Rocky Mountain Gun Owners Alert: Kill 1805 Immediately

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

Your emails and phone calls from the NRA about a "clean" Bill 1805 didn't go anything like this did they?:

Now the NRA says "Passage of S. 1805 is critical -- but not worth allowing legislation going to the President including either an extension of the Clinton gun ban or restrictions at gun shows. There will be no compromise. The only choice is a "clean" bill or no bill."

This sounds good, and if they left it there I would feel better about what the NRA is doing. However they went on to say "While we are uncertain of the outcome of several pending anti- gun amendments in the Senate, the House is strongly pro-gun and it (or a conference committee) will not accept any anti-gun Senate- passed amendment as part of the final product to be sent to the President."

In other words we are going to give our supporters in the Senate a pass on voting for a "gun control" version of the bill, and then hope it gets fixed later.

This is exactly how we got the "Campaign Finance Reform" bill.

Everyone said "it will get fixed in the House".

Then it was "it will get fixed in Conference".

Then it was "the President will never sign this".

And lastly "the courts will throw this out".

Well guess what? None of those things happened once the Senate passed that bill.

Now the NRA is facing the biggest financial crisis in their history because they did not fight harder to stop this when it still could be stopped.

Did the NRA change their official ratings to negative of those who voted _for_ the CFR bill? Will they change their official ratings to negative of those who vote _for_ S1805 now that it contains "an extension of the Clinton gun ban" AND "restrictions at gun shows".

Do they really mean "The only choice is a "clean" bill or no bill" ?

Best regards,

This is what the NRA actually said to all the Senators yesterday. Take Special note of Paragraph 3 and note the result was the Boxer Gun Lock Amendment to S. 1805: (they were telling the Senate they wouldn't oppose an amendment, but telling us members they wanted a "clean bill").

VIA http://www.packing.org

Subject: NRA Positions on Amendments to S. 1805

Attachments:

February 26, 2004

Dear Senator:

As you know, during consideration of S. 1805, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, the Senate has agreed to debate a long and complex series of amendments. This letter will explain the NRA’s position on those amendments as briefly as possible, in the order in which those amendments will be considered under the unanimous consent agreement.

The NRA’s overriding priority in consideration of this bill is the same as that expressed in the Statement of Administration Position issued by the White House on February 24: “to pass a clean bill, in order to ensure enactment of the legislation this year.” All of our positions will be consistent with that view.

[Emphasis added] NRA does not oppose a gun lock amendment that is consistent with our position during the 1999 juvenile justice debate; i.e., an amendment that requires dealers to provide safe storage devices with guns, provided that penalties for minor or inadvertent violations are not overly harsh, and individual gun owners who use these devices are protected from liability for use of stolen guns. Language would also need to be updated to reflect current industry practices in this field.

· NRA does not oppose an amendment recognizing national handgun carry reciprocity for off-duty and retired law enforcement officers. In principle, NRA supports this legislation and would also like reciprocity extended to licensed private citizens.

· NRA opposes an ammunition ban amendment. The standard proposed by Sen. Kennedy was rejected in the 1980s as overly broad and unnecessary to meet any threat posed to law enforcement officers’ safety. The issue was also thoroughly studied from 1996-1997 by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, who found that no officer in the U.S. “who was wearing a bullet-resistant vest died as a result of any round of ammunition having been fired from a handgun, penetrating that officer’s armor causing the primary lethal injuries.” The report concluded, “no additional legislation regarding such laws is necessary.” Nothing has changed to justify passage of the proposed standard-a standard that would effectively ban all hunting rifle ammunition sold and used in the United States. The Fraternal Order of Police also opposes this amendment.

· NRA opposes any amendments on non-germane issues such as unemployment insurance and voting rights. While these may be important issues to many, they are outside the scope of this bill and will inhibit or delay its enactment.

· NRA very strongly opposes any amendment carving out specific lawsuits or classes of plaintiffs for protection under the bill. One of the strengths of S. 1805 is that it adopts the same rules for all plaintiffs, no matter how sympathetic or unsympathetic. If a lawsuit has enough merit (under traditional tort standards) to be allowed by this bill, we believe that cause of action should be available to all plaintiffs-regardless of their occupation or which particular attacker did them harm. In fact, any “carveout” amendment poses a great risk that an anti-gun judge could choose to allow lawsuits by plaintiffs who are not mentioned in the bill, but who are in some way similarly situated to those given special favor in the amendment. These amendments would gut S.1805, rendering it ineffective.

· NRA very strongly opposes new restrictions on gun shows. While anti-gun activists demonize these events, the evidence from government studies continues to show that criminals acquire fewer than 2% of their guns through gun shows. Furthermore, proposed legislation would create red tape at the discretion of the government that would serve only to choke these shows out of existence. Finally, legislation that would ban gun shows does not enjoy support in the House, where proposals in 1999 were defeated by the most extreme wing of anti-gun Representatives. Therefore, this amendment could jeopardize the passage of S.1805.

· NRA very strongly opposes any amendment reenacting the 1994 Clinton Gun Ban. NRA opposed this legislation in 1994 because there was no legitimate statistical basis at all for banning guns owned by millions of Americans for totally legitimate purposes of defense, sport or collecting. No new evidence has surfaced since then; in fact, police reports, academic studies mandated by the law, and follow-up work by the same authors have continued to show virtually no use of these guns in crime. This amendment could jeopardize passage of S.1805.

· NRA supports the D.C. gun ban repeal. Under this bill, District citizens would enjoy the same self-defense rights as residents of the other 50 states. The amendment would allow honest citizens to own rifles, shotguns and handguns, without the current bureaucratic registration requirements. It would also allow law-abiding people to use guns to protect their homes and families. The amendment would not affect any law directed at true criminal conduct, and would leave in place strict penalties for gun possession by criminals and for violent crime committed with guns. While not directly related to liability issues, this amendment helps restore Americans’ Second Amendment rights; the passage of similar legislation in the House in 1999 and the strong current cosponsorship of a similar bill (H.R. 3193) indicate that its adoption would not seriously jeopardize chances of passing S. 1807.

We appreciate your serious consideration of our positions on these varied issues. We also need to note that votes on this bill, and on its amendments, will be taken into consideration and publicized to our members during our candidate evaluations for future elections.

As always, we look forward to working with you on these votes, and if you have any questions or concerns, please contact our Federal Affairs division at (202) 651-2560.

Sincerely,

Chris W. Cox

Executive Director

NRA Institute for Legislative Action

To be fair, they DID SAY they opposed an ammo ban amendment, but they can't even keep their own Director in concert with them. I think the NRA is losing it's effectiveness.

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.