GOA: Strip all gun control language from S397

[mack69]

GOA: Strip all gun control language from S397

More Calls Needed to the House of Representatives
-- Help Rep. Musgrave strip ALL gun control language from
lawsuit protection bill

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Thursday, August 11, 2005


"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, a leading
proponent of the "bankrupt the gun industry" movement

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.

At least two gun makers -- Bryco and Navegar -- have already been put out of business. And many other gun makers have been forced to dole out millions of dollars to protect themselves from these unscrupulous attorneys.

If we want to continue enjoying our Second Amendment rights, it is imperative that we work through the Congress to put a halt to these injurious attacks.

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave has taken up the cause in the House. She wants the Congress to send the President a CLEAN bill that will protect gun makers and sellers, without punishing gun owners in any way. The House bill (H.R. 800) is much better than the Senate version (S.
397), since the former is free and clear of all gun control.

As introduced, S. 397 would have been a good first step towards curtailing anti-gun lawsuits. Unfortunately, Senator Frist allowed two anti-gun amendments to be offered, and they turned a marginally beneficial bill into a huge albatross.

The first amendment -- offered by 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.

The second provision -- offered by Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) -- amended the armor-piercing bullet provisions of federal law. At its core, the Craig language did two things:

* It gave 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 probably use it to ban virtually all ammunition.

* It established 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..."

It is significant that "crime of violence" is defined in 18 U.S.C.
924(c)(3) to mean a felony that (1) involves the actual, attempted, or threatened use of force against person or property, or (2) involves a "substantial risk" of force against person or property.

Hence, 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 and therefore constitutes a felony of "criminal threatening" -- then the court must sentence the concealed carry permit holder to a fifteen year mandatory minimum sentence if he is carrying an "armor piercing bullet." The judge has no discretion.

The only "good news" in regard to the Craig language is that the 18 U.S.C. 921 definition of "armor piercing ammunition" was not affected. The definition is fairly restricted and limited to:

* A handgun projectile wholly made of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium, or

* A handgun projectile larger than .22 caliber with a jacket weighing more than 25% of the total weight of the projectile.

Thankfully, Rep. Musgrave is pushing the House leadership to get real lawsuit protection enacted, without endangering the Second Amendment rights of gun owners in any way.

ACTION: Please ask your Representative to sign onto the Musgrave letter opposing the anti-gun amendments in S. 397. And then, forward this alert to your pro-gun friends and family. Even if you have already contacted your Rep., please consider doing so again. Rep.
Musgrave needs a huge outpouring of support if she is to convince the House leadership that they should push H.R. 800, rather than just taking the Senate version at face value.

You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative a pre-written e-mail message such as the one below.

Or, you can call your Representative toll-free at 877-762-8762.

--- Pre-written letter ---

Dear Representative:

As you know, the Senate recently passed much-needed lawsuit protection for the gun industry (S. 397). But this bill passed with some unwanted baggage -- specifically, two amendments that chip away at the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.

One amendment imposes a handgun tax and paves the way for future requirements that gun owners lock up their guns, thus rendering them unavailable for self-defense. The second provision -- the armor piercing ammunition language -- would also pave the way for future restrictions, as explained in detail at www.gunowners.org/a081105.htm on the Gun Owners of America website.

For these reasons, I urge you to sign onto a letter being circulated by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave which deals with real efforts to gain lawsuit protection for gun makers and gun dealers, without endangering ordinary gun owners.

The letter asks the House leadership to push H.R. 800, a lawsuit protection bill that contains no gun control, rather than its Senate counterpart. H.R. 800 has been well received in the House, as it currently has 257 cosponsors.

America deserves a CLEAN bill which offers real protection for gun makers and dealers. Thank you very much.

[Arkalius]

A good cause I guess. I wonder if it isn't asking more than we can get though... I'm hoping it doesn't sabotage the bill itself.

[nf9648]

Sent mine to my nazi, Im hoping for hate mail in return so I can start my anti democrats in Hawaii campaign.

[Mus]

Originally Posted by nf9648

Sent mine to my nazi, Im hoping for hate mail in return so I can start my anti democrats in Hawaii campaign.

That oughta fly like a brick in a state that liberal.

[major caliber]

Why there is ANY anti-gun language in a bill that should be strictly protecting ligitimate businesses from harrassment lawsuits is beyond me. If as some say- the anti-gun language means nothing, well then just strike it out.
If our industries, including firearms industries, can't see the value of, and have the power to generate in Congress a clean bill that simply says that if your lawful product performs as intended, then that business cannot be sued, then they deserve these nusiance lawsuits.

[Mus]

Originally Posted by major caliber

If as some say- the anti-gun language means nothing, well then just strike it out.

Absolutely.

[kjhof]

Like the rest of you, I don't at all like the gun lock or AP bullet language. My concern, though, is that if we make too big a stink about something that seems to be, after all, a couple of fairly trivial concessions, we could end up with nothing (I don't have a good enough feel for the dynamics of Congress to have a very good idea how big that risk is). It's all well and good to proudly shout "No compromise on the Constitution!" but doing so ignores the reality that politics today is all compromise. It seems to me that no politician who wants to get very far in the snake pit that is today's Washington D.C. can afford to have any values that are non-negotiable. I think it's a travesty of the political process every time a bill is loaded down with amendments that have nothing to do with the original intent of the bill, but that seems to be how things work now, and how do we change that?

[The Drew]

Originally Posted by kjhof

Like the rest of you, I don't at all like the gun lock or AP bullet language. My concern, though, is that if we make too big a stink about something that seems to be, after all, a couple of fairly trivial concessions, we could end up with nothing

At this point, I'd rather end up with nothing than have any "compromise" in a bill such as this. Compromise leads to us losing our rights, it has been proven in the past. And also these amendments that so many of you seem to feel are "trivial" or "harmless" will lead us to the next bill that will be the next step toward us turning them in...

So I'm with the GOA and JPFO on this one... NO MORE COMPROMISES!!!

[James]

It may be better to get the gun companies some relief from the lawsuits and deal with the AP ammo and trigger lock BS later.

I am not sure what their daily legal expenses are, but it would probably make the cost of a trigger lock look pretty trivial.

[bumm]

>It may be better to get the gun companies some
> relief from the lawsuits and deal with the AP
> ammo and trigger lock BS later.

Absolutely! I'll have to trust the judgement of the NRA in this case. All the flap about the possible problems with certain amendments seems to be an extremely clever move by the antigunners to get us to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Don't fall for it. Destroying the gun manufacturing industry through nuisance lawsuits has been one of their great hopes.
Marty

[Robert Hairless]

It's good that you'd "rather end up with nothing than have any 'compromise' in a bill such as this," because nothing is probably what we would all end up with if your organizations have their way. You are playing into the hands of the anti-gun groups. They don't want S.397 to become law either.

Here are two compromises that we all stand to lose also because of that "no compromise" position.


S.397 defines the Second Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) as an individual right. Although I'm sure everyone here already knows that it is, there's a little problem: at least some federal judges believe that the Second Amendment applies only to the states, not to individuals, and it's what those judges think that matters. For example, Second Circuit Court Judge Norman A. Mordue upheld the New York State law that makes it illegal for you to have a firearm in New York State unless you are a resident of that state and have its permits. What you believe doesn't matter. If the relevant language of S.397 becomes federal law, the tables are turned and what Judge Mordue (and others like him) decided will no longer apply.


S.397 also states flatly that the right to keep and bear arms (and the ammunition for them) is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, which makes it a civil right. The Fourteenth Amendment does not allow the states to deny citizens any civil rights. That should mean the end of both "may issue" states and local officials who restrict your ability to own guns and ammunition. A few weeks ago the city of Columbus, Ohio, passed an "assault weapons ban" that includes any semi-automatic weapon capable of holding more than 10 rounds. So the Ruger 10/22 and the model 1911 are therefore now among the "assault weapons" in Columbus (and in five other Ohio cities, I believe). If the relevant language of S.397 becomes federal law, this law in Columbus, Ohio, and other places are overturned. You might even feel comfortable throughout California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.


That's what you will throw out because you don't want the gun lock provision or the retention of the current law that already prohibits the use of armor piercing ammunition in handguns. (It's all the new law would prohibit too.) So if you prevent passage of this law, the bottom line is that you won't be forced by federal law to pay the cost of a gun lock. Manufacturers will include them anyway because state laws require them, so you'll pay the cost anyway. You'll still have the law against using armor piercing ammo in handguns. So your total gain, if you prevent this law, is exactly zero. But you'll have the satisfaction of knowing that you prevented two insignificant compromises in order to defeat a law that guaranteed the individual right to keep and bear arms and that put teeth into that guarantee.


And you consider that result a victory?

[kjhof]

As always, well said, Robert.

[Arkalius]

Originally Posted by Robert Hairless

S.397 defines the Second Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) as an individual right. Although I'm sure everyone here already knows that it is, there's a little problem: at least some federal judges believe that the Second Amendment applies only to the states, not to individuals, and it's what those judges think that matters. For example, Second Circuit Court Judge Norman A. Mordue upheld the New York State law that makes it illegal for you to have a firearm in New York State unless you are a resident of that state and have its permits. What you believe doesn't matter. If the relevant language of S.397 becomes federal law, the tables are turned and what Judge Mordue (and others like him) decided will no longer apply.

As much as I agree with your general sentiment, I'm not entirely sure this is accurate. It's not congress's job to interpret the constitution, it's the supreme court's job... This language could give some justices enough cause to call the bill unconstitutional if they decide Congress's findings are not in line with their own thoughs... but maybe I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by Robert Hairless

That should mean the end of both "may issue" states and local officials who restrict your ability to own guns and ammunition. A few weeks ago the city of Columbus, Ohio, passed an "assault weapons ban" that includes any semi-automatic weapon capable of holding more than 10 rounds. So the Ruger 10/22 and the model 1911 are therefore now among the "assault weapons" in Columbus (and in five other Ohio cities, I believe). If the relevant language of S.397 becomes federal law, this law in Columbus, Ohio, and other places are overturned. You might even feel comfortable throughout California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.

I wish it were that easy. Even if the language in this law is enough to invalidate those state laws, they can only be invalidated through judicial actions, such as a citizen being arrested for offenses described by this law challenging it in court. Such things don't happen often and even if it did happen it may not get far.

Mandatory gun locks with handguns is hardly a big deal. We've been required to buy gun locks with every firearm purchase here in CA (that or have an affadavit indicating we own a gun safe) for awhile. Sure it's kind of annoying but if that's all we have to put up with to avoid bankrupting the firearms industry, then I think it's really not that bad. The AP ammo provision really only increases penalties for crimes committed with the ammo, which I don't think any of us can say is a bad thing. It does call for an investigation to figure out if a standard for determining what AP ammo is is possible, but that is hardly a big deal. It doesn't require such a standard to be derived and it certainly doesn't give one man discretionary power to create the standard or define AP ammo.

I agree that it would be nice to strip out the bad stuff from the bill but I don't think it would be prudent of us to drop support of the bill unless they do strip it.

[The Drew]

Originally Posted by Robert Hairless

It's good that you'd "rather end up with nothing than have any 'compromise' in a bill such as this," because nothing is probably what we would all end up with if your organizations have their way. You are playing into the hands of the anti-gun groups. They don't want S.397 to become law either.

Here are two compromises that we all stand to lose also because of that "no compromise" position.


S.397 defines the Second Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) as an individual right. Although I'm sure everyone here already knows that it is, there's a little problem: at least some federal judges believe that the Second Amendment applies only to the states, not to individuals, and it's what those judges think that matters. For example, Second Circuit Court Judge Norman A. Mordue upheld the New York State law that makes it illegal for you to have a firearm in New York State unless you are a resident of that state and have its permits. What you believe doesn't matter. If the relevant language of S.397 becomes federal law, the tables are turned and what Judge Mordue (and others like him) decided will no longer apply.


S.397 also states flatly that the right to keep and bear arms (and the ammunition for them) is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, which makes it a civil right. The Fourteenth Amendment does not allow the states to deny citizens any civil rights. That should mean the end of both "may issue" states and local officials who restrict your ability to own guns and ammunition. A few weeks ago the city of Columbus, Ohio, passed an "assault weapons ban" that includes any semi-automatic weapon capable of holding more than 10 rounds. So the Ruger 10/22 and the model 1911 are therefore now among the "assault weapons" in Columbus (and in five other Ohio cities, I believe). If the relevant language of S.397 becomes federal law, this law in Columbus, Ohio, and other places are overturned. You might even feel comfortable throughout California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.


That's what you will throw out because you don't want the gun lock provision or the retention of the current law that already prohibits the use of armor piercing ammunition in handguns. (It's all the new law would prohibit too.) So if you prevent passage of this law, the bottom line is that you won't be forced by federal law to pay the cost of a gun lock. Manufacturers will include them anyway because state laws require them, so you'll pay the cost anyway. You'll still have the law against using armor piercing ammo in handguns. So your total gain, if you prevent this law, is exactly zero. But you'll have the satisfaction of knowing that you prevented two insignificant compromises in order to defeat a law that guaranteed the individual right to keep and bear arms and that put teeth into that guarantee.


And you consider that result a victory?

First of all, the "findings" mean absolutely nothing... Zip, zero, nada... They are not law, it is nothing more than feel good lip service to the constituency... A constituency that is NOT served by this legislation. Despite what all of you seem to think, this legislation is NOT a victory for gunowners. It is a victory for the Industry. Now, you may argue that without the industry there is no RKBA, that may be true, but this legislation is NOT about gun ownership. This legislation serves only those who are in the gun industry. NOT gun owners. This legislation hurts gunowners by imposing extra costs upon the consumer, while at the same time opening the doors for more of our rights to go out the window.

I support this legislation as a clean bill, not with the sellout BS that was attached in the senate.

[Robert Hairless]

Get a grip. You've just objected that a bill that has been widely publicised as being intended to protect the firearms industry in lawful commerce does in fact protect the firearms industry in lawful commerce.

I suppose that you think you have a point in claiming that American gun owners don't benefit by having an American gun industry but I just don't see what your point might be. Lawsuits are brought against gun manufacturers, distributors, and dealers for the purpose of driving them out of business. Organizations like yours that claim to speak for gun owners shouldn't want gun manufacturers, distributors, and dealers forced out of business. And organizations that claim to speak for gun owners shouldn't want us to pay higher prices, as we must if the gun industry has to pay the costs of defending those suits.

Your claim that "This legislation hurts gunowners by imposing extra costs upon the consumer" is absurd. Those "extra costs" is the price of a gun lock. A gun lock is routinely included with new guns today. It is not something new that is imposed by this legislation. Laws in states such as California already mandate the inclusion of a gun lock with each new gun sold. The amount of the "extra costs" for a gun lock if you buy one over the counter shouldn't be more than about $7.50. Your agony is out of all proportion to reality.

I don't have patience with the argument about this bill "opening the doors for more of our rights to go out the window" because that argument is far too devious for me. Surely you don't really believe that there needs to be a "door opened" for "more of our rights to go out the window." There are so many of those "doors" around that it's laughable to maintain that this bill does anything significant in that respect. I've just cited one case out of a great many (Bach v. Pataki, 289 F. Supp. 2d 217, 223 [NDNY 2003]) in which Judge Mordue upheld New York State's laws denying non-resident any rights. How could we have fewer than no rights in that state and others? The reality is that our rights depend entirely on federal, state, and local laws, and on federal, state, and local judges.

The louder you proclaim this bill to be a horror the more I doubt your ability to speak for gun owners. Of course it's not a perfect bill and of course it represents compromises. Lawmaking always involves compromises because there's always disagreement. It doesn't take much maturity to recognized that life in general involves compromises. Wisdom helps one to recognize which compromises are acceptable, and in the case of this bill the few compromises are so close to being meaningless in any practical sense that they are (or ought to be) no brainers. I know I have a good deal wenever I can give what I don't have in order to get something that I want.

You might want to start thinking that way if you're going to continue speaking for gun owners. Otherwise you're going to do us all a great deal of harm. It's silly to argue that we're better off without the bill than we are with it. It's even sillier to argue that we would be better off if the bill's references to armor piercing ammunition were stripped out. We would be in exactly the same position with respect to armor piercing ammunition.

Yes, I know you and your friends object to the bill's requirement of an Attorney General's report but you neglect to mention that there's nothing to prevent the Attorney General from doing such a study and making such a report even without such a provision in the bill. Behave responsibly. The sky is not falling, only some chicken littles running around trying to make it fall so they can seem important for a while.

[major caliber]

Every manufacturer is burdened by "harrassment lawsuits," not strictly gun manufacturers. I just bought a pressure cleaner the other day, the tires bear instructions" not to drive the tiny 5 inch wheels on a highways," and the wand has a " safety device," so that I cannot activate water with it on. I could not rent a ladder, because some idiot might use it as scafolding, and the rental place was afraid of being sued, and of course my automobile has to have a safety device on the transmission to prevent me from DRIVING when I place the car in DRIVE! All this stupidity costs the manufacturers and US money. If businesses will not support laws that state that if their product works as intended, there is no basis for lawsuits, then they deserve whatever happens.

There is no reason for any anti-gun language is a products liability bill. Furthermore most Congressman never even see the final bill, nor has the word of any antigunner, ever been worth a pile of manure. Name one Congressman who can claim to have read and understand the Patriot Act before the final vote. The only "product" you might have legislated against in this bill is bullets and gunowners.

[kjhof]

Major Caliber, I'm not sure I quite follow your position. Indisputably, other industries face ridiculous litigation (although I'd be hard pressed to think of an industry hit as hard by it as the firearms industry--tobacco is a possiblity, I suppose). Does that mean there's something wrong with protecting the firearms industry from this kind of wanton predation? I don't see why. The pro-gun opponents of this bill like to talk about the "doors it opens," but perhaps one might consider that it opens the door to protecting other industries, as well. Additionally, arguing that "this bill protects the gun industry, not gun owners" seems rather weak. What would be the point of having the right to own firearms and ammunition, if there was no one to make them?
Fine, there is language in the bill that "shouldn't" be there--I don't think anyone here is disputing that point. Unfortunately, this is the real world, and all kinds of things that "shouldn't" happen do. I'm not sure what the solution to that problem is, but I'm rather positive that the solution isn't to throw up our hands and say "Give me everything I want, without even symbolic, inconsequential concessions, or give me nothing, and let me continue to suffer the untenable status quo."

[robertbank]

Reform of your tort laws has been long in coming. Not surprising given the majority of elected individuals on both sides of the 49th are lawyers! From afar I am amazed at how litigeous your country has become. It seems to be a paradox that those who claim to be a nation of independent people responsible for their own actions appear to be without fault when it comes to daily living.

Life, as Rober Hairless has so elequently described is one of compromises.

Our societies are not the societies of our grand- fathers or our great grand-fathers. Time is moved on with different challenges. Over the past 100 years various laws have been passed to control or limit the use of firearms in the US. with the support I suggest of the majority. Tell me which State has no gun laws, which State you can do pretty much as you wish with your guns. OK maybe Alaska! If you can't name me one than I fail to see what all the fuss is about.

If saving your gun industry requires some minor concessions then I say compromise!

For the gentleman who thinks the gun industry and gun owners are not in this together I say wake up and smell the roses.

The tree that doesn't sway in the wind falls over and dies. On this issue it is time to start swaying. Saving your industries and jobs, including those in the gun industry, is far more important right now than arguing over mandatory gun locks. Up here they come free with every gun purchase ( I know the price of the gun includes the locks).

Their is no legitimate reason for private citizens to own armour piercing bullets as far as I am concerned. Our fellow citizens who serve in our Police Departments surely deserve some protection and restricting acess to armour piercing bullets is one small step in that direction.

Before any of you jump on me by directing your comments to our Bill C 68 I can tell you for a fact that in many respects it is less restrictive than a great number of your State gun laws. A fact lost on many Canadian gun owners. It is however, a PITA.

I hope your gun industry gets the needed protection they deserve.

[The Drew]

Originally Posted by Robert Hairless

Get a grip. You've just objected that a bill that has been widely publicised as being intended to protect the firearms industry in lawful commerce does in fact protect the firearms industry in lawful commerce.

I never objected to the original clean bill... So you should take a breath and read what I'm saying. I want this bill to pass. Without the amendments

Originally Posted by Robert Hairless

I suppose that you think you have a point in claiming that American gun owners don't benefit by having an American gun industry but I just don't see what your point might be. Lawsuits are brought against gun manufacturers, distributors, and dealers for the purpose of driving them out of business. Organizations like yours that claim to speak for gun owners shouldn't want gun manufacturers, distributors, and dealers forced out of business. And organizations that claim to speak for gun owners shouldn't want us to pay higher prices, as we must if the gun industry has to pay the costs of defending those suits.

I do have a point that this bill doesn't do anything for gun owners... Lawsuits are brought against EVERY industry and EVERY industry has to defend against them, whether they have merit or not. Why should the gun industry be so special? I would've rather had this bill be a general "lawful protection of commerce act" rather than just a protection of the gun industry. Take the gun out of this needed reform and there would be even less reason to fight it based on anti gun arguements, and even less need for "compromise" amendments that impose burdens on gunowners.

Originally Posted by Robert Hairless

Your claim that "This legislation hurts gunowners by imposing extra costs upon the consumer" is absurd. Those "extra costs" is the price of a gun lock. A gun lock is routinely included with new guns today. It is not something new that is imposed by this legislation. Laws in states such as California already mandate the inclusion of a gun lock with each new gun sold. The amount of the "extra costs" for a gun lock if you buy one over the counter shouldn't be more than about $7.50. Your agony is out of all proportion to reality.

So in one arguement you say that you don't want the cost of fighting lawsuits passed on to the customer but in another argument you don't mind that you are forced to purchase a gun lock??? And you don't see any hypocrisy in your own arguments? Yes locks cost a little on a gun by gun basis, but why should someone be forced to purchase something that they'll never use? Unless the next reasoning is that those locks must be used by law... It is nothing more than an added burden to the gunowner who could use that $7.50 to buy a box of ammo to go with their new gun instead of a useless junk lock.

Originally Posted by Robert Hairless

I don't have patience with the argument about this bill "opening the doors for more of our rights to go out the window" because that argument is far too devious for me. Surely you don't really believe that there needs to be a "door opened" for "more of our rights to go out the window." There are so many of those "doors" around that it's laughable to maintain that this bill does anything significant in that respect. I've just cited one case out of a great many (Bach v. Pataki, 289 F. Supp. 2d 217, 223 [NDNY 2003]) in which Judge Mordue upheld New York State's laws denying non-resident any rights. How could we have fewer than no rights in that state and others? The reality is that our rights depend entirely on federal, state, and local laws, and on federal, state, and local judges.

Again if the AP amendment does nothing as you so suredly feel, then why can't it be thrown out? I see NO need for it. I have said this before and will say one more time. I want the lawful protection of commerce act to pass, just as a clean bill without these stupid amendments... Can you actually give me a good argument FOR the AP amendment other than the lame excuse that "it kept kennedy's amendment off the bill" that argument is complete and utter BS and everyone knows it. We keep losing our rights by compromises like this, and we don't need to keep going down that path.

Originally Posted by Robert Hairless

The louder you proclaim this bill to be a horror the more I doubt your ability to speak for gun owners. Of course it's not a perfect bill and of course it represents compromises. Lawmaking always involves compromises because there's always disagreement. It doesn't take much maturity to recognized that life in general involves compromises. Wisdom helps one to recognize which compromises are acceptable, and in the case of this bill the few compromises are so close to being meaningless in any practical sense that they are (or ought to be) no brainers. I know I have a good deal wenever I can give what I don't have in order to get something that I want.

Two things, I never proclaimed this bill to be a "horror" I think that the original bill is golden, but not worth passing in it's amended form. I feel the compromises made are detrimental to our rights as gunowners and that is MY opinion. Second, I never said that I speak for anyone but myself. These are MY opinions ONLY. If others agree with me then so be it.

I understand the political process, and I understand that compromise needs to be made, however I don't think either amendment to this bill belong attached. Why? They are riders that have nothing to do with gun industry protection... Maybe the lock provision in a stretch could be deemed a compromise that "in order to get industry protection, we've ordered all manufactures to supply a lock" MAYBE... but the AP amendment has NOTHING to do with industry protection. This amendment belongs with some other legislation. I still wouldn't support this amendment even if it were attached to an appropriate bill. I feel this amendment is too much compromise. Apparently you feel different. Fine. We'll agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by Robert Hairless

You might want to start thinking that way if you're going to continue speaking for gun owners. Otherwise you're going to do us all a great deal of harm. It's silly to argue that we're better off without the bill than we are with it. It's even sillier to argue that we would be better off if the bill's references to armor piercing ammunition were stripped out. We would be in exactly the same position with respect to armor piercing ammunition.

As I have said, I speak for myself, And I don't feel I'm doing anything but good by raising questions about these amendments. I don't see this so called "harm" you keep referring to.

Obviously you are convinced that we urgently need this legislation. I feel that this legislation is good, and needed, but it isn't quite that urgent. If we cannot get a clean bill now, We can try again next session... It's already happened more than once... So I just don't see the urgency.

You've made my point for me with the AP amendment. It isn't needed. So it should go. I'm really wondering how you're missing that point.

Originally Posted by Robert Hairless

Yes, I know you and your friends object to the bill's requirement of an Attorney General's report but you neglect to mention that there's nothing to prevent the Attorney General from doing such a study and making such a report even without such a provision in the bill. Behave responsibly. The sky is not falling, only some chicken littles running around trying to make it fall so they can seem important for a while.

You call me a chicken little for questioning the need for the AP amendment. Yet you follow the line fed you by the NRA and the GOP like a sheep. I feel what I am doing (questioning why the AP amendment is there and arguing against it) is way better than swallowing what the MSM and the NRA feed me.

[Robert Hairless]

"The Drew," your major point about this bill is exactly the same as the major point of the openly anti-gun people: that the gun industry should not be singled out for special protection. It's a disturbing point when the openly anti-gun people try to make that argument while they simultaneously instigate suits against gun manufacturers, gun distributors, and gun dealers with the avowed intent of forcing them out of business. It's even more disturbing when you argue the same way.

The NRA has done a lot of education about this point. You can't have missed seeing all of it, and yet you argue that there should not be special protection for an industry that is under special attack. Other industries are not under the same concerted attacks: there do not seem to be any similar efforts against industries such as vacuum cleaners, televisions, clothing, or Heinz 57 products. Nobody is suing Theresa and John for the harm caused by their beans. Only the gun industry is under such attack. You sound very much like the anti-gun people when you argue on their side.

Assuming, again, that you're not really on their side and that the resemblance is only coincidental, your arguments are still silly. It's foolish for us to trust people who twist facts, who have no sense of proportion in their judgments, and who don't seem to understand even what they themselves say.

Take, for example, your statement that "This legislation hurts gunowners by imposing extra costs upon the consumer."

In reality S.397 doesn't mandate extra costs for the consumer. It mandates only one cost--the cost of a gun lock included with new guns when they are sold. You twist that fact.

You twist the facts again by misrepresenting it as an "extra" cost. The requirement for a gun lock to be included with each new gun sold is not the creation of this bill. The gun lock is the very same one that's already included with new guns when they're sold because of the state laws that require its inclusion and because gun manufacturers want to preempt potential liability for providing unsafe products.

And the cost of the gun lock is insignificant. I was embarrassed for you when I saw you actually argue that it's the cost of a box of ammunition and we should all protest about being forced to pay so much. Once again you twist the facts. You must know that even a box of cheap but serviceable ammunition costs more than $7.50: Winchester white box in 9mm costs about $11.50 and in .45 ACP the cost is about $20.

So there's only one cost, that cost already exists and is already passed on to the consumer, and it's a trivial cost anyway. If you achieve total victory in removing that section of the bill we will be left in exactly the same position as if the bill were unmodified. Your total victory would result in no gain at all for gun owners. And the fight you want us to mount will make us look like jackasses who fight hard against our own supporters to defeat a law that's in our own interests and we do it even when there is nothing to gain and much to lose.

Same thing about armor piercing ammunition. The definition of armor piercing ammunition is in another law entirely, the prohibition is against armor piercing ammunition for handguns only, and that law is not even affected by this bill. You profess more outrage that this bill increases the powers of the Attorney General with respect to armor piercing ammunition: but the bill does no such thing because the Attorney General already has complete powers with respect to armor piercing ammunition. Once again, total victory in the fight you advocate would result in no gain at all, but you run around urging us to fight anyway. And when you're pinned down, point by point, your arguments get sillier and sillier. Why in the world are you doing that?

What you want is for us to fight against a bill that gives gun owners great benefits at no additional cost, and even those few costs are insignificant to responsible gun owners. I don't want the gun lock because my own situation makes it unnecessary, and I don't see the need to supply gun locks to experienced and responsible gun owners, but I can admit the possibility that there might be a reason to provide it to new gun owners who have children and might not be aware of the precautions responsible gun owners should take. At a cost of less than one box of ammunition I'm quite willing to compromise and even to acknowledge that the result might be good. I'm old enough to understand that life isn't all about me and what I want.

All of the above is just about only a few of your breezy arguments to the effect that we should all be outraged by some unbearable tyranny in this bill and work to defeat it. What's missing from all of them is a sense of reality and proportion. You actually argue that the right to keep and bear arms can exist without manufacturers, distributors, and dealers in the arms and ammunition. That's what the anti-gun people are arguing now too. They want this law defeated, and the way to do it now is to fracture the solidarity of gun owners and alienate their supporters.

I am not interested in looking like a nut case or an anti-gun advocate. This is not the time to undercut the NRA. I won't do it and I won't cooperate with you and your organizations to do it.

[The Drew]

Originally Posted by Robert Hairless

"The Drew," your major point about this bill is exactly the same as the major point of the openly anti-gun people: that the gun industry should not be singled out for special protection. It's a disturbing point when the openly anti-gun people try to make that argument while they simultaneously instigate suits against gun manufacturers, gun distributors, and gun dealers with the avowed intent of forcing them out of business. It's even more disturbing when you argue the same way.

All I said is that EVERY industry deserves the same protection... And this was NOT my major point. Clearly at this point you are blinded by your own frustrations with my arguements and cannot comprehend what I wrote. I NEVER said that this bill shouldn't pass because it is narrow to the gun industry. I said this bill should pass in it's original form. Why must your keep comparing my arguments to anti gun positions? I personally have never heard the anti gun crowd argue that these immunities should be delivered to every industry... It is HIGHLY offensive to me that you keep inferring that I am somehow anti gun. What that says to me is that your arguments are weak and turn to name calling in order to defend your positions.

Originally Posted by Robert Hairless

The NRA has done a lot of education about this point. You can't have missed seeing all of it, and yet you argue that there should not be special protection for an industry that is under special attack. Other industries are not under the same concerted attacks: there do not seem to be any similar efforts against industries such as vacuum cleaners, televisions, clothing, or Heinz 57 products. Nobody is suing Theresa and John for the harm caused by their beans. Only the gun industry is under such attack. You sound very much like the anti-gun people when you argue on their side.

Again If you would go back and READ my positions... I AM IN SUPPORT OF THE INDUSTRY PROTECTION!!! I am also in support of this same protection for EVERY industry. EVERY industry must take pains and staff a large legal department because of out of control lawsuits. The gun industry is not the only industry that has to battle these efforts. If you don't believe that then you've certainly got your head in the sand. And please STOP calling me an anti gun person.

Originally Posted by Robert Hairless

Assuming, again, that you're not really on their side and that the resemblance is only coincidental, your arguments are still silly. It's foolish for us to trust people who twist facts, who have no sense of proportion in their judgments, and who don't seem to understand even what they themselves say.

Take, for example, your statement that "This legislation hurts gunowners by imposing extra costs upon the consumer."

In reality S.397 doesn't mandate extra costs for the consumer. It mandates only one cost--the cost of a gun lock included with new guns when they are sold. You twist that fact.

Give me a break... Now YOU'RE spinning BIG TIME. "Cost" singular for the end consumer, "costs" plural for all purchasers of guns. Wow. I don't think I twisted anything, but if it makes you sleep better at night then fine.

Originally Posted by Robert Hairless

You twist the facts again by misrepresenting it as an "extra" cost. The requirement for a gun lock to be included with each new gun sold is not the creation of this bill. The gun lock is the very same one that's already included with new guns when they're sold because of the state laws that require its inclusion and because gun manufacturers want to preempt potential liability for providing unsafe products.

While it is true that some states (including my own) already have laws to the effect that locks are already required to be sold. That doesn't mean I agree with it or that I believe it should be imposed on all other states. And selling a gun lock with a gun doesn't preempt anything. If you believed that then this argument would only be about gun locks NOT an immunity bill as it wouldn't be needed.

Originally Posted by Robert Hairless

And the cost of the gun lock is insignificant. I was embarrassed for you when I saw you actually argue that it's the cost of a box of ammunition and we should all protest about being forced to pay so much. Once again you twist the facts. You must know that even a box of cheap but serviceable ammunition costs more than $7.50: Winchester white box in 9mm costs about $11.50 and in .45 ACP the cost is about $20.

How sad for you... that you have to attack me on this point. YOU must know that there is plenty of 9mm ammunition that is available for less than $7.50. The WWB you refer to is for 100 rounds. And the last time I checked when you say a "box of ammo" That generally means 50 rounds for target ammo and 20 rounds of self defense ammo. Actually from what I have heard, for that $7.50 those who have an Academy store can actually purchase (2) boxes of CCI blazer 9mm for $3.86 ea. So again you show that your arguments are weak and you resort to attacking me. I would much rather that we have a real debate on the merits of this legislation, not split hairs over what a box of ammo costs... We're all shooters here and KNOW what that costs.

Originally Posted by Robert Hairless

So there's only one cost, that cost already exists and is already passed on to the consumer, and it's a trivial cost anyway. If you achieve total victory in removing that section of the bill we will be left in exactly the same position as if the bill were unmodified. Your total victory would result in no gain at all for gun owners. And the fight you want us to mount will make us look like jackasses who fight hard against our own supporters to defeat a law that's in our own interests and we do it even when there is nothing to gain and much to lose.

Apparently you only support the amendments. What the heck are you talking about when you say if I get my way and have these amendments stripped there will be no gain for gun owners??

I believe that my "victory" would result in a net 0 for gunowners meaning no gain, no loss of freedoms. I think this is good. If this bill passes in it's current form. I see a net loss of liberties. This is bad. When you get some substantive arguments feel free to strike this thread back up.

Originally Posted by Robert Hairless

Same thing about armor piercing ammunition. The definition of armor piercing ammunition is in another law entirely, the prohibition is against armor piercing ammunition for handguns only, and that law is not even affected by this bill. You profess more outrage that this bill increases the powers of the Attorney General with respect to armor piercing ammunition: but the bill does no such thing because the Attorney General already has complete powers with respect to armor piercing ammunition. Once again, total victory in the fight you advocate would result in no gain at all, but you run around urging us to fight anyway. And when you're pinned down, point by point, your arguments get sillier and sillier. Why in the world are you doing that?

Why in the world are you so fervently defending these amendments? Especially the AP amendment. I believe current law is fine. It needs no changes. This amendment doesn't belong on this bill. (I am not going to rehash my same arguments from above... You can read them at your leisure) That is why I am doing that... For the record you haven't pinned me down on ANY point yet...

[The Drew]

Originally Posted by Robert Hairless

What you want is for us to fight against a bill that gives gun owners great benefits at no additional cost, and even those few costs are insignificant to responsible gun owners. I don't want the gun lock because my own situation makes it unnecessary, and I don't see the need to supply gun locks to experienced and responsible gun owners, but I can admit the possibility that there might be a reason to provide it to new gun owners who have children and might not be aware of the precautions responsible gun owners should take. At a cost of less than one box of ammunition I'm quite willing to compromise and even to acknowledge that the result might be good. I'm old enough to understand that life isn't all about me and what I want.

Again to rehash earlier statements. This bill doesn't benefit gun owners, it benefits the INDUSTRY. That is a FACT. As to the amendments, I have studied history enough to know that compromises like these lead us to losing our rights. It is the nature of government. And for the record I am making all these arguments not to benefit myself (as pennsylvania already has a lock law) But to benefit ALL gunowners. I am NOT willing to make these compromises.

Originally Posted by Robert Hairless

All of the above is just about only a few of your breezy arguments to the effect that we should all be outraged by some unbearable tyranny in this bill and work to defeat it. What's missing from all of them is a sense of reality and proportion. You actually argue that the right to keep and bear arms can exist without manufacturers, distributors, and dealers in the arms and ammunition. That's what the anti-gun people are arguing now too. They want this law defeated, and the way to do it now is to fracture the solidarity of gun owners and alienate their supporters.

Robert, I suggest you take some blood pressure medicine and when you're done seeing red, you'll see that my arguments against the AMENDMENTS have some valid concerns. And as I have said time and time again that I SUPPORT THIS BILL WITHOUT THE AMENDMENTS! I argue that if this bill cannot pass in a clean form it should not pass. I am not alone in this sentiment. I don't believe that the compromises made are worth the passage of this bill. And Yes, the RKBA CAN exist without an industry, however it will be drastically crippled. I DO NOT WANT THIS. But I don't think that the anti gunners will achieve this goal. And therefore this legislation isn't as urgent as you believe.

Originally Posted by Robert Hairless

I am not interested in looking like a nut case or an anti-gun advocate. This is not the time to undercut the NRA. I won't do it and I won't cooperate with you and your organizations to do it.

If I am coming across as a nut case then I'm fine with that, however I am NOT an anti gun person. Very much the opposite. The NRA compromises, and in this case I disaggree with their position. I am an NRA member and generally support the NRA. I am not tearing them down Just that I feel that their compromise on this bill is more than I'm willing to accept.

Let me summarize our argument for a moment. First the biggest difference that we have is on the urgency of this bill. You feel that this bill is SO urgent that we cannot wait and this bill no matter the amendments should pass. I on the other hand DO NOT. I feel that while this is good legislation, the amendments are not worth passing given MY sense of urgency on this bill.

We both agree that this legislation is needed, but we disagree on how urgently we need it and therefore how much we're willing to compromise.

[robertbank]

Your arguments against protecting the gun industry from litigation are poster boy material for the anti-gun crowd! I am disappointed and cnocerned.

Gun locks are a PITA, BUT, they are the type of restriction, that should be a "give away", or compromise in any debate on this issue. My sons are on their own, with no children at home, for me they are a waste of money. The cable locks will delay a theif from gaining use of the firearm for about as long as it takes to buy a cheap cable cutter at Home Hardware, the trigger locks are easier to open with a screwdriver than they are with a key - go figure. They do, however, deter and prevent accidental discharge by young children. And yes there are people out there who leave loaded guns around the house within easy access of children.

Win and savour one victory at a time. If this bill passes, you will have taken one small step in a return to sanity when it comes to gun legislation. The tide is slowly turning up here, seize the opportunity while you can, th door will not always be open.

Stay Safe

[The Drew]

Robertbank,

It was exactly the kind of attitude of "it doesn't affect me, so I don't care" Or "there isn't anything wrong with this legislation" that landed Canada where it is today. My arguments are FAR from antigun. They are as pro gun as you can get. I don't want to compromise my rights and end up like you guys up north.

As I said to Mr. Hairless, I want the tort reform to pass however without the two amendments.

[James]

The short of it is that the protection for the gun industry is LONG OVERDUE....it has been URGENT. The bill does benefit the industry and I say GREAT. It would be even better if the gunmakers were awarded retrocative damages from the frivilous lawsuits (far fetched, I know).

Whether this bill covers vacuum cleaners or not doesn't concern me. When the liberals go on a lawsuit campaign to bankrupt the vacuum cleaner industry, maybe they will gather up the support for a lawful commerce protection act. Philosophically Drew, you are correct, it should apply to all businesses. It should be a given and a bill like this should not even be required. But a real failure in our judicial system has been identified (particularly as it pertains to guns) and unfortunately, we will have to fix it by writing new laws.

The added cost of a trigger lock pales in comparison to legal costs. Either way the cost will be passed on to us. At least the lock money goes to the gunmakers/trigger lock mfgs as opposed to greedy lawyers and cities.

If they start trying to outlaw hunting ammo under the AP amendment, I think they will create more trouble for themselves than they will gain.

Unfortunately, congress operates like this. The answer may be line item veto if congress insists on making a laundry list of amendments that generally have noting to do with a bill.

I am going to have to ask you guys to back it down a few notches so I don't have to close the thread.

Thanks!