GUN MAKER LAWSUIT SHIELD BILL HAD ANTI-GUN PROVISIONS
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
October 21, 2005
(CNSNEWS.COM) - Legislation passed Thursday to protect the gun industry
from many liability lawsuits includes anti-gun amendments that could
have been blocked during consideration of the bill in the House,
according to one pro-gun organization. The group believes failing to
block those amendments could haunt gun owners in the future.
The "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" is designed to protect
firearms manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers from being
sued for the criminal misuse of their products by unrelated third
parties. The House passed the Senate's version - S. 397[2] - by a vote
of 283 to 144.
The Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA) praised passage of the
bill.
"This junk lawsuit ban strikes a blow to those seeking to shift blame
from criminals to law abiding Americans," said Jim Fotis, a retired
police officer and LEAA executive director.
Fotis added that the money some cities had used or planned to use for
lawsuits against gun makers could now be devoted to "real crime
fighting. "Take New Orleans for example," Fotis continued. "They were
one of the first to waste taxpayer dollars on these frivolous lawsuits
when they could have been spending their time and money on real crime
fighting efforts, like better training and pay for police officers and
putting more cops on the street."
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA)
also supported the bill and expressed its appreciation in a statement
released after the vote.
"This important legislation will stop the anti-gunners cold in their
attempts to bankrupt firearms manufacturers, distributors and
retailers," Alan M. Gottlieb, chairman of CCKRBA said. "It closes an
important loophole through which extremist gun grabbers have been
trying to use the courts to crush gun ownership in this country, when
they could not get Congress or state legislatures to do their bidding."
The National Rifle Association (NRA) backed the proposal, as well. In
an online communication called "Stop Reckless Lawsuits!," the NRA asked
its members shortly after the bills were introduced to urge their
elected officials to support the legislation. The NRA also stressed the
need to protect the integrity of the proposals.
"It is imperative that you contact your U.S. Senators and your U.S.
Representative today and ask them to cosponsor and support S.397 and
H.R. 800 - without any anti-gun amendments - and put a halt to these
reckless lawsuits once and for all," an NRA message stated. "AND BE
SURE TO LET THEM KNOW THAT YOU CONSIDER ANY VOTES IN SUPPORT OF
ANTI-GUN AMENDMENTS TO THIS LEGISLATION AS A VOTE AGAINST THE
UNDERLYING BILL ITSELF." (Emphasis in original.)
The House version passed without any of the objectionable amendments, a
so-called "clean" bill. But two amendments proposed by known anti-gun
lawmakers were attached to the Senate version of the bill. And it was
that version that passed the House Thursday, paving the way for the
bill, and the amendments, to become law.
One of the amendments would require gun dealers to sell each gun buyer
a trigger lock or gun safe for every handgun they purchase. Larry
Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America (GOA), bristled at
what he believes is the underlying assumption supporting that amendment.
"It's a highly offensive assumption," Pratt said, "that somehow the
average person, unless a gun is in a block of cement, is going to
commit mayhem with it."
Another amendment would ban possession of so-called "armor piercing"
ammunition during the commission of a crime. That proposal has drawn
criticism from some hunting groups, which fear the definition could be
easily expanded to ban all rifle ammunition at all times.
NRA ACCUSED OF BLOCKING LAST CHANCE AT 'CLEAN' BILL
Under the House rules, the last chance for opponents to stop a vote on
a proposal is the "motion to recommit." The maneuver is essentially a
vote on whether to take a vote on the measure under consideration. The
technique is sometimes used, however, by those who support a particular
piece of legislation, but would rather see a different version
considered.
In an e-mail sent Wednesday to members of the House and obtained by
CYBERCAST NEWS SERVICE, Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's
Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), included this admonition to
representatives.
"Due to the importance of this issue, the NRA will consider votes on
final passage and a Motion to Recommit in future candidate ratings and
evaluations," Cox wrote.
In the case of Thursday's vote, a successful "motion to recommit" would
have blocked a vote on S. 397 with its anti-gun amendments. The House
leadership could have then brought up the amendment-free H.R. 800 again
or dropped the bill and moved on. If the original version - which
passed by a vote of 285 to 140 - had been passed again, the House and
Senate would have been forced to either reconcile the differing
versions or let the bill die.
Pratt believes the NRA opposed the use of the motion to recommit
because the organization did not want to appear unreasonable for
opposing the trigger lock amendment.
"(NRA officials) think that this will be the end of it; that this will
convince the other side that we've been reasonable," Pratt surmised,
"and, further, they think that we have the votes to stop a worse
outcome in the future."
Kelly Hobbs, spokesperson for the NRA, shrugged off Pratt's criticism.
"That's more of a hypothetical. I never heard anything of the sort and,
obviously, it didn't happen," Hobbs said, referring to any attempt to
bring up the House version of the bill using a motion to recommit.
AMENDMENT MAY SET STAGE FOR FUTURE TRIGGER LOCK BATTLE
Pratt believes anti-gun members of the Senate pushed for the trigger
lock amendment following the same plan traffic safety advocates used to
get mandatory seat belt laws passed.
"First the seat belt had to be in the car. In terms of the locks, first
they had to be available at the store, which is now the law," Pratt
explained. "This bill will make it so that they have to be sold to you
when you buy a gun at the store.
"Our concern is that, to finish the analogy, just like we now have to
wear the seat belt or it's an offense," Pratt continued, "so, too, we
would have to lock up our firearms or it would be some kind of crime,
probably a felony."
But Pratt highlighted the case of Mary Carpenter to explain why
mandating trigger lock use, unlike seat belts, could be dangerous. In
2000, Carpenter's family was attacked by a pitchfork-wielding intruder
in their California home. There were firearms in the home and the
residents had been trained in their use for self-defense. But the guns
were stored with locks and separated from ammunition, as required by
California law. The attacker killed two of Carpenter's grandchildren
before the firearms could be retrieved and loaded.
Pratt believes it will be difficult for those who did not argue
forcefully against mandatory trigger lock sales to oppose an expansion
of the law.
"Once you've agreed, in principle that it's a good idea to require the
sale of the product," Pratt warned, "then wouldn't it make sense, a
member of Congress might ask, that we also support requiring the use of
it?
"Gun control advocates have never been satisfied with any concession
that's ever been made," he concluded.
Make media inquiries or request an interview with Jeff Johnson.[3]
Subscribe to the free CNSNews.com daily E-Brief.[4]
E-mail a comment or news tip to Jeff Johnson.[5]
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.[6]
Our present condition, achieved in a manner unprecedented
in the history of nations, illustrates the American idea that
governments rest upon the consent of the governed, and that it is the
right of the people to alter or abolish governments whenever they
become destructive of the ends for which they were established.
Jefferson Davis' First Inaugural Address: Alabama Capitol, Montgomery,
February 18, 1861[7]
Join a peaceful political group called The Revolutionary
Coalition; Uniting the Independent voter and the non-voter into a
single coalition.[8] [9] Join us at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheRevolutionaryCoalition/[10]
Duke's Global Links a directory of web sites like no other[11]
It's All Good! Or Is It?
W. Duke
If you wish not to get news e-mails from me like the news story
above just send me a reply letting me know & I will take you off my
news e-mailing list.
Links:
------
[1]
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200510\POL200
51021a.html
[2]
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.397:
[3]
mailto:cbannister@cnsnews.com?subject=Media
Inquiry or Interview Request
for
Jeff Johnson
[4]
http://www.cnsnews.com/listmanager.asp
[5]
mailto:jjohnson@cnsnews.com?subject=Feedback
_051021jj Gun Maker Lawsuit
Shield Bill Had Anti-Gun Provisions&body=Your news tip or
comment on
Jeff
Johnson's article...
[6]
mailto:letters@cnsnews.com?subject=Letter
to the Editor Gun Maker
Lawsuit
Shield Bill Had Anti-Gun Provisions &body=Please include your
first
name,
last initial, and your city and state of residence to have your letter
considered for publication. Thank you!
[7]
http://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/resources.cfm?doc_id=1508
[8]
http://www.therevolutionarycoalition.org/blog/index.php
[9]
http://www.therevolutionarycoalition.org/blog/index.php
[10]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheRevolutionaryCoalition/
[11]
http://dukesgloballinks.com/
