Gun supporters split over Rep. Paul

World Net Daily ^ | 4/26/2003 | Jon Dougherty

[jjm2111]

A staunchly pro-gun-rights lawmaker has repeated his opposition to legislation that would protect firearms manufacturers from liability suits, despite a report that the National Rifle Association may pull its support for him in the next election.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, voted to oppose H.R. 1036, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, because he said he feared it would be an unconstitutional enhancement of federal power. As WorldNetDaily reported, the bill passed the House earlier this month 285-140.

But because he voted against the bill, the NRA may drop its support of Paul in the future, according to Chicago Sun-Times syndicated columnist Robert Novak.

"Paul evoked the NRA's ire April 9 by opposing a bill that would order federal and state courts to immediately dismiss lawsuits against gun makers and gun sellers," Novak wrote. "Paul always has defended Second Amendment protection for gun owners. However, he objected to Congress legislating against state rights."

Novak claimed gun-rights groups were split over Paul, who is also a physician. "While the NRA wants to challenge him, the Gun Owners of America are in full support," he wrote.

An operator at NRA headquarters outside Washington, D.C., said all of the organization's spokespersons were attending the group's annual meeting in Orlando, Fla., and were unavailable for comment.

Jeff Deist, Paul's spokesman, told WorldNetDaily he had no comment on Novak's report. Instead, he referred to his boss' statement opposing the bill on the House floor prior to the vote.

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, confirmed that his group "fully supports" Paul.

"We disagree with his view that the bill was anti-federal by telling states not to allow frivolous lawsuits against the firearms industry," Pratt told WorldNetDaily. "We believe that these suits themselves are the federalism buster. They permit a court in one state to set policy for the whole country."

However, he said, "GOA fully supports Ron Paul who is the gun owners' Top Gun in Congress."

"Ron Paul has introduced bills to wipe out most federal gun-control laws. It is pretty hard to get more pro-gun than Ron Paul," Pratt said, a position Paul made clear in his House statement.

"I rise today as a firm believer in the Second Amendment and an opponent of all federal gun laws," Paul told lawmakers. "In fact, I have introduced legislation, the Second Amendment Restoration Act (H.R. 153), which repeals misguided federal gun-control laws such as the Brady Bill and the assault-weapons ban. I believe the Second Amendment is one of the foundations of our constitutional liberties."

However, he continued, "another foundation of those liberties is the oath all of us took to respect constitutional limits on federal power. While I understand and sympathize with the goals of the proponents of the [Act], this bill exceeds those constitutional limitations, and so I must oppose it."

Visitors to gun-rights website KeepAndBearArms.com voiced support for Paul.

"When it comes to choosing between Ron Paul and the NRA, I'll pick Ron every time," said one visitor who claimed to be from Paul's district in Texas. "I'm glad to say he is my representative, and while I was initially surprised he voted 'against,' I understand the reason he did and I still support him."

"If the NRA opposes Ron Paul in any election bid, I will immediately cancel my NRA membership and I will never join the NRA again … ever," said another reader.

"The NRA opposes Ron Paul and they'll regret that," said another. "Ron Paul never compromises on Second Amendment issues."

Not everyone agreed. "I am stunned by Ron Paul's position on this one and will be talking to him about it as soon as I possibly can," said one reader.

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre praised the House vote.

"Congress acted … to protect one of America's oldest and most honorable industries," he said. "Their action is a big step forward toward ending these careless lawsuits. These suits are a deliberate attempt aimed at manipulating our legal system to advance a failing political agenda."

In his floor statement, Paul summed up his opposition to the bill on constitutional grounds.

"It is long past time for Congress to recognize that not every problem requires a federal solution," he said. "I would remind my fellow supporters of gun rights that using unconstitutional federal powers to restrict state gun lawsuits makes it more likely those same powers will be used to restrict our gun rights."

[jjm2111]

While I disagreed with (and was dismayed by) Ron Paul's position on Iraq, I do think that Rep. Paul is one of the few congreeman who takes his oath to defend the constituion seriously.

[isthisnickcool]

I worked on one of Dr. Paul's first campaigns. In all the years he has represented Texasn he has never changed.

[inquest]

"We believe that these suits themselves are the federalism buster. They permit a court in one state to set policy for the whole country."

Huh? I'd love to hear him elaborate on this.

[SpyGuy]

I believe the Second Amendment is one of the foundations of our constitutional liberties." However, he continued, "another foundation of those liberties is the oath all of us took to respect constitutional limits on federal power. While I understand and sympathize with the goals of the proponents of the [Act], this bill exceeds those constitutional limitations, and so I must oppose it."

Isn't it amazing that Ron Paul is the only Congressman who understands the Constitution and has the integrity to uphold it, even if it means giving up political ground to those who would do anything to destroy it?

Ron Paul is the ONLY man in Washington that I can truly respect.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I make two political donations each year. Ron Paul and NRA.

[Cacophonous]

I agree completely. I cannot improve on what you said.

[MatthewViti]

How bout' Tancredo?

[Atlas Sneezed]

Bang

[moneyrunner]

Ron Paul is the living example of the perfect being the enemy of the good.

[Shooter 2.5]

He voted against a Bill that would protect the gun companies from the lawsuits that were threatening to put them out of business.

Now the GOA is upset the NRA won't throw money at him.

Oh, gee, makes perfect sense to me. < sarcasm >

[Atlas Sneezed]

The NRA leadership seems to fail to understand that some folks have principles, even when they force them to superficially go against their usual friends.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Kind of like Libertarians.

[PatrioticAmerican]

bump

[SpyGuy]

"...They permit a court in one state to set policy for the whole country."

Huh? I'd love to hear him elaborate on this.

It's called "legal precedent." Once one court decides a particular case in a particular way (even if they twist the law into pretzels in doing so), that case becomes a precedent upon which other courts base their rulings.

For example, let's say that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco (the most Leftist--and most overturned on appeal--court in America) rules that it is unconstitutional for you to decide that you don't want to hire a cross-dressing transgendered homosexual babysitter for your three-year-old son. That decision--no matter how skewed--will influence the outcome of every and any other case involving hiring "discrimination", parental rights, and the privileged "rights" status of sexual deviants, even if those cases occur in other states.

Do you see the problem here? It's called "legislating from the bench." The Legislative and Executive branches (Congress & the Presidency) are supposed to enact laws, while the Judicial branch is only supposed to apply them as written. The problem now is that activist judges (virtually all of which are Leftists and liberals) are deliberately misinterpreting and misapplying the laws to fit their own personal political agendas. In effect, they are rewriting the laws without any input from the electorate (they are not bound to represent a constituency and we can not vote them out of office) and without the "checks and balances" of the Legislative and Executive branches.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[Ronaldus Magnus Reagan]

So, when the liberal states constantly sue the gun manufacturers and subsequently put them out of business, where will you buy your guns? What good is the right to bear arms when there are no arms to be purchased? Can't you people see the big picture?

It didn't do any good to legislate against federal frivolous stockholder lawsuits just because the company's stock dropped. The lawyer sharks just started to use the state courts instead. You're still receiving notices of those class action shareholder lawsuits, arn't you?

Isn't the federal government immune from lawsuits? Lawsuits from STATE residents? Does it only go one way? Hmmmmm.

[SpyGuy]

For those of you who think the NRA is the only salvation for the Second Amendment, I suggest you go back and study your history. The NRA has a long and ugly record of complacency, complicity, and duplicity when it comes to gun control laws.

The very reason the GOA exists (as well as so many other RKBA organizations) is because the NRA have voluntarily yielded so many of our Second Amendment rights to the gun grabbers.

[moneyrunner]

There is a difference between reasonable people who accept reasonable compromises and fanatics. It’s the thing that keeps libertarians from getting more the 2% of the vote.

I have no use for people who are so ideologically pure that they are willing to see their side destroyed out of principle. What is admirable in a religious martyr is obnoxious in a politician.

[inquest]

But legal precedent set by one state court isn't binding on courts in other states.

[Shooter 2.5]

You're going to have to remember that when some of those laws were written, the NRA had something like 300,000 members and had little influence in government.

When clinton blamed the NRA for the congressional and senatorial defeats, the political landscape changed. Now, we have the muscle to go on the offense which is what happened today. The whole map of the US is changing.

If you want the NRA to disappear, you better think about that for a minute. The NRA was neutral in the Georgia trigger lock Bill and the GOA was upset because they weren't there. The NRA may not give money to Ron Paul because of the Gun Company lawsuit protection and the GOA is upset because the NRA isn't there to throw money at him.

Be careful what you wish for.