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-gunners 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.
Now is the time to press for REAL gun maker
protection.
ACTION:
1. Call NRA headquarters and ask them to stop
supporting S. 397 and to support H.R. 800 instead. Ask them why they are
not supporting H.R. 800 -- a similar bill that is FREE of any gun control .
Ask them to fulfill their pledge to support only a clean bill. The number
is (800) 392-8683.
2. Call Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth and
ask her to support H.R. 800 and to oppose S. 397. Tell her that the ONLY
acceptable legislation is legislation WITHOUT gun control. You can call her
office direct at (202) 225-2801, or you can dial (877) 762-8762 toll free
and ask for Rep. Herseth's office.
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.