[cuchulainn]

from Robert Novak's column

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak20.html
GOP weary of judicial struggle

April 20, 2003

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

<snip>

NRA vs. Ron Paul

The National Rifle Association is considering opposing Rep. Ron Paul, a champion of gun rights, in next year's Texas Republican primary. Paul evoked the NRA's ire April 9 by opposing a bill that would order federal and state courts to immediately dismiss lawsuits against gun makers and gun sellers.

Paul always has defended Second Amendment protection for gun owners. However, he objected to Congress legislating against state rights. The bill carried, 285-140. Only three Republicans--Paul and two liberals--voted against it.

The gun lobby is split on Paul. While the NRA wants to challenge him, the Gun Owners of America are in full support.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak20.html

[Chris Rhines]

I'd like to know a bit more about this bill that Rep. Paul opposed. Does anyone have a reference?

I will say that if the NRA elects to oppose Rep. Paul, I'll have to reconsider my support for the NRA.

- Chris

[rock jock]

I pretty much lost all respect for Ron Paul after he refused to vote on the Iraq resolution authorizing force. I knew he opposed the resolution and for that alone he would have lost my support, but not my respect. However, not voting is a weasel tactic.

BTW, Mr. Paul should remember that states rights do not trump the 2A and if can't recognize that these baseless lawsuits are nothing more than a backdoor attempt to do just that, no gunowner should support him.

[mercedesrules]

Chris R. said: I will say that if the NRA elects to oppose Rep. Paul, I'll have to reconsider my support for the NRA.

Even as a longtime (20 yr. +-) Life and more recent Patron member, I decided a couple of years ago to stop sending contributions to the NRA due to their support of "enforcing the laws currently on the books", "keeping guns out of the wrong hands", "illegal guns", "Project Exile", and constant reference to "drug dealers", etc. If they follow through with this threat, I'm with Chris - they get my cut-up card in the mail. They have been writing gun control for years. "With friends like this...?"

Legislating who can sue whom in state courts is a gross violation of federalism, IMO.

MR

[Augustwest]

From Rep. Paul's most recent weekly column:

More importantly, however, the debate about certain types of weapons ignores the fundamental purpose of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of the time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms. It’s convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying “That could never happen here, this is America”- but history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish ten, thirty, or fifty years from now.

The whole article... (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst042103.htm)

Now who's a better friend of freedom, Ron Paul or the NRA?

[Pendragon]

The NRA is not that concerned with Constitutional principles or abstract freedom.

Whether you like everything Ron does or not, he acts out of principle - and generally good principle at that.

[Safety First]

I don't know a lot about Ron Paul,but that previous post regarding the weapons ban statement by mr Paul makes it seem as though he is highly pro 2nd and against the Automatic Weapons Ban.. I wonder why he seems to think the law suits against Arms companies should continue??? Any ideas ??

[Augustwest]

My guess is that it has something to do with either not wanting the Legislative branch to usurp powers of the Judicial Branch, or Amendment X.

IMO, he'd be right on either count.

Doesn't strike me as an Amendment II issue, but one of Congress continuing to overstep its bounds.

[Chris Rhines]

Safety -

Ron Paul is almost as pro-gun as I am. He is certainly the most pro-gun (and pro-freedom in general) representitive in Congress. He has authored and sponsored numerous bills in Congress that would eliminate the 1994 Violent Crime Control Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act, and the 1934 National Firearms Act, among others.

Although I hesitate to speak for him, I strongly doubt that he wishes for the current spate of lawsuits against firearms companies to proceed.

I suspect that his opposition to the lawsuit preemption bill was because either:

- He did not want to support the precident that the Federal Government can determine who can and cannot be sued in state-level courts, or...

- He had some technical objection to some part of the bill. No way to know without finding a copy of the bill's text. Maybe there was some subsection in there that required every family to send their first-born son to the IRS for a sacrifical bonfire...

- Chris

[cuchulainn]

I wonder why he seems to think the law suits against Arms companies should continue??? Any ideas ??

He doesn't think the lawsuits should continue. He's just opposed to stopping them this way.

IMO, he's wrong. These lawsuits clearly are an attempt to abuse state courts to obstruct interstate commerce. This would be one of the few legitimate uses of the commerce clause.

On the other hand, the NRA would be just plain stupid to go after him. What's the point of a public fight of that nature (beside to split the ranks)?

[rock jock]

What's the point of a public fight of that nature (beside to split the ranks)?
Principle. quid pro quo

[Silver Bullet]

Principle. quid pro quo
I'm hoping the NRA looks at a bigger picture than that. To oppose Mr. Paul because they disagree on just this issue seems silly. Do they only support congressmen who vote their way one hundred per cent ? Would Mr. Paul be running against someone who is even more pro-RKBA ?

[rock jock]

Mr. Paul fails to recognize the seriousness of this lawsuit situation, and the fact that it is a backdoor attempt to restrict the 2A.

[Dorrin79]

*shakes head*

I am actually one of Rep. Paul's constituents (Bastrop County, Texas)

For the NRA to oppose Ron Paul would be shooting themselves (and other gun owners) in the foot to an insane degree.

I never thought the NRA was particularly clever, but I never thought they were completely stupid.

Ron Paul is the only congressman I know of who supports RKBA 100%, on all fronts, with no equivocation. I can only assume (as was surmised above) that his opposition towards this proposed anti-lawsuit legislation is based in the unconstitutionality of the bill, not in the result it would have (means, not the ends). And, having read a piece over at Reason Online about this very issue, I agree with him.

For the record, I didn't agree with him about Iraq. But his stance was not an America-hating and/or pacifist one, but rather an interpretation of the non-initiation of force principle, which I interpreted differently on that issue.

[cuchulainn]

Principle. quid pro quo

Perhaps.

I understand the need for a lobby to "punish" politicians, but it seems to me that this would hurt the NRA as much if not more than Paul by splitting the ranks.

Then again, maybe this musing to Robert Novak is the NRA's "punishment" -- they've expressed their "tut-tut" to him this way, and they won't persue it farther.

And maybe the real target of this musing is other politicians who think they've got NRA support sewn up. "Hey, if the NRA considers going after Paul, can I be safe."

[Pendragon]

There are lots of laws we could come up with that could be called "pro gun" but would be unconstitutional - even if they do tickle our inner Elmo.

We could require all children to take gun training (coercive)

We could institute an ammo welfare program to help poor shooters (adding to the welfare state)

We could stop people on the street, search them and then cite them for failing to carry a proper weapon or for not maintainint their weapon properly, etc.

Those ideas make me giggle and it would almost be worth the subversion of the Constitution to make the lefties blow a gasket but as "pro gun" as such ideas may be, they are not keeping with the spirit of liberty.

People of principle will disagree on some issues - this is to be expected - the NRA should applaud Ron Paul for voting his principled concience and not just asking the NRA for a position paper on everything. If anything, it gives us more credibility to show that not all of our players are marching in lock step.

[Ian]

Mr Paul is in a difficult situation here, because in order to remain principled, he must attempt to solve the problem of rampant Federal tyranny without becoming part of it himself. Using Federal powers in this way - even if it does curb attempts by the states to ban weapons - is in opposition to the founding principles of the Federal government.

[Waitone]

Has anyone actually read a communication from the NRA saying it was indeed opposing Rep. Paul? I am the first to admit the NRA at times will pull a serious boner. Opposing Ron Paul will fall into that category.

Before we start the war chant and beat the war drums I'd like to see what the NRA says, not what Robert Novak claims the NRA says.

[treeprof]

Maybe he respects the 10th ammendment. 'bout time someone in D.C. did.

[Seminole]

This is Congressman Paul's Explanation of his opposition to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (HR 1036). The text of that bill can be found at HR 1036 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:2:./temp/~c108LU5jap::)

Gun Rights vs. Centralization

Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, April 9, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a firm believer in the Second amendment and an opponent of all federal gun laws. In fact, I have introduced legislation, the Second Amendment Restoration Act (HR 153), which repeals misguided federal gun control laws such as the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban. I believe the Second amendment is one of the foundations of our constitutional liberties. However, Mr. Speaker, another foundation of those liberties is the oath all of us took to respect constitutional limits on federal power. While I understand and sympathize with the goals of the proponents of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (HR 1036), this bill exceeds those constitutional limitations, and so I must oppose it.

It is long past time for Congress to recognize that not every problem requires a federal solution. This country's founders understood the need to separate power between federal, state, and local governments to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to citizens. The reservation of most powers to the states strictly limited the role of the federal government in dealing with civil liability matters; it reserved jurisdiction over matters of civil tort, such as alleged gun-related negligence suits, to the state legislatures.

While I am against the federalization of tort reform, I must voice my complete disapproval of the very nature of these suits brought against gun manufacturers. Lawsuits for monetary damages from gun violence should be filed against the perpetrators of those crimes, not gun manufacturers! Holding manufacturers liable for harm they could neither foresee nor prevent is irresponsible and outlandish. The company that makes a properly functioning product in accordance with the law is acting lawfully, and thus should not be taken to court because of misuse by the purchaser (or in many cases, by a criminal who stole the weapon). Clearly these lawsuits are motivated not by a concern for justice, but by a search for deep pockets and a fanatical anti-gun political agenda.

However, Mr. Speaker, the most disturbing aspect of these lawsuits is the idea that guns, which are inanimate objects, are somehow responsible for crimes. HR 1036 shifts the focus away from criminals and their responsibility for their actions. It adds to the cult of irresponsibility that government unfortunately so often promotes. This further erodes the ethics of individual responsibility for one's own actions that must form the basis of a free and moral society. The root problem of violence is not the gun in the hand, but the gun in the heart: each person is accountable for the deeds that flow out of his or her own heart. One can resort to any means available to commit a crime, such as knives, fertilizer, pipes, or baseball bats. Should we start suing the manufacturers of these products as well because they are used in crimes? Of course not – the implications are preposterous.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would remind my fellow supporters of gun rights that using unconstitutional federal powers to restrict state gun lawsuits makes it more likely those same powers will be used to restrict our gun rights. Despite these lawsuits, the number one threat to gun ownership remains a federal government freed of its constitutional restraints. Expanding that government in any way, no matter how just the cause may seem, is not in the interests of gun owners or lovers of liberty.

In conclusion, while I share the concern over the lawsuits against gun manufacturers, which inspired HR 1036, this bill continues the disturbing trend toward federalization of tort law. Enhancing the power of the federal government is not in the long-term interests of defenders of the Second amendment and other constitutional liberties. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.

[Safety First]

Thanks for that post Seminole...That tells me all I need to know about Ron Paul, I feel the NRA is making a mistake opposing him. Can anyone make sense of the NRA stance ???

[Waitone]

No one has asked what my beef is with libertarians, so I'll pontificate in isolation. What I just read from the pen of Rep. Ron Paul is a prototype of the problem with libertarians in general.

Libertarians (small L) are great at telling me that where I am now is bad. Pick a problem and they will fall all over themselves describing in great detail the evils of the way it is.

They will also provide beautiful pictures of what should be, a picture of the Promised Land, as it were. If life were just and fair and libertarians weren't being stymied by evil major parties, why the Promised land would be available for all. Milk and honey all around and on the house.

What is missing is the road map for getting from the land of evil to the promised land.

Case in point:
This country's founders understood the need to separate power between federal, state, and local governments to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to citizens. The reservation of most powers to the states strictly limited the role of the federal government in dealing with civil liability matters; it reserved jurisdiction over matters of civil tort, such as alleged gun-related negligence suits, to the state legislatures.Yep, you're right. So I guess that means we just bend over and let the anti-constitutionalists have their way.
Lawsuits for monetary damages from gun violence should be filed against the perpetrators of those crimes, not gun manufacturers! Yep again! Problem is the gun is pointed at the head of people who have nothing to do with the problem and unless someone forces the gun away. So sir, your solution to the problem is to let the perp pull the trigger. How sir would you force the gun away. BTW sir. Tort law is based in gathering those who have deep pockets. While ideally victims should sue the gangsta what pulled the trigger, the real world says you go to where the money is. Money is with manufacturing and distribution not with the gangsta. What sir would you do to encourage those who have been harmed to go after those who did the deed, not after those who got the money.
In conclusion, while I share the concern over the lawsuits against gun manufacturers, which inspired HR 1036, this bill continues the disturbing trend toward federalization of tort law. Enhancing the power of the federal government is not in the long-term interests of defenders of the Second amendment and other constitutional liberties. Therefore, I must oppose this bill. Righto! But what would you do to solve the problem? What is your practical politically oriented means of stopping an unconstitutional attack on the right to keep and bear arms? What is you solution that would be acceptable to consititutional limitations and feasible to the parties in power? In other words Rep. Paul, what is the practical application of your philosophical constructions which you so eloquently expressed?

[David Roberson]

It's tough to figure out the NRA. Here in NC, we have an excellent statewide pro-gun group, Grass Roots North Carolina, that frequently finds itself fighting the NRA doing stupid things in Raleigh. The NRA has given highly optimistic ratings to some NC legislators who happily oppose all sorts of decent gun-law reforms. And the NRA sometimes endorses incumbents over more pro-gun challengers, with the mealy-mouthed explanation that "Well, he's going to win anyway, and if we endorse his opponent he won't listen to us any more." Grass Roots North Carolina rates candidates solely on their views on RKBA, which is why I pay little or no attention to NRA endorsements any more.

[Don Gwinn]

For Pete's sake, people, pay attention. Trying to figure out why Ron Paul thinks lawsuits against gun makers should continue? When did he ever say that?

What Ron Paul believes, as evidenced by actions, not words, is that there are Constitutional principles which should not be compromised even if you think it gives you a temporary economic or political advantage. Would you support a new law banning the publication of anti-gun statements? Would you pass a law declaring that all churches and religious organizations must preach that the right to self-defense is compatible with their respective religions?

No? Well, Ron Paul does not want to remove a citizen's (or a city's, or a state's) right to go to court and have grievances addressed. He believes that creating the principle that "some people" don't really have a right to their day in court is more dangerous in the long run than allowing anti-gun lawsuits to be filed.

[braindead0]

The door was opened with the 'big tobacco' lawsuits, it will continue... Guns, McD's, Mortons Salt...you name it and it'll get a big class action (or if the State's have their way, they'll get to it first).

It's all about collecting more wealth for the various State's to re-distribute amongs the welfare rolls (that includes the pork related welfare of course, which is probably most of it).

The problem is, stupid people in jury boxes (and ballot, and Judges of course).

Attempting to legislate this for the States at the Federal level is wrong, but the Feds can certainly fix the Federal courts. Perhaps then these lawsuits would never get filed, as they know once it got to the Federal level it would be thrown out.

And fixing this just for Gun manufacturers is wrong as well, what about ladder manufactuers, staple guns, paintball guns...etc...etc...

If we could just fix the idiots in the jury box, none of these things would be an issue.

[Chris Rhines]

Righto! But what would you do to solve the problem? I can think of a few potential solutions that Rep. Paul has supported in the past, including jury nullification in civil cases, "loser-pays" tort systems, and other such band-aids on our festering wound of a court system. But that was not what the bill in question was about. It was about the feds interfering in a state-level judicial process. Rep. Paul refused to compromise his principles for a short-term victory, and good for him!

What is your practical politically oriented means of stopping an unconstitutional attack on the right to keep and bear arms? Um, keep in mind, there ain't nothing unconstitutional about the attack. Brady, Sugarmann, et al, are expressing their 1st Amendment rights. Nothing wrong with that. A practical, politically-oriented means of keeping unconstitutional laws and judicial findings from happening, on the other hand? Easy. Don't vote for anti-gun laws, and don't vote to confirm anti-gun judges.

What is you solution that would be acceptable to consititutional limitations and feasible to the parties in power?"...feasible to the parties in power." Interesting term, there. Everyone gets all worked into a lather over the Brits and Frogs appeasing Nazi Germany, but here we have a suggestion to appease the Demopublican party. Wonderful.

Waitone, there is no way to stop the attack on out gun rights that is acceptable to the parties in power. The parties in power are anti-gun. The parties in power are the SOURCE of the attacks on our rights. The only thing 'feasible' to the parties in power is our eventual disarmament.

If you insist on an electoral solution to our problem, the only hope is to elect a whole lot more Rep. Pauls, and make them the party in power.

- Chris

[Silver Bullet]

The problem is, stupid people in jury boxes
This has been my position for a long time. People rail against the lawyers, but ultimately it is the jurors who make the bad decisions.

[Chris Rhines]

Jury duty is essentially slavery. Slaves aren't known for quality of work. Our present system excaserbates the problem by allowing voir dire, which generally eliminates from the jury pool anyone remotely qualified to serve.

Jurors should be paid volunteers. In the short term, eliminate voir dire and you'll help the issue immensely.

- Chris

[Hard Charger]

The day the NRA oppose Ron Paul, is the day I oppose the NRA.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well my initial thought is "Which is more likely? The NRA going after Ron Paul or Robert Novak doing questionable journalism?"

Doing a quick Google search on Novak, I find he is generally quiet on the gun issue and conservative but the few times he has spoken it has generally been pro-gun and at least one of the archived articles is an NRA-ILA article congratulating Novak on an article.

I'm inclined to think that this is a warning shot across the bow from NRA and not anything serious; but I think NRA is foolish to have even done that and will be beyond foolish to pursue it any further.

There is no questioning Ron Paul's pro-gun credentials. If the NRA wants to "punish" him, then they better be prepared to receive "punishment" from their members in the form of no more funds to pursue questionable policy such as this. I sure don't intend to be sending money to the NRA so they can infight in a secure pro-gun district with the one most reliable progun vote that we have had in ten years. I don't see TSRA backing them on this either...

[Pendragon]

I respect that Ron Paul sees the law as unconstitutional.

However, I think it is quite constitutional.

The law addresses suing gun makers under very specific circumstances - they are suing saying that if a criminal uses a gun in a crime, that that gun is somehow defective and that if a criminal acquires a gun, the gun industry is liable for that criminal acquisition when they "should have known better".

The commerce clause was designed to protect business in one state from being preyed upon by the laws and actions of another state. While the states and cities seeking redress are not in actual business competition, they do seek to threaten financial ruin and gain compliance through that threat.

Congress is essentially defining what does not constitute a defect in a gun and what is not criminal negligence in a gun company.

They are not saying that gun comapnies cannot be sued, they are saying that gun companies cannot be sued for these reasons and are legislating that certain behaviors do not constitute a civil cause of action due to the forseeable impact on interstate commerce.

[English John]

Quote "They are not saying that gun comapnies cannot be sued, they are saying that gun companies cannot be sued for these reasons and are legislating that certain behaviors do not constitute a civil cause of action due to the forseeable impact on interstate commerce."

I agree with you, BUT where does the FED gov't get off telling the STATE courts what kind of lawsuit they should handle? They can tell the Fed courts not to accept such suits (and they should, and did) but they shouldn't stick their noses into the state level. We are concerned because of the connection to guns, if it was a different topic we probably wouldn't care (but we should). I gotta go with Mr. Paul on this one, and I'm a Life Member of NRA. The State judges should be smart enough to throw those suits out (I bet they wouldn't let you sue the car companies) but they aren't that smart, or maybe they are politically motivated? The "stupid jurors" could nullify that part of the suit, but instead of judging on the facts (as they took an oath to do) they often make decisions based on emotions. Bad decision.

Sue the people with "deep pockets"? If I get drunk and run down your family you will sue Dodge because I don't have any money, Dodge does, and Dodge can't solve the problem of drunk drivers? Sorry, I can't agree.

If my Dodge truck is defective, we can both sue Dodge.

Maybe the solution is a return to following the Constitution, as EVERY legislator takes an oath to do. Maybe an idea so naive won't happen, but if it doesn't our grandchildren will live in a country we don't recognize.

[WonderNine]

Ron Paul is the only member of Congress who is worth voting for.

4/21/03: Ron Paul blasts Bush administration's support of Assault Weapon Ban

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst042103.htm

1/26/03: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) introduces bill to repeal 1994 "Assault Weapons" Ban.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.153:

[Satellite]

If so, continue to support the NRA. If not, you need to swing your dollars and your influence over to the GOA.

The NRA long ago became part of the problem.

Ron Paul is one of the VERY few principaled members of Congress.

[WonderNine]

The NRA sold us out years ago.