The Gun Lobby's Bull's-Eye (BARF ALERT)

NY Times ^ | February 25, 2004 | Masthead Editorial

[neverdem]

The Senate is on the verge of approving a new sop to the gun industry that is the latest sad example of what has become of the gun control debate. Many Americans have labored under the mistaken impression that this was a debate about the Constitution and public safety, about the balance between saving lives and assuring law-abiding gun owners and cultural conservatives that the Second Amendment is being protected. In fact, as the legislation before the Senate demonstrates, the Bush administration and its allies in Congress have long been focused simply on making it easier for gun manufacturers and gun dealers to turn a profit.

A bipartisan majority is lining up behind a bill in the Senate that has nothing to do with gun owners' rights. The law would effectively grant reckless gun dealers and manufacturers an unreasonable immunity from civil suits by victimized families and local governments. The measure, already approved by the House, could scrap more than two dozen pending lawsuits, including those of families who suffered losses in the sniper shootings around Washington in 2002. Countless future suits would be denied standing. The bill would undermine fundamental principles of negligence law in shielding illicit gun traffickers.

Supporters, echoing the National Rifle Association, argue that they are intent on blocking only "frivolous" suits, as if that were ever a problem to compare with the annual scourge of thousands of gunshot deaths. In fact, the bill would all but end damage liability for the gun industry — an extraordinary shelter never extended to the tobacco and alcohol industries in legislating controls over the harm their products cause. A woefully pliant Congress seems intent on protecting a small but lethal minority of shady dealers and the gun makers tolerant of them. The Washington sniper's rifle was traced to a dealer, Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, which claimed it was one of 238 weapons later found to be mysteriously "missing" from the shop. Dozens of other crimes were traced to these guns, yet the immunity bill would protect this dealer.

Proponents, counting on senators' raw fear of electoral retaliation if they dare to stand up on such an obvious issue of public safety, claim to be near the 60 votes needed to defeat any opposition filibuster. Failing that, gun-control advocates like Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, hope that they can at least amend the bill by adding a renewal of the assault weapons ban, which is about to run out after 10 years of protecting the public. But even that vital measure is being pronounced dead before arrival in the House in this election year.

[neverdem]

It sounds like they understand we have 60, and now it's sour grapes and whine.

[neverdem]

BANG

[NYCVirago]

In fact, the bill would all but end damage liability for the gun industry — an extraordinary shelter never extended to the tobacco and alcohol industries in legislating controls over the harm their products cause.

Let's shield those industries too, while we're at it.

[neverdem]

Let's shield those industries too, while we're at it.

Since they mentioned it, and you addressed it, is there any case taking alcohol to court?

[Casloy]

Wait a minute, I'm pissed. When the Dems passed the assault weapons ban they promised me no more murders from assault weapons. The DC sniper had an assault weapon. How in the hell did that happen. I mean, we passed a law, it was supposed to get assault weapons off the street, right? Those liberal dems are "shady." They promised me if I supported them they would protect me from assault weapons. It's time to SUE!!!!

[King Prout]

don't get cocky.

[CPOSharky]

... making it easier for gun manufacturers and gun dealers to turn a profit.

Oh yeah, can't have those evil manufacturers making a profit. Instead, put all those factory workers on unemployment. (/sarcasm)

[Travis McGee]

One of these two is going to be made into larger hi-res car stickers. Which text do you prefer?

[neverdem]

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

[Travis McGee]

Bold the RIGHT ?

[neverdem]

"Bold the RIGHT ?"

I put it in BOLD as a way to explain "THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" is a right, not an abstract notion conferred by gov't or a part of the Constitution. I BOLDED it to explain my preference as opposed to "THE SECOND AMENDMENT", not as a recommendation.

It's your call, and thanks for asking for my suggestion. There will probably be one or more big bang_lists with the Senate action on the Lawful Commerce in Firearms bill, but its up to you if you want to try to ask preferences as part of a thread. My instincts aren't always the greatest for RKBA. I volunteered for McCain in 2000, thinking he would be better for the RKBA because I thought he was more electable. Have a laugh. Good luck

[Travis McGee]

Gotcha. And TRTKABA is winning about 9-1.

[Joe Brower]

I second neverdem's motion -- I like the bottom one that explicitly states "THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS".

And please let me know when they're available. I want some. $:-)

[Joe Brower]

Hey, Trav -- another thing. If you get t-shirts made up with this pattern/logo on 'em, put me first in line for a couple of size large. $:-)

[yarddog]

I think I prefer the second one too.

I almost, but not quite, would prefer wording such as "The Bill of Rights"

Everyone would know what is being referred to plus people seem to hold a special reverence for the BOR.

[Travis McGee]

AK-47.net's got them for sale, on their own. (I don't get anything out of it but glory.)

[Travis McGee]

I guess "The Right To Keep and Bear Arms" strikes the best balance. It's got at least 90% approval over the top version. BOR is a bit to broad for the gun-specific message.