This is a response to the article posted earlier, which discussed Gov. Benson's signing of a law prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. It has been sent to the state's largest newspaper, the Union Leader:
TOO BAD FOR WHOM?
Governor Benson recently signed a bill protecting gun manufacturers from being sued when someone uses their products in committing a crime. The governor thinks this just makes "good common sense", and he's right. We don't sue Ford over drunken drivers either. Gun manufacturers are producing a legal product which is already regulated to a fare-thee-well from the first step of manufacture to the moment the product is sold.
But common sense isn't necessarily so common. The headline at Seacoast Online: "Benson signs bills loosening gun laws". Loosening? It won't be one bit easier to purchase a gun under this law. That's a headline with an agenda. "These bills say too bad, so sad, pound sand if someone is a victim of gun violence," says Laurel Redden, state coordinator of the Million Mom March.
Well. Last time I checked, murder and assault with a deadly weapon were still illegal in New Hampshire, and had been for some time. It's not as if the Granite State just shrugs it off when someone is shot. Do these people think crime will stop if we make it really, really illegal?
What's actually got Ms. Redden's dander up is that another attempt at back-door legislation has been frustrated. The gun-control people, despite their disclaimers, intend nothing less than the complete prohibition of private ownership of firearms. Sure, they'll tell you they have no problem with hunting guns or target guns, as if you're any less dead when shot with an antique single-shot rifle as opposed to an assault weapon. But every once in a while the veil slips. Whenever it's pointed out that a new gun control law won't do much to reduce gun violence, someone in the gun control camp can be counted upon to say that "it's just a first step." First step? On the way to what?
The Million Moms and the Brady Bunch understand very well that Americans will not stand for a complete prohibition of gun ownership. This means they cannot win at the ballot box or in the Legislature, so they use the courts. For years now, suing gun manufacturers has been a favorite harassment tactic of the gun control lobby, as well as providing a nice revenue source for profligate municipalities. Trouble is, without some fairly outrageous bending of the law, judges can't find gun manufacturers responsible for what someone else does. Not that today's judiciary is afraid of legislating from the bench; it's just that they hate to be too obvious about it. The recent outcome of the NAACP suit is a case in point: the liberal activist judge just couldn't find enough cover to manufacture a victory for the gun grabbers, and had to rule against them. Such suits have been failing across the country as judges begin to notice the unpleasant cold sensation of an exposed backside.
But Ms. Redden did get one thing right: someone really is saying "too bad, so sad, pound sand" to victims of violence. It's Ms. Redden. We live in a rural state, and the police are few and far between. When the door is kicked in, when the enraged ex-lover stalks, when the rapist grabs you from behind in the darkened parking lot, it sure would be nice to be able to defend yourself. Ms. Redden, the Million Moms, Sarah Brady, and all their friends think we should dial 911 and wait. If we are raped or killed in the meantime, too bad. They are ready to fight for gun control right down to the last drop of our blood.
Michael R. Bowen M.D.
TOO BAD FOR WHOM?
Governor Benson recently signed a bill protecting gun manufacturers from being sued when someone uses their products in committing a crime. The governor thinks this just makes "good common sense", and he's right. We don't sue Ford over drunken drivers either. Gun manufacturers are producing a legal product which is already regulated to a fare-thee-well from the first step of manufacture to the moment the product is sold.
But common sense isn't necessarily so common. The headline at Seacoast Online: "Benson signs bills loosening gun laws". Loosening? It won't be one bit easier to purchase a gun under this law. That's a headline with an agenda. "These bills say too bad, so sad, pound sand if someone is a victim of gun violence," says Laurel Redden, state coordinator of the Million Mom March.
Well. Last time I checked, murder and assault with a deadly weapon were still illegal in New Hampshire, and had been for some time. It's not as if the Granite State just shrugs it off when someone is shot. Do these people think crime will stop if we make it really, really illegal?
What's actually got Ms. Redden's dander up is that another attempt at back-door legislation has been frustrated. The gun-control people, despite their disclaimers, intend nothing less than the complete prohibition of private ownership of firearms. Sure, they'll tell you they have no problem with hunting guns or target guns, as if you're any less dead when shot with an antique single-shot rifle as opposed to an assault weapon. But every once in a while the veil slips. Whenever it's pointed out that a new gun control law won't do much to reduce gun violence, someone in the gun control camp can be counted upon to say that "it's just a first step." First step? On the way to what?
The Million Moms and the Brady Bunch understand very well that Americans will not stand for a complete prohibition of gun ownership. This means they cannot win at the ballot box or in the Legislature, so they use the courts. For years now, suing gun manufacturers has been a favorite harassment tactic of the gun control lobby, as well as providing a nice revenue source for profligate municipalities. Trouble is, without some fairly outrageous bending of the law, judges can't find gun manufacturers responsible for what someone else does. Not that today's judiciary is afraid of legislating from the bench; it's just that they hate to be too obvious about it. The recent outcome of the NAACP suit is a case in point: the liberal activist judge just couldn't find enough cover to manufacture a victory for the gun grabbers, and had to rule against them. Such suits have been failing across the country as judges begin to notice the unpleasant cold sensation of an exposed backside.
But Ms. Redden did get one thing right: someone really is saying "too bad, so sad, pound sand" to victims of violence. It's Ms. Redden. We live in a rural state, and the police are few and far between. When the door is kicked in, when the enraged ex-lover stalks, when the rapist grabs you from behind in the darkened parking lot, it sure would be nice to be able to defend yourself. Ms. Redden, the Million Moms, Sarah Brady, and all their friends think we should dial 911 and wait. If we are raped or killed in the meantime, too bad. They are ready to fight for gun control right down to the last drop of our blood.
Michael R. Bowen M.D.