Gun Votes Now Part of Political Agenda

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate's repudiation of a gun industry legal protection bill this week gave the National Rifle Association an unexpected blow and injected gun policy into this year's elections.

Lawmakers, lobbyists and experts on gun politics said the odd spectacle of pro-gun senators stampeding to kill their own legislation will have repercussions at the ballot box.

Both Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, and Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, then still in the White House race, interrupted their campaigns to cast gun control votes on Tuesday.

Kerry gave a blistering speech accusing President Bush of "walking away" from his commitment to extend the 1994 assault weapons ban, which expires next September.

"What we have now is a benchmark for the presidential race and the Senate races," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. "We got senators on the record on issues that are important to our members. We got Bush and Kerry on the record."

Many lawmakers would just as soon steer clear of gun politics in an election year, worried by the NRA's ability to mobilize voters who care intensely about their weapons.

The well-financed NRA is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. Its strength lies both in its effective Washington operation and an energetic single-issue grass roots organization of roughly 4 million gun owners.

Opinion polls have shown for years that much of the public supports more stringent gun control. But NRA supporters, while a minority, hold powerful sway over the political process.

Because of that clout, some Republicans are perfectly happy to see Democrats casting gun control votes. "Bring'em on," one Republican Senate aide said gleefully.

The NRA, which considers Bush a close ally, had pushed hard for the legislation that would have shielded the industry from lawsuits attempting to hold manufacturers, dealers or distributors responsible for gun violence. Pending cases that could have been affected include those filed by policemen shot on the job and relatives of the Washington snipers' victims.

That bill passed by a two-to-one margin in the House last year, and the NRA had lined up a bipartisan coalition in the Senate. But the NRA was unable to defeat two crucial Senate amendments, one extending the assault weapons ban and one requiring background checks on buyers at gun shows.

Once those passed -- and they passed by a bigger bipartisan margin in the Republican-controlled Senate than gun measures did after the Columbine school killings in 1999 when Democrats were in power -- the NRA decided it would rather kill the lawsuit bill than risk having these measures enacted into law.

The drama played out differently than other major gun votes in the last decade. In the early 1990s, the gun lobby lost two huge battles, resulting in the passage of the Brady gun control laws and the assault weapons ban.

Columbine fueled the gun control debate after two teens armed with bombs, shotguns and semi-automatic weapons killed a teacher, 12 other students and themselves at the Colorado school -- the worst school shooting in U.S. history.

After Columbine, gun control groups got several more tough measures through the Senate. NRA allies had to stall and fight to ultimately kill them in the House.

In both those cases, however, the NRA was on the defensive, fighting an agenda shaped by gun-control groups. This time, with Republicans in control of the White House and both houses of Congress, the NRA tried to set the agenda and pass its lawsuit immunity bill.

"They overreached," said Illinois Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin. "They thought they owned the world, that nothing could stop them. But they lost."

"The NRA does best when it's operating behind the scenes, below the radar screen," said Robert Spitzer, an expert on gun politics at the State University of New York at Cortland.

"Dwelling on these issues doesn't help the president," Spitzer said. "And Kerry leveled some fire against Bush using this issue as a launching pad. He can say that Bush is in the hip pocket of the special interests and the far right."

Both sides expect more Senate skirmishes, with backers of the assault weapons ban likely to bring it up again.

Getting it through the House is harder, acknowledged New York Democrat Rep. Carolyn McCarthy. She is hoping that police, health groups and a reprise of the Million Mom March this Mother's Day may give the weapons ban momentum.

Ban sponsor Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, predicted the Senate would return to the issue "when the black and blue marks subside."

The Senate voted 90-8 to defeat the amended bill after voting 52-47 to add assault weapons ban and 53-46 to add the gun show measure.

They didn't lose. The immunity measure was widely expected to pass easily (which is interesting). So the Dems killed it by tacking stuff on that was indigestible.

Hold on there a minute. I believe ten Republicans voted for extension of the AWB.

Chafee (R-RI), Yea

Collins (R-ME), Yea

DeWine (R-OH), Yea

Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea

Gregg (R-NH), Yea

Lugar (R-IN), Yea

Smith (R-OR), Yea

Snowe (R-ME), Yea

Voinovich (R-OH), Yea

Warner (R-VA), Yea

I don't see how we can blame the Dems for this. It looks like we need to do a little house cleaning of our own.

Text of Kerry's speec from congressional record:
(underlines are my emphasis)

MR. KERRY: If we do not act today to continue the ban on these deadly weapons , then our families in America, our police officers in America, are more threatened than they ought to be. For 10 years, the assault weapons ban has stopped fugitives, rapists, and murderers from purchasing weapons such as AK-47s. And

[Page: S1964] GPO's PDF
for 10 years, not one honest, responsible American has had their guns taken away because of this law.[CAN'T TAKE WHAT THEY DON'T LET YOU HAVE]
It is interesting that a few months ago I was actually hunting in Iowa with the sheriff and with some of his deputies. As we walked through a field with the dogs, hunting pheasant, he pointed out a house in back of me, a house they had raided only a few weeks earlier, where meth and crack were being sold. On the morning when they went in to arrest this alleged criminal, there was an assault weapon on the floor lying beside that individual.

That sheriff and others across this country do not believe we should be selling these weapons or allowing them to be more easily available to criminals in our country. That is why gun owners across America support renewing the assault weapons ban . They support also closing the gun show loophole so that gun shows can continue uninterrupted without being magnets for criminals and/or terrorists who try to get around the law.

If there is a gun show loophole, a terrorist could simply go to one State, go into the gun show, buy a gun without the kind of ground check normal in the process, leave that gun show, travel to another State, and engage in either criminal or terrorist activity or both.

Let's be honest about what we are facing today. The opposition to this commonsense gun safety law is being driven by the powerful NRA special interest leadership and by lobbyists in Washington. I don't believe this is the voice of responsible gun owners across America.

Gun owners in America want to defend their families, and I believe the NRA leadership is defending the indefensible. There is a gap between America's ``Field & Stream'' gun owners and the NRA's ``Soldier of Fortune'' leaders.

When he ran for President in 2000, President Bush promised the American people he would work to renew the assault weapons ban . But now, under pressure, he is walking away from that commitment, as he has from so many other promises--from education, to the environment, to the economy. This President says he will sign this giveaway to the gun industry, but he is refusing to sign the assault weapons ban he told America he would support.
[HE NEVER WAIVERED FROM SAYING HE WOULD SIGN IT. BAD I KNOW, BUT CONSISTENT.]
I believe gun owners have a responsibility, and so does the President of the United States--a responsibility to keep his word, a responsibility to do what he says he will do, a responsibility to protect Americans from danger, and to provide for the common defense.

There is a reason every major law enforcement and police group in America supports this ban . They know no police officer should ever have to face the prospect of being outgunned by the military-style assault weapons . No American citizen should have to live in fear of being gunned down by snipers, gang members, or even terrorists who wield assault weapons .

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, is there any time left on our side?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the distinguished leader.

President Bush needs to tell America's police officers why he is not standing on their side.

Today George Bush will celebrate the anniversary of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and I am glad the President joined us in that effort. But it will take more than a big, new bureaucracy to make America safer. Today airport screeners are being cut, air marshals are not getting trained, fire departments only have enough radios for about 50 percent of the firefighters, and almost two-thirds of our firehouses are shortchanged. The COPS funds have been eliminated in order to fund the President's tax cuts for the wealthiest few. By taking cops off our streets with one hand, and allowing military-style assault weapons back on them with the other, this President is jeopardizing the safety of our communities. It is wrong to do so, to pay for more tax breaks for billionaires and pay back more favors to a special interest lobbying group.

Let me just say one word quickly about the overall issue of liability itself. I am not for, and I do not think any reasonable person is for, a gun manufacturer being held liable for a murder that takes place in the life of America, unfortunately too often. But what we do know is about 1.2 percent or so of gun dealers and wholesalers are responsible for about 57 percent of the weapons that wind up in the hands of criminals. There are many ``straw'' transactions that take place in situations where manufacturers know who the problem dealers are.

To not have a wanton-and-reckless-conduct standard for liability is to avoid responsibility; it is to allow people to look the other way, as they have in the past, when we demand responsible actions in the communities of America.

I believe American gun owners are right to act responsibly and to live by common sense, and I am proud to stand with those gun owners today. I hope President Bush, the NRA leadership, and other lobby groups will reverse course and join the millions of Americans who know gun rights and gun responsibilities are mainstream American values, and that is what we should vote for in the Senate.

I thank the leader for the extra time.

Lugar (R-IN), Yea

Lugar has other issues too.

John Kerry’s Treaty - Outsourcing sovereignty (to the UN)

On Wednesday, Sen. Kerry voted by proxy (since he can't take time off from running for president to do his day job in person) for a resolution of ratification that would make the U.S. a party to the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar brought the treaty to a unanimous favorable vote and promises to try to get the Senate to act on it "as soon as possible."
That is precisely what Sen. Lugar is trying to do. He has: prevented critics from testifying before his own committee; kept other committees from being briefed on the treaty; and is seeking to get it to the Senate floor before effective opposition can be organized and expressed.
U.S. adherence to this treaty would entail history's biggest and most unwarranted voluntary transfer of wealth and surrender of sovereignty.
These include the power to: regulate seven-tenths of the world's surface area, levy international taxes, impose production quotas (for deep-sea mining, oil production, etc.), govern ocean research and exploration, and create a multinational court to render and enforce its judgments.
The treaty effectively prohibits two functions vital to American security: collecting intelligence in, and submerged transit of, territorial waters.

You're correct: this article is incredibly biased. Here's my take on the situation:

I think that this was actually a pretty big victory for gun owners (though, as in every battlefield victory, there are casualities). Why?

It is interesting to note that only 8 traitors voted for the final bill. More interesting is who among the other traitors in the Senate did NOT vote for it: Feinstein, Schumer and Kerry. Gee, let's see: the authors of the AWB amendment to this bill, which was attached to the legislation, still didn't vote for it. Neither did the obvious Presidential candidate for the Thundering Herd of Jackasses, despite having voted for not only the AWB provision, but also McStain's gun-show-killing amendment. If these people had REALLY wanted these provisions in the law, they and their fellow travelers would have voted for it. The fact that they didn't says that they attached all of these amendments for one reason - to kill the underlying legislation. They want to kill the firearms industry, by hook or by crook, so desperately that they are willing to even sacrifice a gun ban for it. This says to me that they must think that they are losing, that this one tactic (death by lawsuit) is the only one that will allow them to win. That analysis makes me feel very much better than I felt yesterday morning, after the AWB and the gunshow provisions got attached. Now it not only appears that the AWB is on the way out, but the antis have revealed their true feelings - that they are scared.

Make no mistake - the AWB IS on the way out. If the NRA and other gun groups (including lots of groups of 1, like all of us that called our reps multiple times) could sacrifice a great pro-gun bill to stop the AWB renewal, then a stand-alone AWB isn't going to pass. There won't be any more pro-gun legislation to attach a renewal to, so it will die (of course, we can always be back-stabbed - yet again - so we must ALL be vigilant).

The antis, especially Fat Ted (Drunken Murderer, MA), have revealed themselves to the whole (gun-owning) world for who they are. Those of our fellow gun owners who are not so politically astute (or who just didn't give a damn about ugly rifles), will now be able to be bludgeoned by the rest of us with the club of (at least) Kennedy's centerfire rifle ban. Any shotgunner you see at a gunshow who sneers as he passes the table full of AR-15 clones can now be told that the same folks who hate ugly rifles wanted him to stay home and not be able to look at $2,000+ double-barreled English dove guns. The real RINOs on the gun issue have also been smoked out - geez, Richard Lugar!! Gregg Judd!! These guys shouldn't be taking another oath of office.

Regarding the failure of the underlying bill: Look, I don't like these absurd suits any more than anyone else. I, like every other gun owner, pay more for guns and ammo because of the potential for (or reality of) baseless lawsuits. The judges are clearly NOT doing their jobs. But there have been no awards that have stuck on appeal. There will be none, because the moment a gun manufacturer is found liable for the criminal actions of someone not under their control, 10,000 lawyers are going to sue GM, Ford and every other car company for selling cars to drunk drivers. It won't - it CAN'T - happen, because if it does the economy goes down the crapper as commerce grinds to a halt. Thus, until a clean liability law IS passed (how about next year, after another 2-4 Senate Dems get promotions to the private sector), the only real cost will be the litigation cost. That's not nothing, and I certainly am not attempting to minimize it, but it is bearable for another year or so.

The real victory is this: if no more gun-related legislation gets passed this year, as now seems fairly likely, then that is great for gun owners. You see, for the first time in history a federal law restricting the rights of gun owners will have been taken off of the books. When, after another year or two, it is shown that there hasn't been a militia uprising, the murder of 10,000 cops or little kids or some such nonsense, then the overblown scaremongering tactics of the antis will be apparent to all (or at least those on the fence, who are the only ones that really matter, politically). This will greatly discredit the antis, and make it far more difficult for them to pass new legislation in the future. Being able to buy magazines for reasonable prices will be nice also. The added bucks in everyone's gun budget will mean more to spend on ammo for the range, honing those skills that seem to require Feinswine to regularly buy new underwear. :>)

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.