Posted on 10/27/2005 10:22:39 PM PDT by neverdem
It's hard to imagine that The New York Times editorial page could misconstrue an issue involving guns, seeing as how the writers of the troubled Gray Lady's editorials are so open-minded about the Second Amendment. (That, dear readers, would be sarcasm.)
An offering last week about legislation before the U.S. House that would protect gun manufacturers from nuisance lawsuits posited: "This extraordinary shield, written to the diktat of the National Rifle Association, is so sweeping that it would have barred the D.C. sniper settlement and other valid negligence claims."
Hmm. Sounds like an editorial written to the diktat of the Brady Center for the Prevention of Gun Violence, so sweeping are its flabbergasted expressions of outrage.
I confess I didn't bother to read what The Times had to say editorially after the House passed HR 800 last Thursday. A person can take only so much hyperbole in one week.
On any other issue in the world, a 283-144 vote would be considered charmingly, refreshingly bipartisan. For 59 Democrats to join 223 Republicans (and one independent) in putting a lid on lawsuits that were geared toward bankrupting a legal business in this country means there is merit in the argument and in the way that the legislation is written.
But don't expect opponents of the act to see it that way. They will fabricate a scenario about how cowed those Democrats were by the big bad gun lobby. Every last man and woman of them is facing a difficult re-election battle next fall, they will argue, and the lawmakers can't afford to alienate gun rights advocates when it comes to polling time.
Whatever. The fact stands that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was passed by the Senate in July by a 65-31 vote, now goes to President...
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
They weren't banned.
They were registered and taxed.
Later, ATF included local county officials in the process of collecting federal excise taxes which is illegal.
Assuming you live in a state where you are a full fledged adult you may make short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, suppressors or destructive devices (like the M79 or M203) after getting this local sherrif signoff and getting an ATF Form 1 approved.
For some insane reason these things are regulated.
Every firearm Ruger built in 1976 was stamped that way. I have a Mini-14 from that year.
George Bush said he would sign an extension of the assault weapons ban, but he did absolutely nothing to promote it and let it expire when probably the slightest words of encouragement from the White House would have been enough to push it through. My understanding is also that the Bush Administration was squarely behind the PLCCAA from day one.
Reagan on the other hand did sign the mistitled '86 Firearm Owners Protection Act which banned all new machineguns. That wasn't a hidden provision of the bill either.
Machine guns had been tightly regulated since the 30's, but if you jumped through all the hoops you could still get one. You still can today too, but here's the catch, there haven't been any new civilian machineguns made since 1986 and the ones that are out there cost an arm and a leg, typically in the $10,000 range and prices keep going up.
Perhaps Bush hasn't been Charlton Heston, but compare his record with those who went before him. Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, Johnson and FDR all banned guns. The others did nothing to repeal these bans or expand our rights. Under Bush however one ban has expired, gun manufacturers are protected and the AG's office views the second ammendment as conferring a personal rather than a collective right.
Add to the fact George Bush signed the Texas Concealed Carry License Bill into law.
I forgot one. He has a man at the UN[Bolton] telling them to lay off our Second Amendment.
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.