http://www.dakotavoice.com/200509/20050920_4.asp
Gun Maker Protection In Danger
your help needed to stop ammo ban and lock-up-your-safety amendments
"We're going to hit them right where it hurts -- in their bank accounts -- and we won't stop hitting until they stop flooding our streets with guns." -- Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, leading proponent of the "bankrupt the gun industry" movement
(Tuesday, September 20, 2005) - This quote demonstrates the rabid zealotry that exists in the anti-gun community. It also shows why it's so important for Congress to enact good legislation that will put an end to the dozens of frivolous lawsuits that have been launched against the gun industry.
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave has introduced H.R. 800 to do just that. The bill has already garnered broad support. Unlike the Senate version (S. 397), H.R. 800 is a CLEAN bill that will protect gun makers and sellers without punishing gun owners.
The Senate version, S. 397, was introduced by NRA board member Sen. Larry Craig, and was a good first step towards curtailing anti-gun lawsuits, until Sen. Craig agreed to allow anti-gun amendments.
When the bill came up in the Senate late last month, Majority Leader Bill Frist successfully used parliamentary procedure to block all amendments. But just when victory seemed sure, Senators Craig and Frist faltered and agreed to allow two anti-gun amendments to the bill: (1) a new "lock-up-your-safety" law, and (2) new language strengthening the so-called "armor-piercing" bullet restrictions. These measures turned a beneficial bill into a huge albatross. (See below for an explanation of the two amendments.)
Unfortunately, the NRA management is still supporting S. 397, even though it has gun control attached and even though H.R. 800 would accomplish the same goals without the gun control. Originally, NRA headquarters pledged to support "only a clean bill." By anyone's reasoning, S. 397 is no longer clean.
The anti-gun advocates were only able to attach these gun control amendments to S. 397 because Craig and Frist dropped their gloves when it counted. We didn't need to accept gun control in order to get gun maker protection, and we still don't.
EXAMINING THE AMENDMENTS
The first amendment to S. 397 -- offered by well known anti-gunner Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) -- requires gun dealers to include a lock-up-your-safety device with every handgun sold. In addition to imposing a gun tax on every handgun buyer, this amendment paves the way for future legislation mandating that gun owners use those trigger locks.
Worse, the lock-up-your-safety amendment may establish an implicit cause of action against any gun owner who chooses not to use the lock he has been forced to buy. While the amendment does contain language that is supposed to prohibit civil liability, gun law experts believe that this could easily be side-stepped in state court, and that gun owners who fail to lock-up their handguns could still be convicted of negligence.
Unfortunately, some are still trying to argue that the gun lock amendment does not create any liability for gun owners. However, they fail to explain why gun owners would want to support a law which says that gun owners are liable, but then says that they aren't.
Make no mistake: no matter how many convoluted phrases are added to the trigger lock amendment, rabid anti-gun zealots like Mayor Daley will be working overtime to find the loopholes and convict gun owners anyway.
Regardless, why would gun owners want to support a new law which forces us to buy a lock-up-your-safety device that could endanger our lives, and which makes it easier to pass the next law mandating that we use it?
The second anti-gun provision -- offered as a compromise by Sen. Craig -- strengthens the "armor-piercing bullet" restrictions of federal law. At its core, the Craig language does two things:
* It gives impetus to adopting a "penetration standard" for armor piercing bullets by commissioning a Justice Department study of the issue. If a "penetration standard" were adopted, a gun-adverse administration could use it to ban virtually any ammunition.
* It establishes a fifteen year MANDATORY MINIMUM PRISON SENTENCE for anyone who carries a single armor piercing bullet during the commission of a "crime of violence" -- or who "possesses" such a bullet "in furtherance of... such crime..."
This means that if a concealed carry permit holder opens his coat to display a firearm in order to thwart an assault -- and such an action is prohibited by a state's anti-self defense law -- then the court must sentence the innocent permit holder to a fifteen year mandatory minimum sentence if he happens to be carrying even one so-called "armor piercing bullet." The judge has no discretion.
______________
Who has Fed defined AP ammo anyway?
Gun Maker Protection In Danger
your help needed to stop ammo ban and lock-up-your-safety amendments
"We're going to hit them right where it hurts -- in their bank accounts -- and we won't stop hitting until they stop flooding our streets with guns." -- Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, leading proponent of the "bankrupt the gun industry" movement
(Tuesday, September 20, 2005) - This quote demonstrates the rabid zealotry that exists in the anti-gun community. It also shows why it's so important for Congress to enact good legislation that will put an end to the dozens of frivolous lawsuits that have been launched against the gun industry.
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave has introduced H.R. 800 to do just that. The bill has already garnered broad support. Unlike the Senate version (S. 397), H.R. 800 is a CLEAN bill that will protect gun makers and sellers without punishing gun owners.
The Senate version, S. 397, was introduced by NRA board member Sen. Larry Craig, and was a good first step towards curtailing anti-gun lawsuits, until Sen. Craig agreed to allow anti-gun amendments.
When the bill came up in the Senate late last month, Majority Leader Bill Frist successfully used parliamentary procedure to block all amendments. But just when victory seemed sure, Senators Craig and Frist faltered and agreed to allow two anti-gun amendments to the bill: (1) a new "lock-up-your-safety" law, and (2) new language strengthening the so-called "armor-piercing" bullet restrictions. These measures turned a beneficial bill into a huge albatross. (See below for an explanation of the two amendments.)
Unfortunately, the NRA management is still supporting S. 397, even though it has gun control attached and even though H.R. 800 would accomplish the same goals without the gun control. Originally, NRA headquarters pledged to support "only a clean bill." By anyone's reasoning, S. 397 is no longer clean.
The anti-gun advocates were only able to attach these gun control amendments to S. 397 because Craig and Frist dropped their gloves when it counted. We didn't need to accept gun control in order to get gun maker protection, and we still don't.
EXAMINING THE AMENDMENTS
The first amendment to S. 397 -- offered by well known anti-gunner Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) -- requires gun dealers to include a lock-up-your-safety device with every handgun sold. In addition to imposing a gun tax on every handgun buyer, this amendment paves the way for future legislation mandating that gun owners use those trigger locks.
Worse, the lock-up-your-safety amendment may establish an implicit cause of action against any gun owner who chooses not to use the lock he has been forced to buy. While the amendment does contain language that is supposed to prohibit civil liability, gun law experts believe that this could easily be side-stepped in state court, and that gun owners who fail to lock-up their handguns could still be convicted of negligence.
Unfortunately, some are still trying to argue that the gun lock amendment does not create any liability for gun owners. However, they fail to explain why gun owners would want to support a law which says that gun owners are liable, but then says that they aren't.
Make no mistake: no matter how many convoluted phrases are added to the trigger lock amendment, rabid anti-gun zealots like Mayor Daley will be working overtime to find the loopholes and convict gun owners anyway.
Regardless, why would gun owners want to support a new law which forces us to buy a lock-up-your-safety device that could endanger our lives, and which makes it easier to pass the next law mandating that we use it?
The second anti-gun provision -- offered as a compromise by Sen. Craig -- strengthens the "armor-piercing bullet" restrictions of federal law. At its core, the Craig language does two things:
* It gives impetus to adopting a "penetration standard" for armor piercing bullets by commissioning a Justice Department study of the issue. If a "penetration standard" were adopted, a gun-adverse administration could use it to ban virtually any ammunition.
* It establishes a fifteen year MANDATORY MINIMUM PRISON SENTENCE for anyone who carries a single armor piercing bullet during the commission of a "crime of violence" -- or who "possesses" such a bullet "in furtherance of... such crime..."
This means that if a concealed carry permit holder opens his coat to display a firearm in order to thwart an assault -- and such an action is prohibited by a state's anti-self defense law -- then the court must sentence the innocent permit holder to a fifteen year mandatory minimum sentence if he happens to be carrying even one so-called "armor piercing bullet." The judge has no discretion.
______________
Who has Fed defined AP ammo anyway?