Posted on 10/07/2010 8:02:59 AM PDT by Kaslin
America’s wealthiest lobby supports the worst forms of gun control.
Recently the American Bar Association published a report urging:
[F]ederal, state … governments to enact laws requiring that all newly-manufactured semi-automatic pistols be fitted with microstamping technology which would ensure that when a firearm is fired, an alphanumeric and/or geometric code would be stamped on the cartridge casing … that would enable law enforcement to identify the serial number of the pistol and hence the first known purchaser of a weapon used in a crime.
To succeed, microstamping requires building a permanent database of all gun owners (licensing) and linking their firearms by serial number (registration), two major goals of gun control advocates.
Two law firms represent patent holders that could make the ABA recommendation reality. They’ve spent $6.7 million on campaign contributions since 2004, while the entire gun rights lobby spent $6 million.
There are fortunes to be made promoting gun control.
As a newly converted gun control researcher, the first time I saw lawyer money intersect with gun rights was in 2005, when Congress enacted the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This tort reform banned manufacturer liability suits based upon injuries and damages resulting from criminal firearm use. Campaign finance watchdog Open Secrets notes that lawyers generally oppose tort reform.
According to Open Secrets, lawyers and law firms (aka the law lobby) contributed heavily to congressional and presidential races in 2004, more than any other industry, spending nearly $183 million on federal campaigns, with 74% going to Democrats.
During the PLCAA roll call, senators voting “Yea” received an average of $366,847 in lawyer contributions, while the 31 “Nay” voters – 29 Democrats – received $645,972, 73.4% more. Lawyer money represented the largest industry donor for most “Nay” voters, while for most “Yea” voters, it ranked between 3rd and 4th.
In the House, those who voted “Yea” on the bill, received an average of $49,464 apiece. “Nay” voters — 140 of 144 were Democrats — received an average of $74,742 apiece, 51% higher. Again, those voting against tort reform were more likely to have the law lobby as their biggest donor.
The law lobby bias existed in both the Senate and the House:
Subsequent congressional vote analyses consistently supported these findings (e.g. the Vitter Amendment banning firearms confiscation during emergencies; the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 in the House.)
In the 2008 election cycle, the law lobby spent over $233 million; it has spent $81.6 million so far in 2010. In the last two election cycles, 76% of that money went to Democrats, slightly above the historical average of 73%. Lawyers are the richest lobby in America, representing the largest segment of anti-rights Democrats’ campaign funding. In 2008, re-elected Democratic incumbents averaged a D+ NRA grade, while GOP incumbents averaged an A.
Campaign funding reflects a certain quid pro quo benefiting Democrats and their donors, making them resistant to change in campaign finance law.
In 2008, voters re-elected 223 Democratic House incumbents. The charts below show that within the Democratic Party, anti-rights representatives’ voting records correlated with the law lobby comprising a greater share of total campaign contributions.
History shows why investing in congressional candidates can maintain a favorable legal environment for future high-return litigation. Lawyers received billions of dollars in contingency fees from the tobacco settlement in November 1998, in which manufacturers were held liable for the deliberate actions of consumers. In Texas alone, attorneys were awarded $2.3 billion. One report noted:
Private attorneys in Texas, Mississippi and Florida made out like bandits, fleecing tobacco companies, smokers and taxpayers for $8.2 billion in legal fees – billions more than the lawyers themselves had demanded!
After the tobacco settlement, the law lobby more than tripled the amount of total political contributions to federal candidates, from $59 million in the 1998 election cycle to $183 million in 2004. Considering that the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act banned “soft money” contributions by the 2004 elections, the $183 million is compelling.
But what happened with the settlement money, and who paid for it, provides another relevant part of the story.
The settlement supposedly funded government health programs. For example, in 2002-3, nearly $1 billion of the Texas settlement went to health and human services, including education and enforcement programs requiring more bureaucrats, buildings, and maintenance, and even debt service on capital improvement bonds for one hospital. Another $90 million went for higher education programs like nursing.
But in California, state legislators grabbed the first $562 million installment for the settlement payment, placing it in the general fund and thwarting those wanting to direct the money to public health programs. In fairness, some probably ended up in public health programs.
But the settlement money was paid to government.
The financial damages were not exactly punitive to the tobacco companies. Tobacco companies are often part of conglomerates, allowing them to raise prices on products unrelated to smoking in order to pay settlement costs. For example, Phillip Morris, one of the tobacco companies involved in the settlement, is owned by Altria Group, which owned Kraft Foods until 2007.
When expenses increase, companies raise prices. Anybody buying Kraft products between 1998 and 2007 was also paying the tobacco settlement.
When your money goes to government agencies, it’s a tax, proving the fantasy of “business” taxes and fines, and making the tobacco settlement taxation without representation. Working with predominantly Democratic lawmakers, lawyers transfer your wealth to themselves and government, while cigarette manufacturers continue business as usual.
In an indirect manner, firearms tort litigation presented a golden opportunity for bigger paydays. Gun makers don’t have deep pockets. During the PLCAA hearings, Lawrence G. Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation testified: “The firearm industry taken together would not equal a Fortune 500 company.”
Creating case law precedent, holding product manufacturers liable for the criminal use of their products, opens up major financial doors. Do gang bangers wear Nike clothing to identify themselves? Sue Nike, ranked 124th in 2010’s Fortune 500. Bank robbers prefer Mustangs for getaway cars? Sue Ford, ranked 8th.
After all, these manufacturers knew their products were ending up in criminal hands. They should have been responsible corporate citizens and reduced production so that “surplus” wouldn’t be available for criminal use. If nothing else, sue them for helping create a public nuisance by enhancing criminal activity.
Sounds silly? The “surplus” theory was behind the Brady Campaign’s legal assault on firearms manufacturers. Mayors Against Illegal Guns touts nuisance litigation as a workaround to the PLCAA.
Perhaps firearms manufacturers’ inability to afford ongoing defense against tort cases made them an easy opportunity to get that case law on the books?
Since the law lobby is so powerful, it’s reasonable to conclude they want to eliminate any threat to their goals, including your guns. They know that destroying the firearms industry won’t directly provide a tobacco-like payday, but it shifts the balance of power further away from the people.
Brady and the Violence Policy Center are the spear tip of the anti-rights movement. Educate and empower yourself, and vote.
***********************************
(For valuable election research, browse Open Secrets’ Congressional Races page and click on your state. For additional assistance, 2010 NRA grades are available.)
* For more details and citations on many related issues, see Four Hundred Years of Gun Control, Chapter 4.
>I see you recognize all the business possibilities.
>Let’s get in on the ground floor.
>Let’s start a franchise.
An intriguing possibility... we must consider the cost of the machining equipment though.
>Does the tooling need patented?
Good question. However, it also brings up the question as to if doing so would infringe on the patents of the microstamping process itself.
Micro-stamping is very, very dangerous. Let me give our audience a summary of what is going to happen should a microstamping requirement pass.
Someone is going to fire a pistol with the microstamping fixture. Just for kicks and grins, we’re gonna say it’s a 10mm Auto. BANG. He fires the gun. The firing pin strikes the primer. Now, if there is a microstamp on the firing pin... You’ve just put a bunch of sharp edges on the indentation of the primer. All of these are fail points. The primer detonates, causing the powder to ignite. The pressure inside the cartridge goes from about 14 psi (air pressure at sea level) to 37,000 PSI. The case expands to conform to the dimensions of the chamber.
This is where it gets fun. say there is a microstamp pattern on the chamber. On the breech face isn’t really an option due to the head stamping on the brass. So, the cartridge expands and oh my, now you’d cut grooves in the case wall. The bullet is just starting to move forward in the case when KABOOM! The primer cup fails ejecting a mass of burning powder into the firing pin and firing pin hole.
On some guns, this can cause the firing pin to launch out of the gun striking the user. Guess what part of the body is right behind the firing pin? There will be enough force for the firing pin to penetrate some safety glasses and the eye and into the brain. Can we say LAWSUIT?
Now, back to the case body. The bullet has left the gun and the cartridge case is being ejected from the chamber. The cuts in the side from the microstamping have fractured and weakened the brass. Now you have a burn through on the case. The case is ejected along with pieces of brass that may cause injury to the shooter. Can we say LAWSUIT?
BUT, it’s not over yet. It gets WORSE. Over repeated firings, The microstamping in the chamber and on the firing pin wear from the damaged brass that is the result of the microstamping. Now you have a fire formed pit on the wall of the chamber and an eroded firing pin. At this point the gun is unsafe to shoot by any means. But, someone tries it anyway. OOOOPS, now we have a hole blown out in the chamber of the barrel. The round explodes leaving the shooter with seriously bloodied hands, facial injuries, and one hell of a lawsuit against the retards that are pushing for this crap.
What these idiots don’t get is that this sh!t has been tried before and it always results in damaged guns and people. I will happily testify as an expert witness in any proceedings where someone has suffered injury because of this technology.
As a manufacturer, if I am forced to put microstamping in my guns, the guns I build for the military, including special operations WILL HAVE THIS TECHNOLOGY installed. I will ensure that plausible deniability is rendered useless.
So, if our Government wants to get froggy, start hopping. We’re waiting.
>>With respect to Nuge and some of the other hard-core folks on the NRA Board, the NRA is getting far too cozy with the Beltway insiders.<<
The first word that comes to mind is incest, but I am not sure that is considered a cozy relationship.
Hey Joe, just wanted to let you know that you messed up and accidentally put a Sarc Tag at the end of your sentence... ;-)
I wanted to have one talking about the Tree of Liberty...
;)
Geez, I think California already passed this crap.
They want to end gun violence just make them with voice recognition, “Stop, or I’ll shoot!”- gun fires. “Yo, mutherf...*”, gun doesn’t fire.
Fifty bucks says they'd drop any pretense of wanting micro-stamping after this provision was met.
Good post.
Thank you.
Eat hot lead and die!
This brass courtesy of the Founding Fathers
Where’s the mens room?
“BOOM shaka-laka-laka!”
“Smile, wait for the flash.”
Thank ewe...I’m here alllll week...;-)
1911 — the original point and click interface!
So do I.....
Looks like there will be plenty of work arounds if they do succeed in impementing these manufacturing procedures...
I seriously doubt this is going to fly in Congress...
They put this stuff out to get everyone’s panties in a wad, just to do it...
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.