Posted on 07/27/2005 5:55:42 PM PDT by Graybeard58
One might think that senators heading home for a month-long summer holiday would first want to pass the defense bill, a gesture that would show support for America's troops risking their lives around the world.
Instead, Senate majority leader Bill Frist (R) has decided they should spend these last hours sending a box of candy and a bouquet to the gun lobby.
Earlier this week Senator Frist abruptly cut off debate on the defense bill - effectively pushing it back to the fall - to turn attention to a measure that's a darling of the National Rifle Association. It would shield firearms manufacturers and dealers from individuals or local governments trying to hold them responsible in court for damages caused by the unlawful use of guns. Lawsuits already under way would have to be dismissed. And no local laws could be passed in the future to supercede this special protection.
That the Senate would turn away from important national security legislation to deal with a special plea from a powerful lobbying group is unsavory enough. But, just as important, the bill itself is both unnecessary and harmful.
Proponents, including the White House, have implied that gun manufacturers could be driven out of business by a deluge of frivolous lawsuits and thus need special protection. But there's no evidence to show that US arms manufacturers are facing any financial difficulties or any grievous onslaught of suits.
Statistics from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence show that just 57 suits were filed against the gun industry from 1993 to 2003. That's out of an estimated 10 million tort suits filed in that period.
What the gun bill would do is prevent citizens or local governments from suing the tiny number of unscrupulous gun dealers, only about 1 percent of the industry. These operators have nothing to do with supplying arms to US forces, the reason the administration gives for supporting the bill.
Last year, families of the six victims of snipers who terrorized the Washington D.C. area in 2002 won a modest settlement of just over $2 million from Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Washington State. The gun dealer could not account for how more than 200 weapons mysteriously left his shop, including the assault rifle used by convicted snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo. These families can only be grateful that this ill-advised measure had not yet passed.
What this gun bill does show is how much the gun lobby's grip on Congress appears to have strengthened since the 2004 election.
That was a half-vast editorial.
Wasn't this from the Islamic Science Monitor? There is nothing remotely Christian about it.
And what the author doesn't seem to understand is that, even though there were "only" 57 lawsuits against the gun industry, a successful lawsuit against the gun industry can set major precedents and have far-reaching consequences (like Roe vs. Wade for abortion). The "only 57 lawsuits" argument could be applied to just about any industry with a conclusion that they don't have to worry. It's a small comfort if you're the one hit and you wind up having your entire industry unreasonably restricted or shut down.
heh heh heh.
Next, they ought to move to prevent the ambulance chasers from picking the pockets of Tobacco. Unfortunately, the feds have their hands in that cash cow's pocket as well. Grrrrr!
The CSM dove into the mainstream media cesspool at least twenty years ago. The use of the term "gun lobby" is a contemptible slur against those Real Americans who are defending the most important, God given right protected under the Constitution. It is also a slur and a denigration against the Constitution itself. I am sure that if the CSM and their ilk routinely referred to the NAACP as the "kaffir lobby", that slur would give the MSM a bad case of the vapors. So be it.
So? What's wrong with that?
Should people involved in accidents caused by drunk drivers sue Ford or G.M.?
Hey, Monitor! If you think the "gun lobby" has a grip on Congress now, wait until the mid-term elections and 2008! We are on a march to take back our Second Amendment rights! Just look at the number of states that now allow for some sort of handgun carry. It's up from 10 in 1987 to 38 now.
Our next move should be to elect legislators who will have the guts to seek repeal of NFA 1934, GCA 1968, and the Gun Owners' Protection Act of 1986, which doesn't do anything to protect my rights. And while we're at it, we could legislate BATFE out of existence.
If we are unsuccessful in the legislative arena, there is always the court system. By the time a legal challenge to all the Draconian gun laws reaches the Supreme Court there should be a majority of strict constructionists sitting on the bench.
Ya, it was way better when Congress was in the grip of the partial-birth abortion and criminal rights lobbies. Enforce the criminal laws that are currently in place before making new ones.
Typical lying lib. This bill would have no effect on negligence lawsuits such as this one. He either knows that and is lying, or is too stupid and/or lazy to find out what the bill really says.
"Gun Lobby" => Liberal-English translator => Oldest civil rights groups in America.
I believe the store would still be liable under S397 ? Aren't FFL01 holders required to keep serial number records etc ?
"Should people involved in accidents caused by drunk drivers sue Ford or G.M.?"
of course not,, they are supposed to sue the breweries, 7/11, etc.
"Our next move should be to elect legislators who will have the guts to seek repeal of NFA 1934, GCA 1968, and the Gun Owners' Protection Act of 1986, which doesn't do anything to protect my rights. And while we're at it, we could legislate BATFE out of existence."
Almost correct, but for this error.
"and the Gun Owners' Protection Act of 1986, which doesn't do anything to protect my rights"
That is where you are wrong.
the FOPA-86 DOES protect your rights, it DID reign in an out of control ATF, at least to some extent.
It also made it much safer to travel with your firearms via the "safe passage" provision.
What needs to be removed from FOPA-86 is the sneakily enacted 922.(o) provision that was added at literally the last minute!
Of course, if NFA-34 were repealed 922.(o) would be irrelevant.
For a careful and detailed look at the NFA laws visit www.nfaoa.org
Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez!
That article reads like Talking Points for the DNC and Sarah Brady's MoonBat Gun Grabbers!
Jack.
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.