Response from representative

P

perception

New member
It is a bit late now, but back when we had the HR 800 vs. S 397 debate going on, I wrote my representative asking him to support a clean HR 800 rather than S 397. Today I checked my email, and here is the response, with my info edited out.
Dear Perception,

Thank you for letting me know of your concern over S. 397, which would prevent unwarranted lawsuits from being filed against gun manufacturers but includes a child safety lock requirement.

You may know that I am a cosponsor of the House version of this bill, H.R. 800, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which does not have the same requirement as S. 397. Both bills would defend your right to buy and own firearms by stopping the flood of lawsuits aimed at driving gun manufacturers out of business. These unfair and unwise lawsuits hold the manufacturer liable for the criminal misuse of firearms. Unchecked the suits have the potential of letting a handful of gun control advocates make an end run around the Constitution to set national policy on gun ownership.

While, like you, I would have preferred to see H.R. 800 become law, the House leadership refused to allow any votes on this bill. Instead, it only permitted an up-or-down vote on S. 397 out of concern that any delay in sending a bill to the President would increase the chance that opponents could use parliamentary tactics to stop the bill. Were that to happen it would be two more years before Congress could put an end to gun control advocates filing harassing lawsuits against manufacturers. Since the House was denied an opportunity to vote on H.R. 800, and because of the likelihood that failure to pass S. 397 would mean more lawsuits - costing the industry additional millions of dollars to defend - I voted for passage of S. 397. The vote sent the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to the President and he signed it into law October 26th.

Although S. 397 is not a perfect bill, it is a good bill that will stop harassing lawsuits that currently threaten your rights. I know that the child safety lock provision was opposed because it may increase prices, but it is my understanding that any increase would be minor when compared to the impact on prices from manufacturers having to pass on their costs of defending frivolous lawsuits to buyers. Additionally, Congress will have opportunities to revisit the gun safety lock issue should it prove overly burdensome to the rights of gun owners.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me on this important issue. If I may ever be of service to you or your family, please feel free to call on me.

Stay in touch,
/s
BART GORDON
Member of Congress
Click to expand...

Bart Gordon has always been good about answering everything I have sent him, and he is well known around here for personally working with people to try to get them through whatever problems they have. Good show Mr. Gordon.
 
Damn! I wish I had a rep as forthright and responsive as this Bart Gordon.

For all I'm worth, it sounds like he's a member of congress who could very easily fit in as a member of TFL right here!! He makes the points like they're right from one of our threads! Right on! :)


-blackmind
 
I had a feeling that was what was going on.

H.R.800 would still have had to have run the Senate gauntlet, with the same rent-seeking Senator Herb "Master Lock, Inc." Kohl amendment offered on it as well.

And while that was going on, they'd be working to undermine S.397 by whatever means necessary, and we would have wound up with an amended H.R.800 and gained absolutely nothing with all the extra time spent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top