Posted on 06/11/2003 3:35:47 AM PDT by kattracks
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - Federal legislation introduced Tuesday would subject firearms to scrutiny by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, a federal agency responsible for keeping tabs on products like nightlights and pancake makers.
Gun control advocates hailed the announcement, vowing to strike back at pro-gun lawmakers who supported legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in April granting firearms manufacturers' immunity from negligence lawsuits.
The Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act, introduced by Sen. Jon S. Corzine (D-N.J.) and Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), would give the Department of Justice authority to regulate the design, manufacture and distribution of guns.
Gun rights groups dismissed the effort. The National Rifle Association noted that firearms are already subject to many regulations. Even some states, such as California, have established their own guidelines.
"Apparently, Senator Corzine and Representative Kennedy haven't heard of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the government agency responsible for enforcing federal laws and regulations relating to firearms and explosives," spokesman Ted Novin said. "No other product is as highly regulated as firearms."
But the handful of gun control advocates who attended Tuesday's gathering disagreed with that assessment. Supporters of the bill, including the Violence Policy Center and Consumer Federation of America, complained that teddy bears and toy guns have to meet safety standards, while firearms do not.
The bill does not have bi-partisan support, and Kennedy conceded that it's not likely to reach President Bush's desk.
But Corzine said despite the divisiveness of gun control, tougher safety standards make sense for gun owners. He said the bill would ensure that safety features like magazine disconnects and load indicators were standard on every gun.
"Owning a shotgun that explodes in your hand when you're using a weapon is a real issue of consumer safety," he said. "We need to have someone overseeing this so that real guns are treated the same way toy guns are. I think we will be able to appeal to the common sense of those who believe very strongly in the Second Amendment."
Kennedy, whose Rhode Island district includes toymaker Hasbro, said the company's fake guns are scrutinized by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, while a firearms manufacturer faces no safety checks.
"If you're going to have guns, at least make sure they're manufactured properly," Kennedy said. "Part of the legislation we're introducing ensures that we're able to track and thereby determine which guns have the greatest accident rate, just like you would with any other product."
Besides giving the Justice Department authority to collect data on gun-related deaths and injuries, the bill also would allow the government to issue product recalls and warnings and limit the sale of firearms when no other remedy was available.
"The ulterior motive here, as it has been in the past, is for the restriction on firearms rights under this false premise to increase safety," said Gary Mehalik, spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation. "The best way to ensure safety of the firearms is to have a safe human operator."
The foundation is pushing the Senate to adopt a measure that would make the firearms industry immune from negligence lawsuits. It's an issue that drew the ire of gun control supporters, including former Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio), who urged lawmakers to strike back.
But gun control advocates are also facing the prospect that the 1994 federal ban on so-called "assault weapons" will expire in September 2004 without reauthorization from Congress. A lack of congressional support for the ban might doom its renewal, even though Bush supports it.
Without having seen a copy of the Corzine-Kennedy bill, Mehalik said it was difficult to know the breadth of the regulation that had been proposed, but he said gun makers are doing an adequate job producing safe firearms, as they have been for more than 100 years.
In fact, he said, gun owners have been abiding by safety techniques since the 19th century, when cowboys carried five bullets in six-shooters for fear that the gun might discharge if it was dropped. Today, manufactures are equipping firearms with high-tech safety devices, but Mehalik said they could only go so far to protect people.
"The only foolproof way to make sure a firearm does not accidentally shoot is to keep it unloaded and your finger off the trigger," Mehalik said. "Any attempt to create some mechanical contraption that's going to override the human involvement that's required for firearms safety is bound to fail."
E-mail a news tip to Robert B. Bluey.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
Has Patrick Kennedy ever gotten a bill to the floor? What a moron.
Since the rounds are stored in the revolver cylinder and the cylinder is actually the firing chamber, the weapon is inoperable without the cylinder in place. (Except to pistol-whip somebody, but that's a different subject.)
Magazine disconnects are most likely found in semiautomatics. As someone posted earlier, the Browning HP 9mm has a magazine disconnect as well as some Sigs. While not necessarily a negative for some people, I personally don't like them.
If you really want to see an argument take off, try telling a Glock pistolaro that his sidearm should have an integral safety and watch the fur fly!! (I stay out of those arguments.)
How else can the rate be determined without knowing the exact number of firearms of that type in circulation. Or maybe he is too stupid to have realized this?
Everybody has their firearms likes and dislikes. It's like preferring chocolate or vanilla (or strawberry, or pecan, or cookie dough, etc.) ice cream. That's great and good. Personally, I don't like the idea of a congresscritter telling me what features I HAVE to have on a firearm. As an adult, I've assumed responsibility for my life and actions that I don't need a governmental nanny or keeper.
OK, I'm climbing off my soapbox now.
:-)
Yes, in Art I, Sec 8, Cl 3, Congress is granted, (I want to emphasize the word "granted,") the power, from the people, to "regulate commerce among the states."
(I will concede there is a big question as to the intent of the founders of this republic if they meant for the commerce clause powers to be used in the manner those powers are used today.)
However, there is also the Bill of Rights. All laws enacted by Congress cannot exceed their enumerated powers and cannot violate the Bill of Rights.
The CSPC agency, created by Congress, may have jurisdiction within state boundaries because of the "commerce clause," but any action by the CSPC other than providing information about manufactured products safety to citizens, would be a violation of the Bill of Rights.
Specifically,
--Amendment II, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
--Amendment V, "...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
--Amendment IX, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE."
If I have to explain why each amendment is violated by any confiscatory action, any mandated design additions, or prohibition of any type of firearm by the CPCS, then you are not reading our constitution from the perspective of a presumption of liberty.
I will admit, because of 40 years of Democrat control of the House and Senate, it has saddled us with judges that look out for our government's interests over the liberties of the people, and most individuals and business owners do not wish to take on the monumental effort to stand up to the CPSC agency.
Since when is the Department of Justice (which now contains the BATFE) a consumer products safety organization. Silly me I thought being named "Justice" they might have something to do with crimes and criminals....well I guess since the gun grabbers want to criminalize most anything to do with guns, I guess maybe it makes sense after all.
It is no longer in Treasury, it's now in Justice, mostly. The booze and tobacco tax collection part is still in Treasury. The rest is now the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. So BATFers are now BATFErs. Downgraded from a 4 letter agency to a 5 letter agency, although they like to pretend they are a TLA, (Three Letter Agency) like FBI, or DEA.
Oh, I'm not defending the rules and regulations, I just wanted something I could give to the people who say that "teddy bears are more regulated than are guns".
I won't conceded it. The founders were quite clear as to exactly what they meant in their writings. They just wanted to prevent state-to-state tariffs; the power exists only to promote trade, not to limit it. What is being done these days with the commerce clause powers is clearly an unconstitutional abuse.
If I have to explain why each amendment is violated by any confiscatory action, any mandated design additions, or prohibition of any type of firearm by the CPCS, then you are not reading our constitution from the perspective of a presumption of liberty
Almost no one does anymore; not even the so-called "conservatives".
Yet another VPC propaganda ploy, the "safety" issue is very much a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Another gun control bill that's DOA. However, the bill will be put on shelf until the leftists thinks the time is right to dust its off.
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.