Posted on 02/27/2004 7:54:46 AM PST by Copernicus
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners
EMERGENCY ALERT - S.1805 has Gun Control attached -- KILL IT!
Feb. 26, 2004, 1300 hrs Mountain - As predicted, S.1805, the Lawsuit Liability bill, is being debated on the Senate Floor right now (at the behest of its sponsor, Idaho Senator Larry Craig).
And late last night, Senator Larry Craig (a board member of the NRA) worked with rabid anti-gunner Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) to come up with a "Unanimous Consent Agreement" which allows a large number of gun control amendments to be offered to S.1805.
By pushing this bill to be heard on the floor, and agreeing to hear a large number of gun control amendments (listed below), Senator Craig has opened up Pandora's Box of Gun Control.
That means you MUST call your US Senators immediately, even if you called them yesterday.
Senator Wayne Allard can be reached at (202) 224-5941.
Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell can be reached at (202) 224-5852.
Urge both of Colorado's Senators to VOTE AGAINST S.1805, now that it has gun control on it and is likely to contain more.
As this alert is being written, the Senate just passed an amendment (by 70-27, for story on this amendment click here, or here for full text) to require Trigger locks (we do not have the language, but will shortly) and is moving toward more gun control. It's a federal government intrusion on your right to self-defense, and FAR outweighs any good S.1805's original language would do.
And as this is being written, Sen. Teddy Kennedy is offering an amendment to ban "Cop Killer Bullets."
After agreeing to the "Unanimous Consent Agreement", Sen. Larry Craig said "Some of these amendments could pass." This C-Span2 admission is understating it -- some of these gun control amendments WILL pass. In fact, one already has, and others gun control advocates are lining up to join in on the "fun".
NRA Board Member Sen. Larry Craig has agreed to allow a slated list of gun control amendments to S.1805. These include, but are not limited to, the following unspecified gun controls:
Boxer - new Federal rules for Gun locks
Campbell - Cop-Only Nationwide Carry
Kennedy - Cop Killer Bullets
Mikulski - Snipers
McCain-Reed - Gun Show ban
Feinstein - Assault Weapons ban
Frist/Craig - Cop Killer bullets (a toned down, yet still anti-gun rights version of Kennedy's amendment)
And these are only the amendments that have been announced. Others almost certainly will be floated, and maybe passed.
Does this constitute proof that the NRA "struck a deal" to allow gun controls to pass? Of course, they claim they didn't cut any deals.
But ask these questions:
1. Have you received an e-mail from NRA-ILA urging voting against S.1805 IF it gets gun control on it? They KNOW quite well that this bill will have gun control on it, and have known it for weeks. Instead, they play inside baseball and tell gun owners "Trust us -- we have a plan", trusting in their own cleverness to circumvent the anti-gunners amendments. That is the same thing they said on the McCain-Fiengold Campaign Finance Deform bill (which stripped gun owners of their 1st Amendment rights) as well as the first Assault Weapons and High-capacity magazines ban bill, Brady Registration Checks, Lautenberg Gun Ban, etc, etc.
That's a failed strategy, and should be abandoned.
Remember, the definition of insanity is continuing to do what you've always done but expecting different results.
They'll post some things on their website (which is passive), but they won't apply real pressure. That mean's they are, by their silence, agreeing to this "Unanimous Consent Agreement." And their board member, Sen. Larry Craig, openly agreed to that agreement with Sen. Reed.
Craig will vote against most (not all -- in fact, Sen. Craig offered his own "Cop Killer Bullets" amendment in an attempt to appease Teddy Kennedy) of the gun controls, but he's the person who enabled all of these gun control amendments.
2. Why would an NRA board member accept a Unanimous Consent Agreement to allow a huge number of amendments to be debated, all of which strip gun owners of their rights and many of which that board member (and US Senator) knows will pass?
The writer of this alert is a former staff member (not intern) of the U.S. Senate, under Senator Bill Armstrong. I know how the U.S. Senate works, and have been in regular consultation with those who have worked in all aspects of Congress for decades.
One thing is crystal clear: the NRA's mouthpiece, US Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho), has agreed to let these amendments be heard, and he knows some will be attached to the bill.
3. Have you heard the NRA say that they will oppose S.659/S.1805 in the Senate if it gets gun control amendments on it? We haven't, and doubt we will, since their US Senator is the one who enabled those amendments to be attached. Their plan, to let these gun controls ride on the bill and hope they are stripped out in the House, is an incredibly risky gambit, which if lost will result in the largest erosion of our rights in American history.
There's no more time to waste.
Call your US Senators immediately and urge them to vote AGAINST S.1805.
Senator Wayne Allard can be reached at (202) 224-5941.
Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell can be reached at (202) 224-5852.
Urge them to vote against S.1805.
It's time to pull the plug on this well-meaning, but gun-control-laden dog.
E-mail: ExDir@RMGO.org
Sometime during the dead of last night, the NRA-ILA website was updated to provide readers an ongoing analysis, dated Friday, 27 February 2004, of S. 1805 (Lawsuit Preemption). http://www.nra.org/frame.cfm?url=https://www.nrahq.org/contact.asp
Two interesting excerpts are:
”The Senate then debated and voted upon two amendments seeking to gut S. 1805. The first related to the D.C. sniper case, but the proposal by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) was defeated, 56-40. A so-called "law enforcement" exemption offered by Sen. Jon Corzine (D-N.J.) was soundly defeated, 56 to 38.
"NRA strongly opposed both amendments. One of the strengths of S. 1805 is that it adopts the same rules for all plaintiffs, no matter how sympathetic or unsympathetic, and no matter how notorious or mundane their victimization. Plaintiffs` rights should depend on settled principles of law, not on emotion or sympathy."
But, the NRA update DID NOT address an ALREADY PASSED Amendment sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist that violates the exact principle for the NRA opposition to the Mikulski Amendment.
"S.AMDT.2630 to S.1805 To protect the rights of law enforcement officers who are victimized by crime to secure compensation from those who participate in the arming of criminals. Sponsor: Sen Frist, Bill [TN] (introduced 2/26/2004) Cosponsors: 1 Latest Major Action: 2/26/2004 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2630 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 60 - 34. Record Vote Number: 21"
The Frist Amendment says, in effect, 'Its OK to have a frivolous lawsuit against a manufacturer, dealer, or other third-party, so long as a policeman (and his lawyer) get all the money.'
In other words, contrary to their own statement: “ One of the strengths of S. 1805 is that it adopts the same rules for all plaintiffs, no matter how sympathetic or unsympathetic, and no matter how notorious or mundane their victimization. Plaintiffs` rights should depend on settled principles of law, not on emotion or sympathy", the NRA does not oppose, nor even speak about, the Frist Amendment S.AMDT.2630 to S.1805 .
Maybe I’m too idealistic, or naive – but, I simply do not understand the NRA’s duplicitous position on these Amendments.
Did any of those alerts discuss the Craig/Frist Special Amendment to the Kennedy Ammo Ban, or the Frist Special Amendment 2630 to "protect the rights of law enforcement officers ??"
BTW, I am not 'relying on others' to interpret NRA actions and motives.
My interpretations of the actions and motives of the NRA on this thread are my own, and they cite verbatim quotes from the NRA's own position statements, that form the bases of my own interpretations.
Instead of walking lock-step with the NRA, maybe we ought to have a meaningful debate about NRA purpose and whether they are serving their membership as effectively as possible. After all, effective representation is our common goal isn't it ??.
My criticism revolves around two issues:
1) The NRA's omission of the whole truth; and,
2) My inability to carry on a two-way dialogue with an organization that exists allegedly to support me and my views.
As it is, their idea of a two-way dialogue is that I send them money, and they tell me what to think on the basis of their interpretation of the art of "what is possible" with respect to second amendment issues.
And I am a member, since age 18, and a Life Member for 32 of those years, therefore I have a DUTY to speak out when I believe the NRA is on the wrong path.
Rather than accuse me of relying on others for my information on NRA motives and interpretations, I wonder why you suggest we rely solely on the NRA for it's interpretations of Second Amendment issues??
Anyway, here's what I found at RMGOA's web site:
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners
Colorado's No-Compromise Firearms Lobby
Based in Denver, Colorado, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners is Colorado's largest state-based gun lobby. It is a group solely dedicated to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Our strategy is simple: don't give an inch.
We believe that freedoms have been eroded far too quickly in our country, and that our rights must be reclaimed through the democratic process.
We believe that Americans have been given a right by God, and recognized through the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and numerous state constitutions, to keep and bear arms. Colorado's State Constitution also prohibits government from "calling into question" that right.
If we fail to convince politicians that they must recognize our freedoms, we have only ourselves to blame.
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners is a non-profit, non-partisan organization, registered with the Colorado Secretary of State and with the IRS as a 501 c-4.
Though Rocky Mountain Gun Owners is not legally affiliated with any other organization, we work with Gun Owners of America on a daily basis and consider them our Washington, D.C. lobby. You'll often find RMGO supporting the fine work of GOA on the federal level, and GOA supporting RMGO on a state level. The legal distinction between the two groups is to avoid being held liable for either group's work.
If you would like to learn more about RMGO, please feel free to either E-mail us or talk to our staff by calling (970) 842-3006.
You can also mail us at:
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners
P.O. Box 3114
Denver, Colorado 80201
About our Executive Director
Dudley Brown is Rocky Mountain Gun Owners’ Executive Director, and serves under a volunteer board and chairman. He handles all day-to-day operations and lobbying concerns for RMGO, Colorado’s largest gun rights organization
. Brown is a graduate of Colorado State University, where he was chairman and founder of the CSU College Republicans, and subsequently two-term State Chairman of the College Republicans of Colorado.
After Brown’s 1989 graduation, he served as Northern Colorado Director for U.S. Senator Bill Armstrong. In 1990 Brown left retiring Armstrong’s staff to become the Media Director for the Colorado House of Representatives’ Republican Caucus. In 1992, Brown left the legislature to become the assistant campaign manager for the unsuccessful Republican congressional campaign of Brian Day in Colorado’s 2nd District.
In 1993, Brown became Legislative Director of the Firearms Coalition of Colorado and contract lobbyist for the Colorado State Shooting Association (the NRA state affiliate). Brown also served as the state chairman of the Colorado Conservative Union, a group that rated Colorado legislators.
In 1996 Brown founded Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, a no-compromise gun lobby concentrating on Colorado, which operates independently of other gun rights organizations.
Brown has appeared as a guest on Fox News, Hannity & Colmes, CNBC's Geraldo Rivera, the NBC Nightly News, and numerous other media outlets.
Brown has served as political consultant for a large number of conservative candidates and for the Colorado Republican Party.
Brown is a born-again Christian, skier, computer enthusiast, hockey player and fan, hunter and, of course, shooter. He concentrates on the defensive use of the handgun and carbine. He is married, and lives in rural Colorado.
You can e-mail Dudley Brown at exdir@rmgo.org
Almost? The consumate diplomat as always, tpaine. ;^
I walk a fine line about what I can say concerning some members of 'the appeasement faction'.. They seem to have special powers on getting posts deleted and their opponents suspended..
In fact, I dare not speak their names.
The strategy so far seems to be that whenever the Dims propose an anti-gun amendment, Frist and/or Craig propose an alternative that is much less anti-gun. Any alternate amendment that doesn't really change the intent of S.1805 is voted on immediately. Any ammendment (whether proposed by Dims or as an alternate by the Republicans) that is controversial and muddies up S.1805 is scheduled for a vote on Tuesday.
For example, Mikulski proposed adding victims of he DC Snipers to cases that would be allowed under S.1805. Her amendment added this to the list of actions that would be allowed:
Frist then proposed an amendment to add this instead:
``(vi) an action involving a shooting victim of John Allen Muhammad or Lee Boyd Malvo.''.
The Frist version passed. The Mikulski version was either rejected or tabled (I don't remember which at this point).
(vi) an action involving a shooting victim of John Allen Muhammad or John Lee Malvo that meets 1 of the requirements under clauses (i) through (v).
So, the amendment that actually passed said that DC Sniper victims could only sue manufacturers or dealers if their case met the other requirement of S.1805 (such as criminal activity by the dealer or manufacturer, or a defective product).
I'm not sure about the law enforcement "exception", but I'll bet if you check the actual text of the amendment as passed, it will also require that any action by a law enforcement officer will still have to meet the other criteria to be allowed.
We do need to pay attention to the Congressional Record, and contact our Senators about the controversial votes that will be held on Tuesday, but so far, they are actually holding the line pretty good on this bill.
For example, the Craig AP ammuniation amendment was scheduled for a vote on Tuesday.
One thing that is important is not to overreact, and to make sure you have your facts straight when you contact your Senators. Some disruptors are spreading misinformation and are trying to make pro-gun people look like fools when they contact their Senators. Unfortunately, some pro-gun groups and individuals are further spreading the misinformation.
For example, you will look like a crackpot if you call you Senator and object to the Boxer gun locks amendment (which has already passed) because it imposes a fine of $2500 if your unlocked is used in a crime. The Boxer/Kohl amendment that passed doesn't have any requirements for gun owners to use gun locks. It only requires manufacturers to provide locks with the guns they sell. It also offers immunity to gun owners who keep their guns locked if their locked gun is stolen and used in a crime.
If you are going to complain to your Senator about something, make sure you have your facts straight. There are disruptors who are trying to harm your credibility by passing on misinformation.
I am a "no compromise" kind of guy.
"It only requires manufacturers to provide locks with the guns they sell."
This kind of "compromise" is the same sort of foolishness that brought us the AWB - no need to go into all those cosmetic issues again here. It is insane to require anybody to sell a lock with a gun. If I need a lock, I'll buy one. I don't need a lock -- I have a big, expensive safe.
"It also offers immunity to gun owners who keep their guns locked if their locked gun is stolen and used in a crime."
Immunity if my 'locked' gun is stolen -- why do I need immunity at all. Why does the gun have to be "locked." Punish the criminal who stole the gun, and then used it in a crime, not me. I would be the victim, not the perpetrator - and I would resent being treated like one.
And, besides, I want to keep my gun unlocked, under my pillow - where I can use it if I need to.
This is like saying I will be immune from prosecution for creating an "attractive nusaince" if a home invader has to kick down the front door of my house so long as it was locked.
You want the federal government telling you that you have to lock the front door of your house ?? Yes, its a damn good idea, but do you want it to be a federal mandate ??
It is EXACTLY the same principle. The government proposing to tell me what I have to lock and when. What I do inside my house is MY business.
I don't consider the watered down gun lock amendment to be reasonable in any way, shape or form - there was no reason to compromise. Such logic only gave some RINOs, like my guy Warner, a weak excuse to vote for it.
Its dumb - plain and simple.
Here's the text of Craig's Ammo Ban Amendment at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1087321/posts
It too is unreasonable in my view, and no one can seem to devine Craig's logic in seeking a compromise, an untenable compromise at that.
Implies there are consequences if an unlocked gun is stolen and then used in a crime. --- What does the amendment say ?
It'll be easy to find a gullible jury of sheeple, who will see that 30-30 going through a kevlar vest, and agree that the "deadly armor piercing cop-killer 30-30 ammo" (and all the rest) MUST be banned!
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3645
But, it's important to read all the way to the end where they say:
"However, I stand by my original concerns over Sen. Craig's initial statements, given by him as he was introducing his AP ammo amendment. It is my opinion that rather than trying to amend bad law, Sen. Craig should be trying to repeal it. Furthermore, I still oppose this Craig-Frist amendment. Murder is murder -- whether it be with a gun, a knife or your bare hands. Murder by AP ammo is no worse than murder by any other ammo. Demonizing one type of ammo over another is as wrong as demonizing one type of gun over another. An extra 15 years imprisonment over the type of ammo one uses to commit a violent crime is stupid, and surely unconstitutional if we stick to original intent.
"See my first article on this situation if you care to know more of my thoughts on why Craig's amendment should be shot down if they put it to a vote." http://keepandbeararms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3643
Angel Shamaya
skip2myloo wrote:Let's think this through. Today, if someone is killed by a criminal, there are trial lawyers who try to sue the gun manufacturer and the dealer who first sold the gun, even if the criminal stole the gun from the dealer. S.1805 is being proposed to prohibit these costly and frivolous lawsuits.
Immunity if my 'locked' gun is stolen -- why do I need immunity at all. Why does the gun have to be "locked." Punish the criminal who stole the gun, and then used it in a crime, not me. I would be the victim, not the perpetrator - and I would resent being treated like one.
Let's say that S.1805 passes with no amendments. Actually, let's say that S.1806 (the unamended version) passes. Do you think the trial lawyers are just going to give up on suing people when someone is killed by a gun? I doubt it. The next logical target would be any gun owner whose gun is stolen and used by a criminal. If the law passes with only protection for gun dealers and gun manufacturers, gun owners are going to be the next target of frivolous lawsuits. The "safe storage" amendment at least offers some protection from that.
skip2myloo wrote:Nothing in the Boxer/Kohl amendment would change that. Presumably, you will not allow the gun to be stolen while you are sleeping next to it. I also keep a weapon handy for protection when I'm sleeping.
And, besides, I want to keep my gun unlocked, under my pillow - where I can use it if I need to.
However, I don't think it's a bad idea to lock that weapon up (either in some kind of locked storage or with a trigger lock) when I leave it unattended when I leave my house.
skip2myloo wrote:Somewhat similar. But you don't seem to fully understand the legal principal involved. An "attractive nuisance" is something potentially dangerous that does not have reasonable security and access control to prevent people (children especially) from getting into it. So, a locked door, or a tall fence with a locked gate (around a swimming pool for example) will give you immunity from "attractive nuisance" lawsuits.
This is like saying I will be immune from prosecution for creating an "attractive nusaince" if a home invader has to kick down the front door of my house so long as it was locked.
skip2myloo wrote:First, I don't see the text at that thread. But I have read it, and I don't support any of the Ammunition Ban Amendments (neither Senator Craig's nor Senator Swimmer's).
Here's the text of Craig's Ammo Ban Amendment at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1087321/posts
Those amendments haven't been voted on yet. There is still time to fax and/or call your Senators to get those amendments voted down. And I don't know what Senator Craig was thinking when he proposed his Ammunition Ban Amendment amendment.
If that amendment actually passes and becomes part of S.1805, then I think S.1805 should be rejected due to the amendment(s) that aren't consistent with the goal. I feel the same way about Senator Feinstein's amendment to make the Assault Weapons Ban permanent. If that becomes a part of S.1805, then S.1805 should be rejected.
But, neither of those amendments have passed yet. Now is the time to contact your Senators and say they should reject those amendments and pass the cleanest version of S.1805 possible.
gatex wrote:As I stated above in my reply to skip2myloo, gun owners whose weapons are stolen are the next likely targets of frivolous lawsuits once gun manufacturers and dealers are given the protection of this law. There are potential consequences today if your unlocked gun is stolen and used in a crime. The reason gun owners whose weapons are stolen aren't likely to be sued today is because the lawyers are going after the deeper pockets of the gun dealers and gun makers. When those deep pockets are put off limits, you can bet the lawyers for crime victims will be looking for others to sue when their clients (the victims and victims' families) are injured by criminally misused guns.
Implies there are consequences if an unlocked gun is stolen and then used in a crime. --- What does the amendment say ?
Here's the actual text of the Boxer/Kohl amendment:
Again, if gun makers and gun dealers get immunity (that's the whole point of S.1805), I think that gun owners are the next logical targets for trial lawyers to sue. So, the immunity gained from this is probably a good thing for gun owners.TITLE II--CHILD SAFETY LOCKS SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE. This title may be cited as the ``Child Safety Lock Act of 2004''. SEC. 202. PURPOSES. The purposes of this title are-- (1) to promote the safe storage and use of handguns by consumers; (2) to prevent unauthorized persons from gaining access to or use of a handgun, including children who may not be in possession of a handgun; and (3) to avoid hindering industry from supplying firearms to law abiding citizens for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting. SEC. 203. FIREARMS SAFETY. (a) UNLAWFUL ACTS.-- (1) MANDATORY TRANSFER OF SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following: ``(z) SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE.-- ``(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided under paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun to any person other than any person licensed under this chapter, unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device (as defined in section 921(a)(34)) for that handgun. ``(2) EXCEPTIONS.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to-- ``(A)(i) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, the United States, a department or agency of the United States, a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, of a handgun; or ``(ii) the transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a handgun for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off duty); or ``(B) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State of a handgun for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty); ``(C) the transfer to any person of a handgun listed as a curio or relic by the Secretary pursuant to section 921(a)(13); or ``(D) the transfer to any person of a handgun for which a secure gun storage or safety device is temporarily unavailable for the reasons described in the exceptions stated in section 923(e), if the licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer delivers to the transferee within 10 calendar days from the date of the delivery of the handgun to the transferee a secure gun storage or safety device for the handgun. ``(3) LIABILITY FOR USE.-- ``(A) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun, and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device with the handgun, shall be entitled to immunity from a qualified civil liability action. ``(B) PROSPECTIVE ACTIONS.--A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court. ``(C) DEFINED TERM.--As used in this paragraph, the term `qualified civil liability action'-- ``(i) means a civil action brought by any person against a person described in subparagraph (A) for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of the handgun by a third party, if-- ``(I) the handgun was accessed by another person who did not have the permission or authorization of the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun to have access to it; and ``(II) at the time access was gained by the person not so authorized, the handgun had been made inoperable by use of a secure gun storage or safety device; and ``(ii) shall not include an action brought against the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun for negligent entrustment or negligence per se.''. (b) CIVIL PENALTIES.--Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``or (f)'' and inserting ``(f), or (p)''; and (2) by adding at the end the following: ``(p) PENALTIES RELATING TO SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE.-- ``(1) IN GENERAL.-- ``(A) SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF LICENSE; CIVIL PENALTIES.--With respect to each violation of section 922(z)(1) by a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer, the Secretary may, after notice and opportunity for hearing-- ``(i) suspend for not more than 6 months, or revoke, the license issued to the licensee under this chapter that was used to conduct the firearms transfer; or ``(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty in an amount equal to not more than $2,500. ``(B) REVIEW.--An action of the Secretary under this paragraph may be reviewed only as provided under section 923(f). ``(2) ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.--The suspension or revocation of a license or the imposition of a civil penalty under paragraph (1) shall not preclude any administrative remedy that is otherwise available to the Secretary.''. (c) LIABILITY; EVIDENCE.-- (1) LIABILITY.--Nothing in this title shall be construed to-- (A) create a cause of action against any Federal firearms licensee or any other person for any civil liability; or (B) establish any standard of care. (2) EVIDENCE.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, evidence regarding compliance or noncompliance with the amendments made by this title shall not be admissible as evidence in any proceeding of any court, agency, board, or other entity, except with respect to an action relating to section 922(z) of title 18, United States Code, as added by this section. (3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to bar a governmental action to impose a penalty under section 924(p) of title 18, United States Code, for a failure to comply with section 922(z) of that title. SEC. 204. EFFECTIVE DATE. This title and the amendments made by this title shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
But, I still have a LOT of trepidation about the Boxer/Kohl Amendment. Rather than protecting me, I feel its setting me up to be a criminal.
If a criminal forcibly enters my home and steals a gun, he has already broken two laws - breaking and entering and theft.
Then if he goes out and commits an armed robbery and kills somebody in the process, he's committed two more serious felonies.
Now, here's a thug that's committed 4 serious felonies, and they're gonna come get me as an accessory to murder because I didn't have my gun secured "properly" with some $6.95 Master Lock ?? To me, that's just insane.
The lock on my front door and my alarm system ought to be enough for a reasonable person to consider me "secure in my home" a la the 4th Amendment.
Another scenario. Guns have been stolen off the line at Camp Perry, doesn't happen often, but it has happened. My gun is stored in the box while scoring a target, and then somebody steals it. I'm subject to a frivilous suit because it wasn't locked while I was in the process of competing with it, actually using it ??
Third scenario, I'm lawfully carrying concealed, some thug hits me in the head, steals my piece. Am I protected from, or subject to, a frivilous Boxer/Kohl lawsuit because while in the act of lawfully carrying a firearm for self defense, I didn't have a lock on it ??
I'm not trying to be argumentative with you -- I just can't bring myself to your point of view.
Of course, the swimming pool is the classic attractive nuisance case. But, there was another one (I can't cite right this moment), about a motorcycle.
Guy had a tricked-out, customized, high-dollar gas wheel crotch-rocket, parked it in a public place, typical ignition key and handlebar lock. It was stolen, involved in a fatal wreck. They went after the motorcycle owner on the basis he hadn't properly secured his "attractive nuisance." Don't recall how it turned out.
I've got a big house on a big lot, some John Edwards-style trial lawyer could come after me claiming my whole house is an attractive nuisance, just sitting there, inviting someone to come in a rip me off.
Anyhow, I don't see how Boxer/Kohl is going to protect me from a frivilous lawsuit. "They" are gonna think I've got deep pockets, and if the gun doesn't have a lock on it when its used in the crime, or recovered, they still are gonna claim I didn't have it properly protected - I'll still have to defend myself and possibly still lose because I can't prove I was in compliance with Boxer/Kohl.
Seems to me, I'd have a better defense against a frivilous lawsuit without Boxer/Kohl.
I don't know - the whole thing is just confusing to me.
The fact Boxer wanted it, is a prima facie indication to me that I ought to oppose it from some visceral level :)
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.