SDGO helps
stop new Federal gun bans
Liability bill passes Congress with some
anti-gun measures still attached
By Zach Lautenschlager - Communications Director
California Democrat Diane Feinstein had big plans this summer.
But thanks in part to the outstanding job South Dakota Gun Owners members have done, not one of her pet projects succeeded.
As early as mid-April, SDGO warned its members through the Email Alert Network that Sen. Feinstein and her cronies were once again planning to high-jack the gun maker protection bill (S. 397).
Still smarting from last year, when SDGO members helped defeat her ban on so-called “assault weapons,” Feinstein was pushing hard for a new semi-auto ban. She told the Washington Post that she also wanted a ban on “high powered .50 caliber rifles,” a precursor to banning all high power hunting rifles.
Other anti-gunners besides Feinstein were lining up with everything from mandatory trigger locks to gun show and ammo bans. But this kind of “ban-demonium” is nothing new.
SDGO Members Demonstrate that Grassroots Action Works
Many will remember the 2004 gun maker protection bill which turned into an anti-gun nightmare.
In fact, last year's bill would have been America's largest gun control package EVER. It included a new lock-up-your-safety trigger lock law, a gun show ban, a hunting ammo ban and worst of all, a renewal of the so-called “assault weapons” ban (more accurately termed the Clinton Semi-auto Ban).
Unfortunately, some of the larger gun groups supported the bill even after it had become an anti-gun abomination. They promised that it could be "cleaned up" later in conference committee.
This is the same failed strategy that gave us the original Clinton Semi-auto Ban. Passing gun control in the hopes that someone else will take care of it is a dangerous approach that has resulted in several new anti-gun laws. That’s why SDGO and dozens of other no-compromise gun groups warned against allowing last year’s lawsuit protection bill to come out of the Senate with the gun control package attached.
Thanks to the tireless efforts of these no-compromise gun owners across the country, the bill with it’s gun control package was laid to rest.
During this battle Gun Owners of America told Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist that all of this could have been avoided by using a parliamentary maneuver called “filling the amendment tree” to keep Sen. Feinstein from offering her gun ban amendment to the bill. Later in 2004, Sen. Feinstein tried to attach the semi-auto ban to another bill. SDGO asked you to contact Frist and urge him to use that same parliamentary procedure.
Well, he did. And it worked. Feinstein & Co. were furious, but America was spared any new gun restrictions.
Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory
Fast-forward one year. Idaho Senator and NRA board member Larry Craig introduces the 2005 gun maker protection bill. Feinstein and her allies line up with the same anti-gun amendments as last year.
Regrettably, Sen. Craig tells the Washington Post that the "strategy this time
would not be to dump the bill but remove anything objectionable in conference
with the House of Representatives." Once again — the SAME FAILED STRATEGY.
That’s when SDGO members and other no-compromise gun owners from across the
nation began flooding Frist’s office. Requests poured in via phone and email
urging Frist to use parliamentary procedure to once again block anti-gun
amendments.
At first, his office was reluctant. Some of the staffers even said it couldn’t be done. But then gun owners turned up the heat, and Frist did exactly what GOA and SDGO was asking him to do.
The active involvement of the SDGO membership not only helped to block the anti-gunners, it put the complete kibosh on all of Feinstein’s plans. The outcry they raised against a new semi-auto and .50 caliber ban brought Feinstein up short, even while other anti-gunners continued looking for ways around Frist’s maneuver.
But there was no way around it. Not unless Frist and Sen. Craig decided to allow anti-gun amendments. Thanks to the hard work of SDGO members and gun owners across America, it looked like a stunning victory for gun rights.
And then Craig and Frist lost their nerve and backed down.
They cut a backroom deal with the Democrats, and allowed two anti-gun amendments to be offered. Both were tacked onto the bill.
The Lock-Up-Your-Safety Amendment
Sen. Herb Kohl was the one who offered the mandatory gun lock amendment to last year’s liability bill. When Craig and Frist flinched this year, he was right there with almost identical language.
The Kohl Lock-Up-Your-Safety amendment imposes a mandatory "gun tax" by forcing every gun buyer to purchase a trigger lock, and takes us to the verge of mandatory trigger lock usage.
Worse, the Kohl 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.
Some are trying to justify the amendment by pointing to a section that is supposed to prohibit civil liability. But gun law experts believe that this could easily be side-stepped in state court, where gun owners who fail to lock-up their handguns could still be convicted of negligence.
Make no mistake: no matter how many convoluted phrases might be added to the trigger lock amendment, rabid anti-gun zealots will be working overtime to find the loopholes and convict gun owners anyway.
The Craig Ammo Ban Study
The second anti-gun provision was offered by Senator and NRA board member Larry Craig as a compromise with Ted Kennedy. Craig’s amendment strengthens the "armor-piercing bullet" restrictions of federal law. At its core, it gives impetus to adopting a "penetration standard" for armor piercing bullets by commissioning a Justice Department study of the issue. Once a "penetration standard" is adopted, a gun-adverse administration could use it to ban virtually any ammunition.
Some are trying to defend the amendment by claiming that it couldn’t possibly be used to ban ammo. But they offer no evidence to support their claim.
On the other hand, the rabidly anti-gun Violence Policy Center is boasting that this gun ban study will “ultimately lead to a strengthening and expansion of the federal ban on armor-piercing [read: hunting] ammunition."
Compromise Forces New Gun Control Into Law
After both the Kohl and Craig amendments had been added to S. 397, the bill went to the House of Representatives. The House already had an almost identical version of the gun maker protection bill with NO gun control attached. But rather than encourage the House to pass its clean version, S. 397 supporters like Sen. Craig demanded that the Senate version be passed, anti-gun amendments included!
Thanks to compromise, S. 397 went to the President not as the promised “clean bill,” but carrying two gun control amendments. The entire package was signed into law on October 26th, 2005.
No-Compromise Position Stops Gun Control
Some have faulted SDGO and others for remaining "no compromise" throughout this battle. They claim that by refusing to accept the gun control, SDGO was endangering this much needed legislation.
First of all, this underestimates the power of gun owners working together. It ignores the power of the grassroots.
SDGO was also told that blocking the Feinstein gun ban couldn't be done through parliamentary procedure. But the fallacy of this thinking became obvious when SDGO members worked with no-compromise gun owners across the nation to convince the Senate Majority Leader to exercise his options.
In fact, no-compromise gun owners may be the only reason a new Feinstein semi-auto ban didn’t pass with the rest of S. 397.
Secondly, as a pragmatic matter, the desire to compromise ignores one simple fact: gun owners could have EASILY won this battle to pass a clean bill! Consider:
* A filibuster-proof majority of Senators had cosponsored S. 397 BEFORE THE BILL HAD TRIGGER LOCKS.
* A super majority of Representatives had co-sponsored the House version -- a bill which contained NO TRIGGER LOCKS.
* The President had already said he would sign a bill BEFORE TRIGGER LOCKS WERE ATTACHED.
Add to this the fact that the bill passed both houses of Congress by HUGE majorities (65-31 in the Senate, and 283-144 in the House).
So why not insist on a bill that had no trigger locks? Why not stare down the anti-gunners and just say, "We're going to pass a clean bill because you don't have the votes to stop us."
The answer is quite simply this: the spirit of Neville Chamberlain lives on, from one generation to the next. Some people just always seem to have the desire to placate the other side, even when they've got the muscle to get things done right.
Winston Churchill didn't buy it, and neither should we. Speaking to the failings of compromise, Churchill said, "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile -- hoping it will eat him last."
Much of the liability battle was fought via the SDGO E-mail Alert Network, one of SDGO’s primary tools in dealing with today’s fast-paced issues. You can subscribe to the Alert Network here.