Posted on 10/21/2005 6:40:07 AM PDT by bigsoxfan
(CNSNews.com) - Legislation passed Thursday to protect the gun industry from many liability lawsuits includes anti-gun amendments that could have been blocked during consideration of the bill in the House, according to one pro-gun organization. The group believes failing to block those amendments could haunt gun owners in the future.
The "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" is designed to protect firearms manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers from being sued for the criminal misuse of their products by unrelated third parties. The House passed the Senate's version - S. 397 - by a vote of 283 to 144.
The Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA) praised passage of the bill.
"This junk lawsuit ban strikes a blow to those seeking to shift blame from criminals to law abiding Americans," said Jim Fotis, a retired police officer and LEAA executive director.
Fotis added that the money some cities had used or planned to use for lawsuits against gun makers could now be devoted to "real crime fighting.
"Take New Orleans for example," Fotis continued. "They were one of the first to waste taxpayer dollars on these frivolous lawsuits when they could have been spending their time and money on real crime fighting efforts, like better training and pay for police officers and putting more cops on the street."
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) also supported the bill and expressed its appreciation in a statement released after the vote.
"This important legislation will stop the anti-gunners cold in their attempts to bankrupt firearms manufacturers, distributors and retailers," Alan M. Gottlieb, chairman of CCKRBA said. "It closes an important loophole through which extremist gun grabbers have been trying to use the courts to crush gun ownership in this country, when they could not get Congress or state legislatures to do their bidding."
The National Rifle Association (NRA) backed the proposal, as well. In an online communication called "Stop Reckless Lawsuits!," the NRA asked its members shortly after the bills were introduced to urge their elected officials to support the legislation. The NRA also stressed the need to protect the integrity of the proposals.
"It is imperative that you contact your U.S. Senators and your U.S. Representative today and ask them to cosponsor and support S.397 and H.R. 800 - without any anti-gun amendments - and put a halt to these reckless lawsuits once and for all," an NRA message stated. "And be sure to let them know that you consider any votes in support of anti-gun amendments to this legislation as a vote against the underlying bill itself." (Emphasis in original.)
The House version passed without any of the objectionable amendments, a so-called "clean" bill. But two amendments proposed by known anti-gun lawmakers were attached to the Senate version of the bill. And it was that version that passed the House Thursday, paving the way for the bill, and the amendments, to become law.
One of the amendments would require gun dealers to sell each gun buyer a trigger lock or gun safe for every handgun they purchase. Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America (GOA), bristled at what he believes is the underlying assumption supporting that amendment.
"It's a highly offensive assumption," Pratt said, "that somehow the average person, unless a gun is in a block of cement, is going to commit mayhem with it."
Another amendment would ban possession of so-called "armor piercing" ammunition during the commission of a crime. That proposal has drawn criticism from some hunting groups, which fear the definition could be easily expanded to ban all rifle ammunition at all times.
NRA accused of blocking last chance at 'clean' bill
Under the House rules, the last chance for opponents to stop a vote on a proposal is the "motion to recommit." The maneuver is essentially a vote on whether to take a vote on the measure under consideration. The technique is sometimes used, however, by those who support a particular piece of legislation, but would rather see a different version considered.
In an e-mail sent Wednesday to members of the House and obtained by Cybercast News Service, Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), included this admonition to representatives.
"Due to the importance of this issue, the NRA will consider votes on final passage and a Motion to Recommit in future candidate ratings and evaluations," Cox wrote.
In the case of Thursday's vote, a successful "motion to recommit" would have blocked a vote on S. 397 with its anti-gun amendments. The House leadership could have then brought up the amendment-free H.R. 800 again or dropped the bill and moved on. If the original version - which passed by a vote of 285 to 140 - had been passed again, the House and Senate would have been forced to either reconcile the differing versions or let the bill die.
Pratt believes the NRA opposed the use of the motion to recommit because the organization did not want to appear unreasonable for opposing the trigger lock amendment.
"(NRA officials) think that this will be the end of it; that this will convince the other side that we've been reasonable," Pratt surmised, "and, further, they think that we have the votes to stop a worse outcome in the future."
Kelly Hobbs, spokesperson for the NRA, shrugged off Pratt's criticism.
"That's more of a hypothetical. I never heard anything of the sort and, obviously, it didn't happen," Hobbs said, referring to any attempt to bring up the House version of the bill using a motion to recommit.
Amendment may set stage for future trigger lock battle
Pratt believes anti-gun members of the Senate pushed for the trigger lock amendment following the same plan traffic safety advocates used to get mandatory seat belt laws passed.
"First the seat belt had to be in the car. In terms of the locks, first they had to be available at the store, which is now the law," Pratt explained. "This bill will make it so that they have to be sold to you when you buy a gun at the store.
"Our concern is that, to finish the analogy, just like we now have to wear the seat belt or it's an offense," Pratt continued, "so, too, we would have to lock up our firearms or it would be some kind of crime, probably a felony."
But Pratt highlighted the case of Mary Carpenter to explain why mandating trigger lock use, unlike seat belts, could be dangerous. In 2000, Carpenter's family was attacked by a pitchfork-wielding intruder in their California home. There were firearms in the home and the residents had been trained in their use for self-defense. But the guns were stored with locks and separated from ammunition, as required by California law. The attacker killed two of Carpenter's grandchildren before the firearms could be retrieved and loaded.
Pratt believes it will be difficult for those who did not argue forcefully against mandatory trigger lock sales to oppose an expansion of the law.
"Once you've agreed, in principle that it's a good idea to require the sale of the product," Pratt warned, "then wouldn't it make sense, a member of Congress might ask, that we also support requiring the use of it?
"Gun control advocates have never been satisfied with any concession that's ever been made," he concluded.
bump
There were two anti-gun ammendments. The first required all dealers to provide a gun lock with every handgun sold, and the second ordered the Attorney General to investigate if it was feasible to create a uniform test of ammunition for piercing body armor.
Not exactly a deal breaker, either one.
It is just a matter of time . . .
Agree. I'll take a mandatory trigger lock SALE with a bill to protect manufacturers.
Man, it's just like when I was a kid. I could decide on my own to clean my room because I knew it had to be done, but if I was told to do it I hated doing it.
So long as I'm allowed to return the gun lock the next day for a full refund, who cares?
Could they have actually written a bill which requires a company to NOT accept returns for refunds?
The free market will take care of this. If a lock must be sold with every hand gun, expect to see $2.99 locks.
SEC. 6. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION. (a) Unlawful Acts- Section 922(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking paragraphs (7) and (8) and inserting the following: `(7) for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, unless-- `(A) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State; `(B) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the purpose of exportation; or `(C) the manufacture or importation of such ammunition is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General; `(8) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver armor piercing ammunition, unless such sale or delivery-- `(A) is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State; `(B) is for the purpose of exportation; or `(C) is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General;'. (b) Penalties- Section 924(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: `(5) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided under this subsection, or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries armor piercing ammunition, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses armor piercing ammunition, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime or conviction under this section-- `(A) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 15 years; and `(B) if death results from the use of such ammunition-- `(i) if the killing is murder (as defined in section 1111), be punished by death or sentenced to a term of imprisonment for any term of years or for life; and `(ii) if the killing is manslaughter (as defined in section 1112), be punished as provided in section 1112.'. (c) Study and Report- (1) STUDY- The Attorney General shall conduct a study to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible. (2) ISSUES TO BE STUDIED- The study conducted under paragraph (1) shall include-- (A) variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or center-fire rifle from which the projectile is fired; and (B) the amount of powder used to propel the projectile. (3) REPORT- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a report containing the results of the study conducted under this subsection to-- (A) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and (B) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives. Passed the Senate July 29, 2005
Buy lots of rifle ammo now while you can. Perhaps this will finaly wake up the hunters to the fact that the gun grabbers are after theirs as well
What happened is that some of the anti-gunners in the Senate discovered that virtually all rifle ammunition can defeat typical police body armor, and are agahst. There was also the recent flap over the Fabrique Nationale 5.7x28 ammunition in the FiveseveN pistol, in that one type of 5.7 was listed by F-N as "armor piercing" but not sold to the general public.
Hidden gun grabber ping
The gun lock amemdment is somewhat of a mute point. Every gun I have puchased in the last couple of years has ALREADY come with one included. The .357 Taurus I bought my sister-in-law has one integrated into the mechanism of the gun. Damn key lock was built in.
gee whiz, right after the Assault Weapon Ban sunset we do not get to use rifle bullets now? The NRA needs to have that changed.
mute=moot
I was afraid of the opposite. In a free market you'd only by a lock if it was cost-effective, so the cost would have to represent the value.
In a market where the consumer is forced to buy the lock, the demand is inelastic so the price is set only by how to keep out competition.
This law creates a real case of what some people (like stupid schumer) THINK is true of the gas market -- in other words, that the gas market demand is inelastic and therefore prices are set only by competitive pressures, and therefore we need to investigate. But the truth is, as we now know, that gas purchases are not inelastic, demand fell sharply when the price went up. So stores which lowered prices were able to increase both market share and the market.
I don't know how many lock makers there are now, and probably they are simple enough that competition would be easy.
BUT, this does other bad things. For example, you won't have much luck with an internet-lock company, unless the law allows a buyer of a gun to show proof of purchase of a lock from someone else. I doubt it does, so why would anyone buy a lock other than from a gun dealer?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.