A note I received from Gun Owners of America email news letter:
Friday evening, July 29, 2005
The U.S. Senate passed legislation (S. 397) protecting the gun
industry from frivolous lawsuits by a vote of 65-31 this afternoon.
It should have been a joyous occasion for the entire gun community.
But just when it seemed that the majority party was about to deal a
knockout blow, the Republican leadership dropped their gloves and
allowed anti-gun Democrats to land a hard uppercut on the chin.
As a result of that lack of resolve, America will be saddled with
mandatory trigger locks unless the House of Representatives acts in
a more responsible manner.
True, the underlying bill is significant legislation, supported by
GOA, which will help the firearms industry defend itself from the
slew of frivolous lawsuits you've been hearing about for years.
It's not great protection, but it's a nice first step.
However, "nice first step" should never be an excuse for the passage
of more gun control. By the way, you will no doubt be reading news
reports touting the bill as a great victory for gun owners, while
dismissing the trigger lock amendment as "minor." Wrong, and more
on that later.
But first: how did this thing blow up in our faces?
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GOOD, THEN IT WENT BAD
Remember that Gun Owners of America had asked its members and
activists to lobby Majority Leader Bill Frist to use whatever means
possible to block anti-gun amendments? At first, his office had
been telling us this couldn't be done.
Frist's office told us there was no Senate rule allowing the
majority party to block bad amendments.
But after GOA members and activists applied the heat, Frist took
another look. He then used parliamentary rules to "fill the
amendment tree," which is exactly what we asked him to do. "Filling
the amendment tree" is a technical term which explains how the
majority party can offer amendments in such a way as to block the
minority party from offering other amendments.
So far so good. But then... Frist blinked. You see, there were a
handful of "moderate" Democrats, mainly from pro-gun states, who had
cosponsored the original bill -- enough to make the measure
filibuster-proof. Fearing that the other side would get those guys
to bolt from the bill, Frist caved and allowed people like decidedly
anti-gun Senator Herb Kohl to offer amendments.
Frist should have stood firm and let any rats jumping ship go home
and explain to their constituents why they didn't support needed
tort reform.
But he did not, and the trigger lock amendment passed. Those who
think it's no big deal will tell you that even though the provision
requires gun dealers to include the sale of a "lock-up-your-safety"
device with every handgun sold, there are no penalties for the gun
owner if he or she does not use the trigger lock. Right. NOT YET.
Remember seat belts? First they had to be installed in every new
car sold. Then, it became mandatory that you wear them. You can
almost hear the debate in the next Congress: "It does no good to
provide trigger locking devices if gun owners aren't required to use
them. We need to punish any gun owner who fails to lock up his or
her handgun!"
Remember also that some us don't like a "tax" on the price of our
next gun, which we have to pay to get a piece of equipment we know
can endanger our lives should we install it.
IT COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE
At least your hard work convinced Frist to fill the tree in the
first place. Otherwise, any anti-gun Senator could have added
anything including the word "firearm" and who knows what we would
have ended up with. It's an utter shame that Frist lost his nerve
right when total victory was in our grasp.
Even worse, perhaps, 70 Senators went along with the trigger lock
amendment when they could just as easily have voted "No" and passed
a clean bill thereafter. Were your Senators among those who need to
be spanked for toying with your rights? Go to
http://www.gunowners.org/cgv.htm for a complete run-down of the
trigger locks vote.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
The bill now moves to the House. Some pro-gun spokesmen have been
promising that the trigger lock amendment can be stripped out in a
conference committee. As mentioned in a previous alert, this is a
dangerous strategy which frequently does NOT work -- such as when we
got stuck with the Feinstein semi-auto ban in 1993-94 and the
Incumbent Protection Act in 2002.
Actually, a clean bill already exists in the House. Why not pass
that one?
Congress is in recess during August. But the back-room deals are
certain to continue inside the Beltway.
To counter those expected compromises, GOA will need your help at
specific times over the remainder of the summer. Please stay
tuned... gun owners will need to pressure their Representatives with
one simple message: a vote for ANY bill, should it contain new gun
control, is NOT something we're prepared to swallow without a fight.
*Edited to bold/red comment above.
Friday evening, July 29, 2005
The U.S. Senate passed legislation (S. 397) protecting the gun
industry from frivolous lawsuits by a vote of 65-31 this afternoon.
It should have been a joyous occasion for the entire gun community.
But just when it seemed that the majority party was about to deal a
knockout blow, the Republican leadership dropped their gloves and
allowed anti-gun Democrats to land a hard uppercut on the chin.
As a result of that lack of resolve, America will be saddled with
mandatory trigger locks unless the House of Representatives acts in
a more responsible manner.
True, the underlying bill is significant legislation, supported by
GOA, which will help the firearms industry defend itself from the
slew of frivolous lawsuits you've been hearing about for years.
It's not great protection, but it's a nice first step.
However, "nice first step" should never be an excuse for the passage
of more gun control. By the way, you will no doubt be reading news
reports touting the bill as a great victory for gun owners, while
dismissing the trigger lock amendment as "minor." Wrong, and more
on that later.
But first: how did this thing blow up in our faces?
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GOOD, THEN IT WENT BAD
Remember that Gun Owners of America had asked its members and
activists to lobby Majority Leader Bill Frist to use whatever means
possible to block anti-gun amendments? At first, his office had
been telling us this couldn't be done.
Frist's office told us there was no Senate rule allowing the
majority party to block bad amendments.
But after GOA members and activists applied the heat, Frist took
another look. He then used parliamentary rules to "fill the
amendment tree," which is exactly what we asked him to do. "Filling
the amendment tree" is a technical term which explains how the
majority party can offer amendments in such a way as to block the
minority party from offering other amendments.
So far so good. But then... Frist blinked. You see, there were a
handful of "moderate" Democrats, mainly from pro-gun states, who had
cosponsored the original bill -- enough to make the measure
filibuster-proof. Fearing that the other side would get those guys
to bolt from the bill, Frist caved and allowed people like decidedly
anti-gun Senator Herb Kohl to offer amendments.
Frist should have stood firm and let any rats jumping ship go home
and explain to their constituents why they didn't support needed
tort reform.
But he did not, and the trigger lock amendment passed. Those who
think it's no big deal will tell you that even though the provision
requires gun dealers to include the sale of a "lock-up-your-safety"
device with every handgun sold, there are no penalties for the gun
owner if he or she does not use the trigger lock. Right. NOT YET.
Remember seat belts? First they had to be installed in every new
car sold. Then, it became mandatory that you wear them. You can
almost hear the debate in the next Congress: "It does no good to
provide trigger locking devices if gun owners aren't required to use
them. We need to punish any gun owner who fails to lock up his or
her handgun!"
Remember also that some us don't like a "tax" on the price of our
next gun, which we have to pay to get a piece of equipment we know
can endanger our lives should we install it.
IT COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE
At least your hard work convinced Frist to fill the tree in the
first place. Otherwise, any anti-gun Senator could have added
anything including the word "firearm" and who knows what we would
have ended up with. It's an utter shame that Frist lost his nerve
right when total victory was in our grasp.
Even worse, perhaps, 70 Senators went along with the trigger lock
amendment when they could just as easily have voted "No" and passed
a clean bill thereafter. Were your Senators among those who need to
be spanked for toying with your rights? Go to
http://www.gunowners.org/cgv.htm for a complete run-down of the
trigger locks vote.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
The bill now moves to the House. Some pro-gun spokesmen have been
promising that the trigger lock amendment can be stripped out in a
conference committee. As mentioned in a previous alert, this is a
dangerous strategy which frequently does NOT work -- such as when we
got stuck with the Feinstein semi-auto ban in 1993-94 and the
Incumbent Protection Act in 2002.
Actually, a clean bill already exists in the House. Why not pass
that one?
Congress is in recess during August. But the back-room deals are
certain to continue inside the Beltway.
To counter those expected compromises, GOA will need your help at
specific times over the remainder of the summer. Please stay
tuned... gun owners will need to pressure their Representatives with
one simple message: a vote for ANY bill, should it contain new gun
control, is NOT something we're prepared to swallow without a fight.
*Edited to bold/red comment above.
