Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hidden Threat to Second Amendment
Pajamas Media ^ | October 7, 2010 | Howard Nemerov

Posted on 10/07/2010 8:02:59 AM PDT by Kaslin

America’s wealthiest lobby supports the worst forms of gun control.

Recently the American Bar Association published a report urging:

[F]ederal, state … governments to enact laws requiring that all newly-manufactured semi-automatic pistols be fitted with microstamping technology which would ensure that when a firearm is fired, an alphanumeric and/or geometric code would be stamped on the cartridge casing … that would enable law enforcement to identify the serial number of the pistol and hence the first known purchaser of a weapon used in a crime.

To succeed, microstamping requires building a permanent database of all gun owners (licensing) and linking their firearms by serial number (registration), two major goals of gun control advocates.

Two law firms represent patent holders that could make the ABA recommendation reality. They’ve spent $6.7 million on campaign contributions since 2004, while the entire gun rights lobby spent $6 million.

There are fortunes to be made promoting gun control.

As a newly converted gun control researcher, the first time I saw lawyer money intersect with gun rights was in 2005, when Congress enacted the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This tort reform banned manufacturer liability suits based upon injuries and damages resulting from criminal firearm use. Campaign finance watchdog Open Secrets notes that lawyers generally oppose tort reform.

According to Open Secrets, lawyers and law firms (aka the law lobby) contributed heavily to congressional and presidential races in 2004, more than any other industry, spending nearly $183 million on federal campaigns, with 74% going to Democrats.

During the PLCAA roll call, senators voting “Yea” received an average of $366,847 in lawyer contributions, while the 31 “Nay” voters – 29 Democrats – received $645,972, 73.4% more. Lawyer money represented the largest industry donor for most “Nay” voters, while for most “Yea” voters, it ranked between 3rd and 4th.

In the House, those who voted “Yea” on the bill, received an average of $49,464 apiece. “Nay” voters — 140 of 144 were Democrats — received an average of $74,742 apiece, 51% higher. Again, those voting against tort reform were more likely to have the law lobby as their biggest donor.

The law lobby bias existed in both the Senate and the House:

Subsequent congressional vote analyses consistently supported these findings (e.g. the Vitter Amendment banning firearms confiscation during emergencies; the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 in the House.)

In the 2008 election cycle, the law lobby spent over $233 million; it has spent $81.6 million so far in 2010. In the last two election cycles, 76% of that money went to Democrats, slightly above the historical average of 73%. Lawyers are the richest lobby in America, representing the largest segment of anti-rights Democrats’ campaign funding. In 2008, re-elected Democratic incumbents averaged a D+ NRA grade, while GOP incumbents averaged an A.

Campaign funding reflects a certain quid pro quo benefiting Democrats and their donors, making them resistant to change in campaign finance law.

In 2008, voters re-elected 223 Democratic House incumbents. The charts below show that within the Democratic Party, anti-rights representatives’ voting records correlated with the law lobby comprising a greater share of total campaign contributions.

History shows why investing in congressional candidates can maintain a favorable legal environment for future high-return litigation. Lawyers received billions of dollars in contingency fees from the tobacco settlement in November 1998, in which manufacturers were held liable for the deliberate actions of consumers. In Texas alone, attorneys were awarded $2.3 billion. One report noted:

Private attorneys in Texas, Mississippi and Florida made out like bandits, fleecing tobacco companies, smokers and taxpayers for $8.2 billion in legal fees – billions more than the lawyers themselves had demanded!

After the tobacco settlement, the law lobby more than tripled the amount of total political contributions to federal candidates, from $59 million in the 1998 election cycle to $183 million in 2004. Considering that the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act banned “soft money” contributions by the 2004 elections, the $183 million is compelling.

But what happened with the settlement money, and who paid for it, provides another relevant part of the story.

The settlement supposedly funded government health programs. For example, in 2002-3, nearly $1 billion of the Texas settlement went to health and human services, including education and enforcement programs requiring more bureaucrats, buildings, and maintenance, and even debt service on capital improvement bonds for one hospital. Another $90 million went for higher education programs like nursing.

But in California, state legislators grabbed the first $562 million installment for the settlement payment, placing it in the general fund and thwarting those wanting to direct the money to public health programs. In fairness, some probably ended up in public health programs.

But the settlement money was paid to government.

The financial damages were not exactly punitive to the tobacco companies. Tobacco companies are often part of conglomerates, allowing them to raise prices on products unrelated to smoking in order to pay settlement costs. For example, Phillip Morris, one of the tobacco companies involved in the settlement, is owned by Altria Group, which owned Kraft Foods until 2007.

When expenses increase, companies raise prices. Anybody buying Kraft products between 1998 and 2007 was also paying the tobacco settlement.

When your money goes to government agencies, it’s a tax, proving the fantasy of “business” taxes and fines, and making the tobacco settlement taxation without representation. Working with predominantly Democratic lawmakers, lawyers transfer your wealth to themselves and government, while cigarette manufacturers continue business as usual.

In an indirect manner, firearms tort litigation presented a golden opportunity for bigger paydays. Gun makers don’t have deep pockets. During the PLCAA hearings, Lawrence G. Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation testified: “The firearm industry taken together would not equal a Fortune 500 company.”

Creating case law precedent, holding product manufacturers liable for the criminal use of their products, opens up major financial doors. Do gang bangers wear Nike clothing to identify themselves? Sue Nike, ranked 124th in 2010’s Fortune 500. Bank robbers prefer Mustangs for getaway cars? Sue Ford, ranked 8th.

After all, these manufacturers knew their products were ending up in criminal hands. They should have been responsible corporate citizens and reduced production so that “surplus” wouldn’t be available for criminal use. If nothing else, sue them for helping create a public nuisance by enhancing criminal activity.

Sounds silly? The “surplus” theory was behind the Brady Campaign’s legal assault on firearms manufacturers. Mayors Against Illegal Guns touts nuisance litigation as a workaround to the PLCAA.

Perhaps firearms manufacturers’ inability to afford ongoing defense against tort cases made them an easy opportunity to get that case law on the books?

Since the law lobby is so powerful, it’s reasonable to conclude they want to eliminate any threat to their goals, including your guns. They know that destroying the firearms industry won’t directly provide a tobacco-like payday, but it shifts the balance of power further away from the people.

Brady and the Violence Policy Center are the spear tip of the anti-rights movement. Educate and empower yourself, and vote.

***********************************

(For valuable election research, browse Open Secrets’ Congressional Races page and click on your state. For additional assistance, 2010 NRA grades are available.)

* For more details and citations on many related issues, see Four Hundred Years of Gun Control, Chapter 4.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: banglist; microstamping
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

1 posted on 10/07/2010 8:03:00 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; wku man; SLB; ...
Let me be the first to say it:

THIS IS ALL THE NRA'S FAULT!!

< /s>

2 posted on 10/07/2010 8:17:38 AM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I won’t say this is the NRA’s fault, but if the NRA ends up endorsing any candidates that take donations from the ABA over this issue, then the NRA is clearly being used as bunch of dupes.


3 posted on 10/07/2010 8:33:50 AM PDT by 84rules ( Ooh-Rah! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 84rules

I have corresponded with Mr. Nemerov on several occasions, and have found him to be very credible. He is one of my favorite writers on the 2A.


4 posted on 10/07/2010 8:40:35 AM PDT by basil (It's time to rid the country of "Gun Free Zones" aka "Killing Fields")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 84rules

Larry Pratt’s take no prisoners agenda on the RTKABA at Gun Owners’ of America is where honest gun owners need to go.

With respect to Nuge and some of the other hard-core folks on the NRA Board, the NRA is getting far too cozy with the Beltway insiders.


5 posted on 10/07/2010 8:41:57 AM PDT by Dick Bachert (The upcoming election is the most important in our lifetimes!!! BE THERE!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Campaign finance watchdog Open Secrets notes that lawyers generally oppose tort reform.

As how could they not?

6 posted on 10/07/2010 8:54:41 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
" Brady and the Violence Policy Center are the spear tip of the anti-rights movement. Educate and empower yourself, and vote. "

Would it be a fair question to ask "Vote for whom"?

Democrats endorsed by the NRA who most certainly would rubberstamp the next Sotomayor/Kagan nominated to the Supreme Court?

Or absolutely Pro-second Amendment Americans like Tom Coburn, who unless I'm mistaken has never gotten an NRA endorsement for his Senate seat because it's gone to his Democrat CHALLENGER - probably because of the work Coburn's done with GOA?

Joe, something ain't right here. We all know that these people are going to try to get what they want thru the courts because they can't get it in congress. The NRA has warned us about this louder than anyone else, and now they're trying to help prop up a generation of Democrats who would abolutely rubberstamp another Kagan on the court, "and rejoice in doing it", to borrow a phrase from Tony Blair.

If the NRA thinks they're going to prevail over a Sotomayor/Kagan majority on the Supreme Court (just one seat away from it) then all I've got to say is that pride goeth before a fall, baby.

NRA has done some good work thru the years and in fact is still doing some good things, or at least so I assume, but this sudden affinity for Democrats, especially now, is nuts.

I don't mean to piss anybody off, but the NRA is just wrong on the matter, and deferring to them and letting them have their way so they can someday be shown how wrong they are is wrong in itself.

7 posted on 10/07/2010 8:54:49 AM PDT by OKSooner (Obama confessed "his muslim faith" on the George Stephanopolous show on September 7th, 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OKSooner

I agree with you, OKScooter.

All that I can say in addendum is that the NRA has a semi for Harry Reid because he is “pro-gun”. I find that reasoning to be a little insane.

They are either blind, corrupt, or not thinking hard enough about the current political reality that exists inside the Democrat Party. I’ll let them pick which.


8 posted on 10/07/2010 9:04:28 AM PDT by Noamie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert
With respect to Nuge and some of the other hard-core folks on the NRA Board, the NRA is getting far too cozy with the Beltway insiders.

I miss Neal Knox.

Mark

9 posted on 10/07/2010 9:16:10 AM PDT by MarkL (Do I really look like a guy with a plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

Dick the Butcher had it right before we ever heard of Joe the Plumber.


10 posted on 10/07/2010 9:17:17 AM PDT by RipSawyer (Clem Hussein Kadiddlehopper would be a vast improvement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Next, they’ll make brass catchers illegal.


11 posted on 10/07/2010 9:31:29 AM PDT by ßuddaßudd (7 days - 7 ways Guero >>> with a floating, shifting, ever changing persona.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ßuddaßudd
Next, they’ll make brass catchers illegal.

And revolvers.

12 posted on 10/07/2010 9:33:29 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking; Kaslin; ßuddaßudd

>>Next, they’ll make brass catchers illegal.
>
>And revolvers.

Those will come *after* making non-microstamping firearms illegal in and of themselves.
[/cynic]


13 posted on 10/07/2010 9:42:41 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MarkL

Roger that.

Now we may have an idea why he was run off.


14 posted on 10/07/2010 9:43:57 AM PDT by Dick Bachert (The upcoming election is the most important in our lifetimes!!! BE THERE!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Mr. politican, what is it you have planned for me, that you are so gawd damned worried about me owning a gun????


15 posted on 10/07/2010 10:04:22 AM PDT by Waco (From Seward to Sarah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Waco

I’ll second that by gawd.


16 posted on 10/07/2010 10:16:59 AM PDT by mcshot (I believe is he was born in Kenya - YouTube "Not Natural Born - Truth Matters")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

How about the spin off business of customizing the factory stock microstamps with your very own catchy slogans.


17 posted on 10/07/2010 10:50:26 AM PDT by Elderberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

>How about the spin off business of customizing the factory stock microstamps with your very own catchy slogans.

Things like “Die jackbooted thug! Die!” or “Wolverines!”?


18 posted on 10/07/2010 11:09:09 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

I see you recognize all the business possibilities.
Let’s get in on the ground floor.
Let’s start a franchise.
Does the tooling need patented?


19 posted on 10/07/2010 11:13:52 AM PDT by Elderberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

“867-5309”

“THX-1138”

“One down...Next???”

“Do you feel lucky???”

“If you can read this, yer too late!!!”


20 posted on 10/07/2010 11:20:29 AM PDT by stevie_d_64 (I'm jus' sayin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson