|
“This is a day in America when the little
guy lost out to powerful special interests.” – Michael Barnes,
President, Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence[1]
This doleful lament is in
response to the Senate’s passing of the tort reform bill outlawing
frivolous lawsuits filed to hold firearms manufacturers accountable for
the illegal actions of violent criminals.[2]
Who Does Michael Barnes Really Represent?
A bit of background on Michael Barnes is in order.
He is a Washington insider, having been a congressman from 1979-1987.
He is a lawyer who has an association with the law firm of Hogan &
Hartson.[3]
As a member of the Washington Lawyers’
Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, Hogan & Hartson supports
the Committee’s filing of District of Columbia, et al. v. Beretta
U.S.A. Corp., et al. which “contends that gun manufacturers should
be liable for negligently permitting–through illegal sales and distribution
channels–guns to illegally enter the District.” By association,
Hogan & Hartson agrees that manufacturers are responsible for criminals
importing and using guns “illegally.” The Center to Prevent
Handgun Violence, part of the Brady Campaign, is a co-counsel on this
case.[4]
In 2004, lawyers contributed over $180 million
in federal campaign contributions.[5] A perusal of those who voted “Nay”
on this bill is a Who’s Who of senators who received this campaign
money:
- The 31 senators who voted “Nay” received nearly as much
law firm money as the 65 who voted “Aye.”
- For 31% those who voted “Aye,” lawyers were the number
one industry contributor.
- Among those who voted “Nay,” lawyers were number one
for 74%.[6]
Those senators voting against tort reform are
clearly more influenced by campaign contributions from lawyers. Thus,
we have a series of direct links between Michael Barnes, the heavily-vested
interests of wealthy law firms, and anti-gun politicians, all interested
in maintaining these frivolous liability suits for financial reasons.
Campaign Contribution Reality for Whiners – 101
Mr. Barnes complains of “powerful special
interests” having undue influence on the decision-making processes
in Congress. In a sense, he is absolutely correct.
In 2002, there were 695,000 lawyers in the United
States.[7] Their campaign contribution for that year’s election
cycle was $95,478,421 or $137 per lawyer.[8] According to Mr. Barnes,
this is not “powerful special interests.” During the same
cycle, the National Rifle Association contributed $2,027,889.[9] Since
the NRA has about 3 million members,[10] this averages out to 68 cents
per member. Rather than avail themselves of readily-available monetary
wealth, as news reports imply, the organization practices what Barnes
implies is the subversive, anti-democratic method of voter activism:
As former Clinton spokesman George Stephanopoulos
said, “Let me make one small vote for the NRA. They’re good
citizens. They call their Congressmen. They write. They vote. They contribute.
And they get what they want over time.”[11]
While lawyers contributed their $180 million
during the 2004 election cycle, the NRA’s contributions dropped
to $1,151,130,[12] or about 38 cents per member: this is “powerful
special interests;” 695,000 lawyers, donating about $260 each, is
not.
Baron & Budd, supporter of gun manufacturer
liability lawsuits like the Beretta case mentioned above, contributed
$1,257,722 during the election cycle, more than the entire NRA, and they
are only the third highest law firm contributor.[13] Employing “over
80 attorneys,”[14] this averages out to about $15,000 per attorney.
According to Barnes, this level of contribution by lawyers, seeking to
maintain a favorable legal environment for potentially valuable tort litigation,
merely symbolizes “the little guys” trying to fend off special
interest manipulation of Congress.
Conclusion
The people, not the moneyed interests, of America
spoke to their senators, who responded by voting to ban frivolous lawsuits,
which attempt to hold manufacturers accountable for the illegal actions
of violent criminals. Barely able to scrape together $86,000 for the 2004
election cycle, Mr. Barnes and the Brady Campaign have once again tried
to convince the public that Godzilla is really Bambi. |
NRA moves 2007 National meeting to St. Louis.
Governor Matt Blunt welcomes 60,000 NRA members, 5 acres of guns and
gear expected to fill America’s Center Convention Complex during
NRA’s 136th Annual Meeting & Exhibits(FAIRFAX, VA)
-- The National Rifle Association (NRA)
announced today it will hold its 136th Annual Meetings and Exhibits in
St. Louis, April 13-17, 2007. During the weekend convention, America’s
Center will be filled with more than 60,000 people exploring five acres
of guns, hunting equipment and outdoor gear
“St. Louis truly is the gateway to
the heartland of America and thousands of NRA members and supporters,”
said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. “The Second Amendment
stands at the gateway of freedom and there is no better place to celebrate
freedom than St. Louis.”
Missouri Governor Matt Blunt welcomed the
announcement. “This is great news. Missourians believe in protecting
the Second Amendment. I am delighted that the National Rifle Association
has selected St. Louis as the host city for their 136th Annual Meetings
and Exhibits,” said Gov. Blunt. “This major national event
will bring a significant economic boon for hotels, restaurants, and other
merchants. NRA members will experience the superior hospitality of the
fine folks of the ‘Show-Me’ state. I look forward to welcoming
the 60,000 plus NRA members and their families to the magnificent city
of St. Louis.”
LaPierre noted several reasons for selecting
St. Louis as the 2007 NRA convention site. The city is centrally located
within a day’s drive of 1/3 of the U.S. population and 300 miles
of 400,000 NRA members. Ample hotel space, new downtown development, and
a multitude of visitor services were also key elements in the decision.
“This has the potential to be the
largest convention in NRA history,” LaPierre said. “We appreciate
the warm welcome and excitement of the St. Louis Convention and Visitors
Bureau, and look forward to an outstanding weekend in 2007 in this great
city.”
Last April, the NRA convention in Houston
drew nearly 60,000 NRA members, boosting the local economy by an estimated
$20 million. In 2006, the event is scheduled to be in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. |
Breakdown of S. 397, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
The devil is in the details so this is
a general outline of what is in S. 397 or you can click the links below
to see the whole bill as passed or to compare the Amendment SA 1645, "To
regulate the sale and possession of armor piercing ammunition, and for
other purposes" with what we have now.
The bill has 6 sections:
These are the highlights that we need to
know about. (This is my comment/question.)
SEC. 3.
(a) In General- A qualified civil liability action may not be brought
in any Federal or State court
(b) Dismissal of Pending Actions- A qualified civil liability action that
is pending on the date of enactment of this Act shall be immediately dismissed
by the court in which the action was brought or is currently pending.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
(4) QUALIFIED PRODUCT- The term `qualified product' means a firearm ...
or a component part of a firearm or ammunition, that has been shipped
or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. (So
if it is a gun that was made in your state it is not covered?)
SEC. 5. CHILD SAFETY LOCKS
(3) LIABILITY FOR USE-
(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who
has lawful possession and control of a handgun, and who uses a secure
gun storage or safety device with the handgun, shall be entitled to immunity
from a qualified civil liability action.
(C) DEFINED TERM- As used in this paragraph, the term `qualified civil
liability action'--
(i) means a civil action brought by any person against a person described
in subparagraph (A) for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful
misuse of the handgun by a third party, if-
(I) the handgun was accessed by another person who did not have the permission
or authorization of the person having lawful possession and control of
the handgun to have access to it; and
(II) at the time access was gained by the person not so authorized, the
handgun had been made inoperable by use of a secure gun storage
or safety device; and ...
(Does this mean that if I have a handgun
stolen and it does not have a trigger lock on it I will not be entitled
to immunity from a qualified civil liability action? How much of an impact
can that have, no big pockets and no impact on sellers or makers.)
SEC. 6. ARMOR PIERCING
AMMUNITION.
any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug
trafficking crime ..., possesses armor piercing ammunition, shall, in
addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug
trafficking crime or conviction under this section--
`(A) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 15 years;
and
`(B) if death results from the use of such ammunition--
`(i) if the killing is murder (as defined in section 1111), be punished
by death or sentenced to a term of imprisonment for any term of years
or for life; and
`(ii) if the killing is manslaughter (as defined in section 1112), be
punished as provided in section 1112.'.
(LET THEM FRY IF THEY KILL WITH ARMOR PIERCING
AMMO)
(c) Study and Report-
(1) STUDY- The Attorney General shall conduct a study to determine whether
a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is
feasible.
(2) ISSUES TO BE STUDIED- The study conducted under paragraph (1) shall
include--
(A) variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel
of the handgun or center-fire rifle from which the projectile is fired;
and
(B) the amount of powder used to propel the projectile.
(3) REPORT- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Attorney General shall submit a report containing the results
of the study conducted under this subsection to--
(A) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary
of the Senate; and
(B) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary
of the House of Representatives.
(That is all that we need, another study. The anti
gunners would love to ban all guns that can defeat the lightest "Body
Armor" that you can find but as Cam Edwards said on NRANEWS.com;
"Do you know how many studies the have in Washington DC?" That
plus we are in charge and it is to be done in 2 years while Bush is still
in office would suggest that this amendment should not be a problem.)
LET US NOT FORGET THAT THE 65 TO 31 VOTE WAS OUR GREATEST VICTORY
AND THE ANTI-GUNNERS GREATES DEFEAT IN DECADES.
THIS VOTE WAS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE END OF THE AW BAN.
CAM EDWARDS MADE SOME GOOD POINT ON NRANEWS.COM
I wish that they had left the
TRIGGER LOCK and ARMOR AMMO out of the bill but they did not. It
is hard to figure out what impact the details will have in the real
world.
#1, The gun makers and others and
NSSF
don't see a problem with the trigger locks but does a part leave
the gun owner exposed to a law suite if we don't have a trigger
lock on a gun when it is stolen? How do you prove a trigger lock
was on a gun when it was stolen if the criminal takes it off?? Yes,
it does raise the price of a gun a few bucks but somehow I don't
see how the anti-gun lawyers see a big enough paycheck to even try
to take someone to court.
#2, I really could have done without
the Armor Ammo part. I could see having The
Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute and some
group that represents the body armor companies getting together
to set VOLUNTARY STANDARDS outlining what does what to what and
as far as I know they already do have standards. Just how is the
AG going to do this. This is not a legal question, its physics.
At least the study has to be done in two years while Bush is still
in office but I can already hear UpChuck Schumer et all saying,
"we need more studies and the standards are set to low/high."
but UpChuck is always saying something like that anyway.
Nothing is
perfect but this bill seems to be 99.5% of what we want. If the
two amendments are really a problem, we will have to cross that
bridge when we come to it. At this point it is better to get the
bill passed in the House and signed as soon as possible. Facing
yet another vote in the Senate and House is something that we should
avoid.
I do not agree with GOA and JPOF that
this bill is so bad that we should not go along with it.
Just
look who voted for the bill.
Sens.
Robert C. Byrd and Jay Rockefeller, both D-W.Va., have joined
some 60 of their colleagues in pushing a bill that bars some
lawsuits against firearms manufacturers and dealers over crimes
performed by third parties. |
|
|
S. 397, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passes Senate 65 to
31,
House Bill HR 800 vote next
CLICK
HERE FOR THE FINAL BILL AS PASSED WITH AMENDMENTS
On July 29, 2005
at 05:11 PM the Senate passed the bill, S.
397, that will stop many of the lawsuits against gun makers, distributors
and sellers. Many of the cities and states that have passed legislation
that makes it easier to bring Civil Actions against those who legally
sell, distribute or make guns SHOULD now be rendered meaningless and
irrelevant and a moot point after this bill passes the House and is
signed by Pres. Bush, something
that he has promised to do. The next stop for the bill will be in
the House where HR
800 will have to come to a vote where it has 257 Cosponsors with
more expected and only 218 votes are needed to pass the legislation
so it looks like a done deal but we will have to wait. The House is
in recess till Sept. 2nd and we will have to see when it will be taken
up and voted on. If the House passes a bill that is not the same as
S 397, then it will have the go to conference committee that will be
appointed with both House and Senate members. This group will resolve
the differences in committee and report the identical measure back to
both bodies for a final vote.
The 65
to 31 vote was a big defeat or the anti-gunners who were unable
to tack on "killer amendments" this time like they did last
year. (S.
1805) It was almost a total rout with 14 Democrats voting for the
bill including Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Even Republican
turncoat now Independent Jumping Jim Jeffords voted for the bill. (Jeffords
was reported by Reuters
news service to have voted against the bill but the record shows,
Jeffords
(I-VT), Yea, that he voted for it.) With 4 no voters made up of
3 Republicans who were all cosponsors and one Democrat, Feinstein, that
would have made the final vote 68 to 32 and the 68 vote would even make
it a Veto proof even if the President Vetoed the bill. You can't do
much better than that.
The bill did have one Amendment added:
S.AMDT.1626
by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) who voted for the bill; "to require
the provision of a child safety lock in connection with the transfer
of a handgun." The vote, (#207)
was 70 for and 30 against. This is not seen as a problem by most people
because 90% of all gun makers already include a lock with their guns
but GOA and other do object. GOA makes the point of this was an unneeded
amendment because 90% of the gun makers include gun locks but it opens
the door for the next step that could be passed under an anti-gun Congress
and President. That next step would be a requirement that all guns be
locked up with the now required locks. (That is a bridge we will have
to cross when we get to it but for now we can celibate. For you really
hard core: no one wanted ANY added amendment but this one did pass so
are you saying that you would rather have NO bill rather than this one
that has the "Trigger Locks to be Sold With Guns but you don't
have to use them" amendment?) As John Lott has said: "despite
the obvious feel-good appeal of these rules, gun locks and safe storage
laws are more likely to cost lives than to save them."
Another Amendment passed: Amendment SA
1645 proposed by Senator Craig., "To regulate the sale and
possession of armor piercing ammunition, and for other purposes"
passed by Yea-Nay. 87 - 11. Record
Vote Number: 216. I have no idea what is in the Amendment but I
will find out and update this section. Sen. Craig was the original sponsor
of S 397 so I do not think that he would add anything negative to this
bill.
As you can guess, the anti-gunners are
going nuts. They are acting like their heads are going to explode.
For all of you who are always asking, "What
has the NRA done?" now you know. It has been a very good few months
for gun owners on a national level. First the Assault Weapon's Ban was
allowed to sunset and now this is passing. The NRA, GOA, SAF, RKBA and
all of the other groups on a national, state and local level should
be thanks and supported. I hope that the success does not go to anyone's
head and we think that we don't have to do anything anymore. WRONG.
None of the anti-gunners have gone away and they are using our success
as fund raisers. While the anti-gunners have been slowed down or defeated
in congress they have increased their efforts in the states and on a
local county and city level. The NY State Senate is only a few votes
away from passing the worse state
Assault Weapons ban in America and last month Columbus,
Ohio passes an expanded Assault Weapons Ban almost as bad as the
ban proposed for NY. Both these bills and others like them are written
by two anti-gun groups that are members of IANSA and have millions
of dollars to spend thanks to several anti-gun foundations and individuals
like George Soros. The anti-gun groups have had success on local levels
on issues like CA's 50 Cal ban and they are pushing hard for more 50
Cal. and AWBs on a local level across the nation.
ATTEND THE NY STATE RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION'S
PAC DINNER
CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFO
SPECIAL GUEST
NRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WAYNE LaPIERRE &
NRA VICE PRESIDENT, JOHN SIGLER
AND OTHERS
September 17th, 2005
Fishkill Holiday Inn
ADDITIONAL LINKS
PRO GUN
NRA - Joint Statement by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre
and Chief Lobbyist Chris Cox On Passage of the "Protection
of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act"
NRA
- S.
397 Passes U.S. Senate!!! Friday, July 29, 2005
GOA
- Senate Passes Gun Control Amidst Protection For Gun Makers,
-- Now the House has to clean up the Senate's mess
Keep
and Bear Arms.com |
ANTI GUN
Handgun Control, aka Brady
Majority of the
US Senate in
"Unholy Alliance" with NRA
Senate takes away rights of victims of gun
violence
Despite the efforts of our
Senate allies, a majority in the United States Senate, eager
to accommodate the wishes of NRA and gun corporation lobbyists,
voted today after a seven year fight to strip the legal
rights of innocent victims of gun violence and give sweeping
legal immunity to reckless and unsavory gun dealers.
Why would they do
such a thing? Well, as Senator Edward Kennedy put
it in his speech on the floor of the Senate:
"An obvious answer is that gun dealers and manufacturers
want to sell more guns. Our laws are designed by the NRA
to increase the sales of guns by dealers and manufacturers,
even if they are sold by or to criminals. The NRA is lavishly
rewarded for lobbying successes, and so are the members
of Congress who do their bidding. It's hard to reach any
other conclusion. The unholy alliance and control of the
legislative process against the safety of our citizens
is immoral, and it's a disgrace."
(This is part of what HCI has on their main web page, http://www.handguncontrol.org/.
I did not know that supporting the Second Amendment also
included a provision that requires gun dealers and makers
to sell to criminals.) |
Violence Policy Center
http://vpc.org/press/0507passage.htm
This bill is built on a corrupt foundation
of lies that will leave a legacy of pain and suffering.
...
|
|
|
If anyone wants to send her a card send it to: