gun-fucious
Member
Sept. 28 Neal Knox Update – The hottest news at this year’s Gun Rights
Policy Conference in Houston, which wound up yesterday, was Senate
Minority Leader Tom Daschle’s announcement that he is co-sponsoring S.
659, the firearms industry liability protection bill.
That makes 55 co-sponsors. NRA-ILA is confident they have enough
additional votes to block the promised filibuster – which will
require at least 60 on a “cloture†resolution. They may have had
enough votes to defeat the filibuster without Daschle, but his
support appears to ice it.
The price NRA and chief sponsor Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) paid for
Daschle’s support were a few face-saving amendments which ILA Federal
Affairs Director Chuck Cunningham told the 400-plus attendees at the
Citizens Committee\Second Amendment Foundation event only amounted to a
“transparent fig-leaf.â€
I have an unverified copy of the amendments; they don’t appear to
have any significant effect.
There was an instant rumor among the assembled activists that the real
price was an agreement to let the so-called “assault weapon re-enactmentâ€
be passed – and/or withhold NRA support from Daschle’s opponent, possibly
John Thune who last year received $8,000 from ILA’s Political Victory
Fund when he ran against Sen. Tim Johnson.
The Sioux Falls Argus Leader reminded readers in the second paragraph of
their article that Daschle is up for reelection next year – an informal
recognition of the importance of the gun issue in South Dakota. A July
poll showed Daschle below 50 percent, and only slightly ahead of possible
opponent Thune.
ILA Executive Director Chris Cox told the newspaper that ratings aren’t
based on any single vote. Daschle has supported the Brady Center on
about 80 percent of the votes they track, and is the principle sponsor of
S. 22, a gun control wish list.
The “sell-out rumor†didn’t square with the panicky “emergency alertâ€
that the Brady Bunch issued, which screamed that Sen. Daschle had
co-sponsored an “appalling bill that would give unprecedented legal
immunity to the gun industry and bar gun violence victims from suing
reckless gun dealers and manufacturers who supply the illegal gun
market.â€
The Brady alert called the amendments “a few minor changes,†which
concurred with NRA-ILA’s assessment.
Cunningham bristled at the rumor, telling me, and later the group,
that “there was no deal cut,†either to let the “pseudo-assault
weapon†reenactment pass or to give Daschle favorable treatment in
next year’s election.
“S. 659 combined with repeal of the D.C. gun ban and anything else
we’re working on wouldn’t be worth enough to let the Clinton Gun
Ban continue,†Chuck told me.
NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre backed him up in a fire and
brimstone speech a couple of hours later, saying that NRA was on the
verge of passing the industry protection bill and declaring they intended
to “sunset the ‘assault ban’ once and for all.â€
Earlier this month Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) was reportedly
attempting to negotiate a deal tying reenactment and expansion of her
1994 semi-auto ban to the industry protection bill – which would be an
indication that she and her supporters were acknowledging a filibuster
won’t succeed.
If they are indeed trying to convert a loss into a major victory –
possibly attracting support from waffling Republican Senators who
would like to vote for the ban – I don’t think it will work
(although you’ll recall that last winter, before NRA came out so
strongly against reenactment, I was nervous about just such a
merging of the two bills).
During our conversation Cunningham acknowledged that a Feinstein
“assault weapon†amendment to S. 659 might pass the Senate (which
I consider likely), but he was confident it would be “stripped
out†in the House-Senate conference committee, and said ILA is
determined to do it.
The chances of reenactment of Clinton’s gun ban passing the House –
particularly while Democrats are in their pre-election “leave guns aloneâ€
mode – are mighty thin, provided we gunowners continue to let Congress
know how strongly we feel about it. The vote wouldn’t be as lopsided as
the House vote for the industry protection bill, but it wouldn’t pass –
even if polls show it’s politically popular.
The big question is when S. 659 will come to a vote, which is up to
Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). Ask Sen. Frist and your Senator to
vote on it now!
--------------
The Ohio Supreme Court decided 5-2 last week that the state’s ban
on concealed carry is constitutional, overturning two local and an
appellate court decision striking down the prohibition, and
throwing the issue back into the legislature.
The high court reinforced the fundamental right of Ohioans to bear
arms for defense and security, but said that right can be
restricted, and that the almost-total ban was “reasonable.â€
To the disappointment of the anti-gun community, the majority also
rejected arguments to strike the “prudent person†affirmative
defense for carrying concealed – which can be raised only after a
person has been arrested and charged with the felony offense of
illegal carrying.
Justices Maureen O'Connor and Evelyn Lundberg Stratton dissented.
O'Connor, in a written opinion, said that the law's “prudent
person†defense is inadequate, that current law “creates an
unavoidable chilling effect on the free exercise of the right to
bear arms for defense and security."
O'Connor wrote: "This is as offensive as a statute allowing the
arrest of anyone who speaks in public, but permitting the speaker
to prove at trial that the speech was constitutionally protected."
----------------
As expected, embattled California Gov. Gray Davis signed a new law
requiring all new semi-autos sold in the state in 2006 to have
either a mechanism showing that the pistol is loaded or a magazine
disconnect preventing the gun from firing if the “clip†is removed.
By 2007, new guns must have both features.
Although Davis has previously kept his intentions quiet, his staff
had loudly publicized the signing.
The Law Enforcement Alliance of America issued a press release
blistering the law for declaring pistols without such features
“unsafe guns,†thereby declaring most handguns carried by police
“unsafe.â€
The latest polls show up to 63 percent of Californians in support of
Davis’ recall, with Arnold Schwarzenegger a narrow four points ahead
of Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante. The only pro-gunner left in the race,
Sen. Tom McClintock, is well back at 17 or 18 percent.
Republican leaders, afraid that Bustamante may win, are pleading
with McClintock to withdraw and accept a post such as Finance
Director for "Gov. Schwarzenegger" – but Tom says he’s staying in
the race.
The election is next Tuesday.
----------------
Also last week Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) and Mike Ross (D-Ark.),
with 62 initial co-sponsors, introduced H.R. 3193, the District of
Columbia Personal Protection Act, which would repeal the Washington,
D.C. gun ban.
It’s the House companion to S. 1414 sponsored by Senate Judiciary
Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch.
I don’t expect any action on either of these bills this year –
unless the language gets added to other legislation – but ask your
Congressman to join as a co-sponsor.
Getting rid of D.C.'s outright ban -- like the ban on military-look
semi-autos -- is a bill that separates the supporters of the Second
Amendment from those who mouthe the words.
-----------------
I really feel for the National Guardsmen and other reservists called
up for duty in Iraq and elsewhere. Those folks are taking large –
in some cases, huge – pay cuts, and losing their family insurance
benefits in addition to being separated from their families from
months to more than a year.
The only legal requirement is that employers give them their jobs
back. But I learned from Greg and Suzanna (Gratia) Hupp that Sears
is voluntarily paying the difference in salaries and maintaining all
benefits, including medical insurance and bonus programs, for all
called up reservist employees for up to two years.
That deserves some applause.
Policy Conference in Houston, which wound up yesterday, was Senate
Minority Leader Tom Daschle’s announcement that he is co-sponsoring S.
659, the firearms industry liability protection bill.
That makes 55 co-sponsors. NRA-ILA is confident they have enough
additional votes to block the promised filibuster – which will
require at least 60 on a “cloture†resolution. They may have had
enough votes to defeat the filibuster without Daschle, but his
support appears to ice it.
The price NRA and chief sponsor Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) paid for
Daschle’s support were a few face-saving amendments which ILA Federal
Affairs Director Chuck Cunningham told the 400-plus attendees at the
Citizens Committee\Second Amendment Foundation event only amounted to a
“transparent fig-leaf.â€
I have an unverified copy of the amendments; they don’t appear to
have any significant effect.
There was an instant rumor among the assembled activists that the real
price was an agreement to let the so-called “assault weapon re-enactmentâ€
be passed – and/or withhold NRA support from Daschle’s opponent, possibly
John Thune who last year received $8,000 from ILA’s Political Victory
Fund when he ran against Sen. Tim Johnson.
The Sioux Falls Argus Leader reminded readers in the second paragraph of
their article that Daschle is up for reelection next year – an informal
recognition of the importance of the gun issue in South Dakota. A July
poll showed Daschle below 50 percent, and only slightly ahead of possible
opponent Thune.
ILA Executive Director Chris Cox told the newspaper that ratings aren’t
based on any single vote. Daschle has supported the Brady Center on
about 80 percent of the votes they track, and is the principle sponsor of
S. 22, a gun control wish list.
The “sell-out rumor†didn’t square with the panicky “emergency alertâ€
that the Brady Bunch issued, which screamed that Sen. Daschle had
co-sponsored an “appalling bill that would give unprecedented legal
immunity to the gun industry and bar gun violence victims from suing
reckless gun dealers and manufacturers who supply the illegal gun
market.â€
The Brady alert called the amendments “a few minor changes,†which
concurred with NRA-ILA’s assessment.
Cunningham bristled at the rumor, telling me, and later the group,
that “there was no deal cut,†either to let the “pseudo-assault
weapon†reenactment pass or to give Daschle favorable treatment in
next year’s election.
“S. 659 combined with repeal of the D.C. gun ban and anything else
we’re working on wouldn’t be worth enough to let the Clinton Gun
Ban continue,†Chuck told me.
NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre backed him up in a fire and
brimstone speech a couple of hours later, saying that NRA was on the
verge of passing the industry protection bill and declaring they intended
to “sunset the ‘assault ban’ once and for all.â€
Earlier this month Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) was reportedly
attempting to negotiate a deal tying reenactment and expansion of her
1994 semi-auto ban to the industry protection bill – which would be an
indication that she and her supporters were acknowledging a filibuster
won’t succeed.
If they are indeed trying to convert a loss into a major victory –
possibly attracting support from waffling Republican Senators who
would like to vote for the ban – I don’t think it will work
(although you’ll recall that last winter, before NRA came out so
strongly against reenactment, I was nervous about just such a
merging of the two bills).
During our conversation Cunningham acknowledged that a Feinstein
“assault weapon†amendment to S. 659 might pass the Senate (which
I consider likely), but he was confident it would be “stripped
out†in the House-Senate conference committee, and said ILA is
determined to do it.
The chances of reenactment of Clinton’s gun ban passing the House –
particularly while Democrats are in their pre-election “leave guns aloneâ€
mode – are mighty thin, provided we gunowners continue to let Congress
know how strongly we feel about it. The vote wouldn’t be as lopsided as
the House vote for the industry protection bill, but it wouldn’t pass –
even if polls show it’s politically popular.
The big question is when S. 659 will come to a vote, which is up to
Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). Ask Sen. Frist and your Senator to
vote on it now!
--------------
The Ohio Supreme Court decided 5-2 last week that the state’s ban
on concealed carry is constitutional, overturning two local and an
appellate court decision striking down the prohibition, and
throwing the issue back into the legislature.
The high court reinforced the fundamental right of Ohioans to bear
arms for defense and security, but said that right can be
restricted, and that the almost-total ban was “reasonable.â€
To the disappointment of the anti-gun community, the majority also
rejected arguments to strike the “prudent person†affirmative
defense for carrying concealed – which can be raised only after a
person has been arrested and charged with the felony offense of
illegal carrying.
Justices Maureen O'Connor and Evelyn Lundberg Stratton dissented.
O'Connor, in a written opinion, said that the law's “prudent
person†defense is inadequate, that current law “creates an
unavoidable chilling effect on the free exercise of the right to
bear arms for defense and security."
O'Connor wrote: "This is as offensive as a statute allowing the
arrest of anyone who speaks in public, but permitting the speaker
to prove at trial that the speech was constitutionally protected."
----------------
As expected, embattled California Gov. Gray Davis signed a new law
requiring all new semi-autos sold in the state in 2006 to have
either a mechanism showing that the pistol is loaded or a magazine
disconnect preventing the gun from firing if the “clip†is removed.
By 2007, new guns must have both features.
Although Davis has previously kept his intentions quiet, his staff
had loudly publicized the signing.
The Law Enforcement Alliance of America issued a press release
blistering the law for declaring pistols without such features
“unsafe guns,†thereby declaring most handguns carried by police
“unsafe.â€
The latest polls show up to 63 percent of Californians in support of
Davis’ recall, with Arnold Schwarzenegger a narrow four points ahead
of Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante. The only pro-gunner left in the race,
Sen. Tom McClintock, is well back at 17 or 18 percent.
Republican leaders, afraid that Bustamante may win, are pleading
with McClintock to withdraw and accept a post such as Finance
Director for "Gov. Schwarzenegger" – but Tom says he’s staying in
the race.
The election is next Tuesday.
----------------
Also last week Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) and Mike Ross (D-Ark.),
with 62 initial co-sponsors, introduced H.R. 3193, the District of
Columbia Personal Protection Act, which would repeal the Washington,
D.C. gun ban.
It’s the House companion to S. 1414 sponsored by Senate Judiciary
Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch.
I don’t expect any action on either of these bills this year –
unless the language gets added to other legislation – but ask your
Congressman to join as a co-sponsor.
Getting rid of D.C.'s outright ban -- like the ban on military-look
semi-autos -- is a bill that separates the supporters of the Second
Amendment from those who mouthe the words.
-----------------
I really feel for the National Guardsmen and other reservists called
up for duty in Iraq and elsewhere. Those folks are taking large –
in some cases, huge – pay cuts, and losing their family insurance
benefits in addition to being separated from their families from
months to more than a year.
The only legal requirement is that employers give them their jobs
back. But I learned from Greg and Suzanna (Gratia) Hupp that Sears
is voluntarily paying the difference in salaries and maintaining all
benefits, including medical insurance and bonus programs, for all
called up reservist employees for up to two years.
That deserves some applause.