won't like this. Congressional Quarterly says the bill died because Daschle refused to agree to a conference committee with the House:

Supporters of the Senate bill, including [Senator] Craig, blamed Democrats for killing the legislation before it even came to a vote by simply pledging to block a conference.

"If I had had a green light from Tom Daschle that the bill would have moved forward into conference . . . I would have encouraged an 'aye' vote," Craig said. "I could not get that guarantee. I had to view that as an effort to block the process . . . to deny a completion of the work product."

The New York Times also notes that Daschle is in a quandary and that Senator Craig turned against Daschle:

The bill put some Democrats, including Senator Tom Daschle, the minority leader, in a political quandary. Mr. Daschle faces a tough re-election race in South Dakota, where many of his constituents favor gun owners' rights. He voted in favor of the assault weapons ban and background checks, but was a co-sponsor with Mr. Craig of the immunity bill.

In the end, the two men turned against one another. Mr. Craig complained bitterly to reporters that Mr. Daschle, who was one of the eight senators voting in favor of final passage, was threatening to block the bill from going to conference.

Mr. Daschle said: "It is mystifying that the Senate Republican leadership would defeat the bipartisan gun liability legislation that Senator Craig and I have worked on together because of two provisions supported by both President Bush and more than a dozen Republicans."

The Washington Post notes this:

But Craig blamed Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) for insisting on a House vote on the Senate bill, rather than a House-Senate conference to resolve differences, saying such a procedure was unacceptable.

The Washington Times notes this:

[Craig] said the lack of commitment from Minority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, to assign conferees and the fact that the House leadership has said it would not send a bill muddled with amendments to the president were his reasons.

So, Daschle was obstructionist, as he promised to be a few weeks ago, and refused to allow a conference committee, which probably would have cleaned up the bill and allowed a vote on the gun maker liability legislation.