Senate Passes Gun Control Amidst Protection For Gun Makers
-- Now the House has to clean up the Senate's mess

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

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.

I don't know if this is worth quibling about. It's a good idea for any household with a handgun to have a trigger lock on the weapon especially if there are children and illresponsible adults present.

I understand where both of you are coming from, but the history of incremental dissection of the 2nd. is at question here. Are locks a good thing for people that need them?...Yes. Should the government be making that determination?...NO!
Is this silly add-on the same as "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink?"...You bet.
So...What is the real reason for the un-enforceable mandatory trigger locks?? The one thing that the Feinsteins of the world want to hear from us is...





Think about it...

A number of states already require that locking devices be sold with the handgun. Even Michigan, which got a D+ grade from the Brady Campaign in 2004, requires it.

And that decision should be left to the states, Des.

The passage of S 397 is a massive defeat for the anti-gun crowd and while one can argue that the issue of trigger locks for handguns ought to be left up to the individual states, I think it's a very small matter.

I respect your opinion Des, but as an activist I will fight tooth and nail at even the tiniest infringement because the anti's will never give up until they have total victory.
And then we will wonder...What the hell happened.
Since 1934 we have given!…It’s time to stop it.

If the arguement is being made that it should be up to the individual states as to if they want mandatory triger locks sold with the handgun, could it not also be made that it should be up to each individual state to decide as to who can sue gun dealers and gun manufacturers and under what conditions?

I don't think this is a big deal. Pretty much all new guns come with locks anyway.

*sign* No Comment!

I tend to agree. I very much understand and respect GOA's position, and Stephen's, but I personally think that the lock-sold-with-the-gun law is actually one of those pragmatic compromises that neither side is necessarily ecstatic about, but that both sides can live with. The argument could be made that the amendment could be a first step toward D.C. or Massachusetts style legislation that would require all guns to be kept unloaded and trigger-locked (thereby banning armed self-defense), but on the other hand I think it is also possible that this compromise may defuse calls for more extreme laws. At least that's my hope.

And I'm very glad to see that Feinstein et al weren't able to attach any bans on nonhunting style guns to the bill. Now we'll just see how it goes in the House.

Screw the damned trigger guards, the travesty is the law itself- it takes virtually all liability away from a product whose sole reason for existance is killing something.

No logic Winston...Product liability is product liability. If I get hit by a drunk driver driving a Ford, should I be able to sue the manufacture or the dealer? Don't let your dislike for guns color your reason.



This covers all guns!...Handguns and rifles...new and used.



Technically your right, Des.



Feinstein didn't vote!...Go figure...
Although are new Centrist president-to-be (Clinton) did...

If you are talking about the Kohl Admendment, I believe it only applies to handguns sold by licensed dealers.

Here's the roll call vote. 14 Democrats, including Kohl of Wi. and Sen. Minority Leader Reid of Nevada, voted in favor of the bill:

YEAs ---65
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
[B]Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---31
Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)[/B]
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 4
Feinstein (D-CA)
Roberts (R-KS)
Smith (R-OR)
Sununu (R-NH)

I'll have to recheck that, Des. I was under the assumption that all guns from dealers were involved.
It's still ridiculous. You can't make anyone use a lock...I have a box full of them. It just adds to the cost of purchase to law abiding gun owners.

Another way to look at this would be to hold anyone, who makes any product, liable for any misuse of the product, by anyone, throughout it's life. You wouldn't even be able to buy a new skateboard, from that day on.

There are safety features built in a number of products. Some of which i've bypassed as the seat switch in the riding lawn mower and I removed the flap that's on the back of the push mower. The thumb switch on my sawz-all that had to be depressed the same time as the trigger in order for it to work was in such an awkward position that I taped it down.

OK!...Did my check...it is handguns only!

I accept pay pal.

I know of a few who have overridden the built-in mechanical locking device on the new S&W revolvers. I believe that this is wrong and becomes a legal liability. If you don't want a new gun with a built-in lock...do as I do...buy older Smiths.

In your dreams...

It may be that S&W included the built in locking device for liability reasons and with the new law coming into effect, they may no longer do that .

Some safety features in products make sense but others are attempts to keep idiots from weeding themselves out of the gene pool.

S&W is owned by the Saf-T-Hammer Corp.!...Somehow I don't think that's going to happen...but you never know. Also...the internal lock was part of the Clinton/HUD agreement.
This could all go away with this new bill, however.

Well...Ya can't have my money cause my wife took it, and went to the casino with her sister!...I'll be applying for Domestic Aid on Monday!...

Are you familiar with the meaning of precedent in our legal system? Had these lawsuits been allowed to continue, they would pave the way for people to sue Sears if someone broke their windshield with a hammer, to sue car manufacturers for accidents caused by drunk drivers.

Please put your emotions aside for a second and tell me why anyone should be allowed to sue a manufacturer for something done to them with its product. I was rearended by a Jeep in November, which caused financial and medical damage to me. Should I be able to sue Chrysler over that?

Actually, it doesn't. It still allows product-liability suits in the case of a defective product or negligence on the part of the manufacturer. What it does NOT allow is a suit against, say, Smith & Wesson because a gang member used a stolen Smith & Wesson 5906 to commit a crime in D.C. (despite the fact that all handguns are de facto banned there), and the city of D.C. sues S&W on the grounds that 5906's with 13-round magazines shouldn't be sold to law-abiding civilians in Florida. Or someone sues Century Arms because one of their imported rifles was used in a crime, and the city of Chicago tries to sue Century into bankruptcy because the city wants to drive all rifles with protruding handgrips off the market. Or someone tries to sue a dealer out of business because he sold a gun to a woman, and that woman (unknown to him or anyone else) was actually buying the gun for someone else; SHE should be prosecuted, that's not the gun dealer's fault. Or a crime victim sues Glock for $100 million because they think Glocks should be sold to police only and selling them to non-LEO civilians is negligent. That's the type of crap this bill would stop.

The anti-gun lobby has been pursuing a strategy of trying to sue the gun industry into the ground via baseless lawsuits, realizing they don't even have to win the suits, just file enough of them that the legal costs become overwhelming. The gun industry is a relatively cash-poor industry (I think McDonalds' revenues alone are larger than those of all gun manufacturers combined), and many manufacturers are small companies that can't afford a bunch of high-powered lawyers to respond to frivolous suits.

Suits based on a defective product (i.e., gun fires when the safety is switched on, gun fails to fire when supposed to, the chamber bursts and injures the shooter's hand due to weak steel, etc.) are not affected at all by the bill. Suits based on failure of a manufacturer or dealer to follow the law are also fully allowed, IIRC.

The anti-gunners knowing that they couldn't effectively further their cause through the legislature, used the activist courts to circumvent.

believe what you want Noonan, but these lawyers seek out the courts that have a history.

Certainly, a good lawyer does what he can to have a case tried by as friendly a judge as possible.

Looking at bigger issues, many of the liberties and equalities that we celebrate and enjoy today did not come from actions of Congress or the Executive, they came through actions of courts. I welcome that.

I don't trust a court that takes an obviously frivolous suit and runs with it, costing a defendant millions to defend itself.

Rather then doing the research myself, thought it'd be easier to just ask the question here. Is it possible to purchase a gun here in the US that doesn't have a safety feature on it of any kind? If not, is it because there is a law or there are laws that require such?

Now, if there are laws or regulations requiring safeties of some type to be on a gun, then I think the GOA's complaint about the Kohl Admendment is rather unwarranted.

Depends greatly on the intended use. What is a "safety feature" on one gun might not be on another. For example, my CCW handgun (www.swfirearms.vista.com/store/index.php3?cat=293499&sw_activeTab=1) has a locking firing pin and a magazine disconnect, features which are not found on the vast majority of rifles. This is because handguns are typically used and stored differently than rifles. Some handguns purposely do not have magazine disconnects, particularly those marketed to law enforcement, because the magazine disconnect can prevent the gun from firing if you are jumped while reloading. The choice in this case is up to the end user, based on her/his own priorities.

On the other hand, practically all rifles have manual safeties, which are not found on most handguns aimed at the police market, though no rifles that I know of have decockers.

Only a few jurisdictions mandate the specific types of safeties a gun must have, because the choice is so dependent on the user's situation, skill level, and intended use (i.e., defensive standby duty vs. occasional sport shooting), and such mandates are quite onerous; the example of California comes to mind. Locks built in to the firearm itself are also avoided by many police departments over reliability issues and the chance of accidentally leaving the gun locked without realizing it.

The GOA's main problem with the trigger lock issue is that they fear requiring them to be sold with a gun is a first step toward requiring that guns always be unloaded and locked up, thereby outlawing armed self-defense. Those who disagree with GOA on this feel that (1) it doesn't actually bring the prohibitionists' goal of outlawing self-defense any nearer, and may actually defuse that drive to some extent, and (2) a stand would be more effectively made on the right to self-defense rather than the right not to have a trigger lock come with your gun (particularly since most guns already come with them). Built-in locks and such are another matter entirely, though.