CommonSense
Member
http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/feb04/210870.asp
Editorial: A gunfight in Washington
From the Journal Sentinel
Posted: Feb. 28, 2004
The U.S. Senate is set to vote Tuesday on an awful bill that would shield the gun industry from lawsuits - a benefit that no other industry enjoys in America. An attempt is under way to attach to that stinker some worthy measures, including proposals to renew the soon-to-expire ban on assault weapons and to require background checks of buyers of firearms at gun shows.
Last week, the Senate did affix to the main bill a laudable proposal, which would require dealers to supply child-safety locks for handguns they sell - a victory for Sen. Herb Kohl, the Wisconsin Democrat who has long championed this rule. The other sponsor was Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat.
On Tuesday, Kohl and Wisconsin's other senator, Russ Feingold, also a Democrat, should oppose the bad gun bill and back the good gun amendments. The House already has passed the unworthy bill, which would give all firms in the gun trade immunity from various kinds of lawsuits.
Consider, for example, the survivors of a Chicago shooting spree, in which two people died and nine others were wounded. They could not test in court the legal theory that, in selling 60 handguns to a single customer over two years, the gun shop was purposely skirting the law requiring background checks and, thus, should be held liable in part for the injuries under so-called common law. The customer, an obvious underground dealer, sold some of the weapons to the shooter, Benjamin Smith, a felon barred from buying firearms. We can't say whether the shop is liable, but we can say the issue is not frivolous and that the courts should not be prohibited from sorting it out.
The ban on assault weapons is surely a no-brainer. According to the Justice Department, the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes has fallen by two-thirds since the ban took effect in 1994. The proposal, which enjoys broad backing among law enforcement officials, is simply to extend the ban another decade.
Likewise, closing the Brady Law's gun-show loophole makes a good deal of sense. The law requires background checks for firearms only of licensed dealers, not the unlicensed sellers who often participate in gun shows, to which many crime guns have been traced. The amendment, also backed by law enforcement leaders, would require background checks of all buyers at gun shows.
The strategy of the gun control proponents in the Senate is to weigh down the bad bill with sensible and popular gun regulations. The shield from lawsuits mustn't pass under any circumstances, even with the worthy amendments attached. No industry in America deserves such protection, which subverts justice. But enactment of the shield would be all the more reason to regulate the industry through statutes. The public could no longer rely on the regulation that comes when victims pursue their grievances under common law in the courts.
Editorial: A gunfight in Washington
From the Journal Sentinel
Posted: Feb. 28, 2004
The U.S. Senate is set to vote Tuesday on an awful bill that would shield the gun industry from lawsuits - a benefit that no other industry enjoys in America. An attempt is under way to attach to that stinker some worthy measures, including proposals to renew the soon-to-expire ban on assault weapons and to require background checks of buyers of firearms at gun shows.
Last week, the Senate did affix to the main bill a laudable proposal, which would require dealers to supply child-safety locks for handguns they sell - a victory for Sen. Herb Kohl, the Wisconsin Democrat who has long championed this rule. The other sponsor was Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat.
On Tuesday, Kohl and Wisconsin's other senator, Russ Feingold, also a Democrat, should oppose the bad gun bill and back the good gun amendments. The House already has passed the unworthy bill, which would give all firms in the gun trade immunity from various kinds of lawsuits.
Consider, for example, the survivors of a Chicago shooting spree, in which two people died and nine others were wounded. They could not test in court the legal theory that, in selling 60 handguns to a single customer over two years, the gun shop was purposely skirting the law requiring background checks and, thus, should be held liable in part for the injuries under so-called common law. The customer, an obvious underground dealer, sold some of the weapons to the shooter, Benjamin Smith, a felon barred from buying firearms. We can't say whether the shop is liable, but we can say the issue is not frivolous and that the courts should not be prohibited from sorting it out.
The ban on assault weapons is surely a no-brainer. According to the Justice Department, the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes has fallen by two-thirds since the ban took effect in 1994. The proposal, which enjoys broad backing among law enforcement officials, is simply to extend the ban another decade.
Likewise, closing the Brady Law's gun-show loophole makes a good deal of sense. The law requires background checks for firearms only of licensed dealers, not the unlicensed sellers who often participate in gun shows, to which many crime guns have been traced. The amendment, also backed by law enforcement leaders, would require background checks of all buyers at gun shows.
The strategy of the gun control proponents in the Senate is to weigh down the bad bill with sensible and popular gun regulations. The shield from lawsuits mustn't pass under any circumstances, even with the worthy amendments attached. No industry in America deserves such protection, which subverts justice. But enactment of the shield would be all the more reason to regulate the industry through statutes. The public could no longer rely on the regulation that comes when victims pursue their grievances under common law in the courts.