Awb-renewal Vote Anyday!
Posted 27 February 2004 - 11:55 AM
.R.2038, the onerous gun ban proposed by Representatives McCarthy and Conyers, while being a frightening read, is widely acknowledged as simply being a decoy, meant to distract gun owners from the real battle of whether or not the 1994 "Assault Weapons" Ban will be renewed, and is also intended to set up a situation where we are "grateful" when "only" a renewal of the current ban is passed.
In a move that indicates an acknowledgment that this bill has no chance at all of seeing the light of day, McCarthy and several other representatives introduced H.R.3831 several days ago.
Shockingly, this bill only appears to renew (for another 10 years) the "assault weapon" portion of the ban, and allows the "high capacity" magazine restrictions to sunset in September of this year as provided for in the original law. Clearly, these anti-gun politicians are hoping that, with the removal of the magazine ban, opposition to the AWB will wane as fewer gun owners feel they will be directly affected by the ban.
They, of course, will be proven wrong.
Since you are already busily calling, faxing, and e-mailing your senators in opposition to the anti-gun amendments being added to the Lawful Commerce in Arms bill currently being debated in the Senate, take just an extra moment to contact you representative, and tell them you oppose even this drastically watered down ban that McCarthy and her cohorts are proposing.
You can find your senators' contact info here:
Tell them you oppose the anti-gun amendments being offered for S.1805, ESPECIALLY Sen. Feinstein's AWB renewal amendment, which will be voted on Tuesday.
You can find your representative's contact info here:
Tell them you oppose any effort to renew ANY part of the so-called "assault weapons" ban, including the recently introduced H.R.3831.
The proposed bill's text is as follows:
HR 3831 IH
H. R. 3831
To extend the sunset on the assault weapons ban for 10 years.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 25, 2004
Mr. CASTLE (for himself, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. SHAYS, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. KIRK, Mr. QUINN, and Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
To extend the sunset on the assault weapons ban for 10 years.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF SUNSET ON ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN FOR 10 YEARS.
Section 110105(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (18 U.S.C. 921 note) is amended by inserting `, or in the case of the amendments made by section 110102, 20 years,' after `10 years'.
We would appreciate you posting this to your bulletin board and sending to your email list.
Recent internet alerts from some "pro-Second Amendment" groups have suggested that the National Rifle Association has either accepted a compromise that would include reenactment of the 1994 Clinton Gun ban and/or the McCain-Reed gun show restrictions, or will not actively fight against their passage in the Senate. Not only are these claims completely false and ridiculous but they are also extremely counterproductive to our legislative strategy and agenda. Gun control groups are spreading the same rumors in hopes of confusing pro-gun senators as to our position in hopes of gaining their support.
The National Rifle Association led the fight in opposition to this ill-conceived ban in 1994, led the efforts to repeal the ban two years later, and is leading the fight to ensure the Clinton gun ban expires on time on September 13. From public speeches, articles in NRA publications, communications to lawmakers and the development of a website (www.ClintonGunBan.com), the National Rifle Association has been vocal and unambiguous about our position on this issue.
It is our hope that supposed "friends of the Second Amendment" will cease to provide ammunition to the enemy by disseminating this false information. Unfortunately, some of these groups seem intent on finding or creating any excuse to defeat S. 1805, perhaps because its passage has been a priority of the NRA for four years. The anti-gunners are seeking to undermine the Second Amendment and the legislative process by seeking to bankrupt firearms and ammunition manufacturers or get gun control restrictions through the courts through dozens of pending municipal lawsuits -- blaming the gun industry for the acts of criminals -- initiated by anti-gun big city mayors and greedy trial lawyers. A single judgment by a rogue judge or jury could wipe out the entire firearms industry making our gun rights worthless. Passage of S. 1805 is critical -- but not worth allowing legislation going to the President including either an extension of the Clinton gun ban or restrictions at gun shows. There will be no compromise. The only choice is a "clean" bill or no bill.
The legislative process in Congress is complex and far from perfect. Fortunately, Congress is a bicameral (two house) legislative body and both the House and Senate must agree on the same bill before enactment. While we are uncertain of the outcome of several pending anti-gun amendments in the Senate, the House is strongly pro-gun and it (or a conference committee) will not accept any anti-gun Senate-passed amendment as part of the final product to be sent to the President.
Pro-gun grassroots activists who want to advance our cause should not be distracted by misinformation and disinformation by our "friends." Instead, gun owners and sportsmen must keep our focus on the real action and contact -- by calls, e-mails, and faxes -- their two U.S. Senators urging them to vote for S. 1805 and against any and all anti-gun "poison pill" killer amendments including, but not limited to, the Clinton gun ban and gun shows. Use the "Write Your Representatives" (www.capwiz.com/nra/home) tool at www.NRAILA.org to contact your Senators and call them at 202-224-3121. We appreciate your active support in our cause to defend the Second Amendment and freedom itself.
National Rifle Association
Posted 27 February 2004 - 12:28 PM
While rewriting Mr. Bayh and Mr. Lugar, I also dropped a letter to George. I even went so far
as to ask him to remove Clinton's Executive order on the importation of US made military firearms,
parts, etc. Heck, It cannot hurt to ask.
BTW, I was shocked! Shocked mind you to find that Mr. Bayh was using a form letter to respond to
emails on the AWB subject. Identical to the one FullAuto45 received.
Posted 27 February 2004 - 12:43 PM
And I was thinking about joining the NRA again. I'm trying to follow the progress on the AWB sunset, it seems like one minute things look good and the next minute they suck! What gut feelings do you guys have about the AWB sunset? I have to admit that I never really kept up on the current news on gun debates and the gun grabber's agenda (yes, I was STUPID). Then I started looking back at was has been happening in the past 10-15 years (no more new mfg. of NFA weapons, assault rifle ban, stupid magazine laws, ect. ect.). Now, I'm trying to get as much information as I can and vote accordingly (I guess I'm getting older and care more about my rights). I used to be happy just going down to the local gun store and buying my military rifles (Nagant's, SMLE's, K98's ect.), but now it seems like I have to worry that one day I might not even be able to do that, and that really bothers me. If it was up to people like Feinstein or Brady I honestly believe that private gun ownership would be illegal. I AM going to join the NRA again (strength in numbers) but I feel like I need to do something else to help protect my rights (we all should). My blinders are off now and I'm going to be pro-active. Now, I will get off of my soap box, open a Guinness and my bottle of Hoppe's (not for drinking!) and start cleaing the Indian SMLE and the 91/30 that I just bought.
Posted 27 February 2004 - 12:57 PM
Posted 27 February 2004 - 01:12 PM
Bush Opposes Additions to Gun Bill
By Helen Dewar
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 26, 2004; Page A04
The White House is opposing addition of gun show and assault weapons restrictions to a bill shielding firearms makers and dealers from lawsuits, prompting angry complaints from Democrats that President Bush is reneging on earlier support for the two proposals.
The dispute emerged as the Senate began debating the lawsuits measure, which is strongly backed by the National Rifle Association as well as the White House and appears to have the support of a bipartisan majority in the Senate.
The bill easily cleared its first procedural hurdle yesterday. But close votes are anticipated on the gun-control proposals, which would require background checks for purchases at gun shows and extend for 10 years the current ban on 19 types of semiautomatic assault weapons, which expires in September.
Votes on the proposals may not occur until next week, Senate aides said. The House has passed the lawsuits measure and is regarded as unlikely to go along with any major gun-control initiatives.
The liability bill was prompted by several dozen court suits filed over the past five years, many of them by cities, that seek damages from the gun industry for sales and other practices that may have contributed to gun violence.
The bill's backers argue that gun manufacturers run the risk of bankruptcy for producing legal products misused by purchasers. Foes contend the threat of legal action is needed to prevent shoddy or deceptive practices and say the bill would jeopardize valid suits such as those filed by families of victims of the 2002 sniper attacks in the Washington area. The bill would permit lawsuits only for defective products or illegal sales.
In a statement Tuesday evening, the White House urged passage of the lawsuits measure without amendments that might delay its enactment. "Any amendment that would delay enactment of the bill beyond this year is unacceptable," the statement said. Democrats interpreted this as an effort to undermine support for the gun-control measures.
"For the president to say he is for the assault weapons ban but then act against it is a flip-flop if there ever was one," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of several sponsors of the assault weapons proposal in the Senate.
Democrats said Bush endorsed a continuation of the controls on assault weapons during his 2000 campaign and has also indicated he supports legislation to require criminal background checks at gun shows.
There are 10 to 12 senators who are undecided on the issue and Bush "has given them a giant shield to hide behind," Schumer contended.
While the White House statement leaves the door open to consideration of the gun-control provisions as part of other legislation, the lawsuit immunity bill presents the best -- and probably only -- chance for passage of the proposals this year, Schumer said.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), another leading sponsor of the assault weapons measure, said she was "not sure this is our only chance," but nevertheless criticized the administration for "not lift[ing] a hand" to help extend the assault weapons ban.
Posted 27 February 2004 - 01:20 PM
Assault weapons ban faces expiration
Proponents accuse Bush of resorting to political trickery
Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Thursday, February 26, 2004
Washington -- Proponents of Sen. Dianne Feinstein's decade-old federal assault weapons ban accused President Bush on Wednesday of using political sleight of hand to break his promise to support their bid to reauthorize the legislation for another 10 years.
As the Senate started debating a bill that would grant gun manufacturers and dealers unprecedented protection against almost all civil lawsuits, the White House issued a statement of policy saying the president didn't want any amendments to the bill, which is a key priority for the National Rifle Association and its allies. Since proponents of the assault weapons ban say their best and perhaps only chance of getting the law renewed is as part of the bill on blocking lawsuits, they cried foul.
"The president is breaking the promise he made during the 2000 campaign to support the assault weapons ban,'' charged one of Feinstein's co-sponsors, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "This is a flip-flop if there ever was one.''
California's other Democratic senator, Barbara Boxer, said, "I see it as a broken promise that was made to her (Feinstein) and those who have supported her.''
Feinstein was somewhat less confrontational, although she said "this president ... has not to date lifted a hand to help us.''
She said she realized that Bush, normally a staunch ally of the rifle association, faces a tough re-election campaign this year and doesn't want to alienate his supporters by signing a gun control law abhorred by many of them.
"No doubt this is a campaign issue,'' Feinstein said at a Capitol news conference. "The people of America have to send a resounding and clarion call'' that they want the assault weapons bill renewed.
If the bill reaches the Senate floor, the vote is expected to be close.
White House spokesman Ken Lisaius denied that Bush was being deceptive. "The president's position stays the same'' on signing assault weapons legislation, he said, but "the fact is the president says any amendment (to the liability limit bill) that would delay enactment of this bill beyond this year is unacceptable.''
The assault weapons bill, which narrowly passed Congress in 1994, banned the manufacture, sale and distribution of 19 specific types of semiautomatic guns that Feinstein says exist only for the purpose of killing large numbers of people with rapid fire. While Feinstein and Schumer say the ban has been effective in reducing gun violence, opponents say that tougher prison sentences and crackdowns to prevent repeat offenders from getting and using guns have made the difference.
The argument shows the intricacies of gun legislation in Congress, especially in an election year. The bill giving the gun industry liability protection has 55 Senate sponsors, and looks likely to pass in the next few days. The House passed similar legislation last year, 285-140.
In addition to the assault weapons ban, gun control advocates want to attach an amendment in the Senate to close the so-called gun show loophole that allows people to buy guns at such shows without undergoing a background check.
Boxer wants an amendment to bar gun manufacturers and dealers from selling handguns without safety locking devices.
In the House, Majority Leader Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, has vowed that the assault weapons extension will never even come up for a floor vote, so many of the ban's advocates figure the best way to force a vote is to attach it to the liability legislation -- a law the gun lobby badly wants.
"There is no other way for the assault weapons ban to advance before it expires'' on Sept. 13, Schumer said.
Feinstein wasn't as pessimistic. "It will be my intention to put this bill on everything we can,'' she said, meaning she will try to get it passed as an amendment to another bill or on its own.
With a close election likely, the White House doesn't want Feinstein's bill to reach the president's desk, said gun lobby veteran Richard Feldman.
"It would be a mistake of the first order for this assault weapons bill to get to the president, after passing through a Republican Congress, for him to sign it or veto it,'' said Feldman, who represents some of the gunmakers.
The gun liability legislation, which would throw out pending lawsuits against gunmakers or dealers such as those filed by San Francisco and other localities, is needed to save the industry, said Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho.
"These suits were all intended to drive the gun industry out of business, '' he charged.
But Feinstein took to the Senate floor to attack the liability bill, which is opposed by most big-city mayors and police chiefs.
"This legislation gives the gun industry sweeping and unprecedented protection from lawsuits that are available to every other victim of any other industry in America,'' she said.
Posted 27 February 2004 - 01:45 PM
Senate OKs Handgun Locks Legislation
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, AP
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats who succeeded in adding a handgun safety lock measure to a GOP-championed gunmaker lawsuit immunity bill are trying to drum up support for requiring background checks on gun show sales and for renewing the assault weapons ban.
They will determine this weekend whether they have enough votes to add the amendments to the legislation.
"We are so close," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who started counting votes on the assault weapons ban after handily winning the handgun safety lock vote. "We're within a hair's breath."
But Republicans also will work to keep Democratic amendments off the legislation protecting the gun industry from lawsuits when a legally sold gun is subsequently used in a crime. They say those issues will make it harder to get the bill to President Bush for his signature.
Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, fought off several attempts to add exceptions to the gunmaker immunity bill. He will try to fend off other Democratic attempts Tuesday when the Senate votes on one amendment to close a loophole that allows unlicensed dealers to sell guns at gun shows without doing background checks on the buyers, and on another that would extend the expiring assault weapons ban for 10 years.
Senators also will vote on Republican measures to end the ban on handguns in the District of Columbia and allow qualifed retired and active duty policemen to carry concealed weapons.
Craig and other Republicans, including the Bush administration, have called on senators not to attach amendments to the gunmaker immunity bill that could bog it down.
Gun advocates say firearm manufacturers make legal products and should not have to spend millions of dollars fighting lawsuits stemming from a crime committed with a gun.
A test vote earlier this week garnered 75 votes for the measure, with several Democrats voting for it after the GOP agreed that firearms makers and distributors would not be immune to suits involving defective products or illegal sales.
The GOP-controlled House already has passed the bill. However, Senate changes will require that negotiators from both houses agree to a compromise version. That could take months given the strong feelings on both sides.
Leaders in the GOP-controlled House already have said they do not plan to approve an extension of the assault weapons ban.
Although Democrats say they are close to having enough votes for extended the ban, they may need to pull their two presidential competitors, Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina, off the campaign trail to put them over the top.
"We know it will be close," said Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota. "And it would be our hope that both of our presidential candidates could be there, but we understand the conflicts in schedule as well. We'll have to do the best we can with the votes we have, but we know it's going to be close."
Democrats easily won their attempt to add to the bill a measure requiring child safety locks on all handguns sold in the United States.
Boxer and Herb Kohl of Wisconsin argued that requiring safety locks on newly purchased handguns would help reduce the number of children accidentally killed by handguns in the home. Every 48 hours, a child is killed through an accidental shooting, she said.
Kohl said the bill "is not a panacea. It will not prevent every single avoidable firearm-related accident. But the fact is that all parents want to protect their children. This legislation will ensure that people purchase child-safety locks when they buy guns. Those who buy locks are more likely to use them."
The Senate in 1999 passed similar legislation, but the House refused to approve the measure.
Craig argued it would be an intrusion of the federal government into people's private homes.
"For the first time, the long arm of government will reach into the private place and suggest to the average American how they will store an object in that private place," he said.
On the Net:
Information on the bill, S. 1805, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov
02/27/04 04:50 EST
Edited by LIONHART, 27 February 2004 - 01:46 PM.
Posted 27 February 2004 - 03:45 PM
The calls really do make a difference. I am fortunate that my Senators and Congressman are pro-gun but it always helps to let them know that their constituents are looking over their shoulder. This will be a tough fight but a winnable fight. Everyone needs to call - the staffers are counting the votes!!!
Posted 27 February 2004 - 03:48 PM
P.S. We need to stop these bastards!
Posted 27 February 2004 - 06:08 PM
Posted 27 February 2004 - 09:15 PM
Dear Senator, Please, do not accept any anti-rights (R.E. Gun
bans,further extensions of the semi-auto ban etc.)amendments to S. 659,
the gun manufacturers' protection act.
Further, I believe that S. 659 is not worth an extension on the Clinton
era semi-auto ban or restrictions on gun shows. Both of these measures
would constitute very egregious violations of Congress' constitutional
authority. I hope that you will do everything in your power to make sure
these amendments do not end up in the bill.
And please,If either of these provisions does make it onto S. 659, I urge
you to vote AGAINST the entire bill. I feel that this subject is very
important to myself and the people of the United States. Thank you kindly
for your support.
Dear Mr. Knudson:
Thank you for contacting me about gun commerce legislation. I
appreciate hearing from you.
As you know, Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) has introduced S. 659,
the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The bill requires
the Department of Commerce to maintain a list of businesses and
individuals who notify the Department that they manufacture or
sell firearms, or represent organizations that manufacture or sell
firearms for interstate or foreign commerce. The bill further
protects any person or business, or representative of a person or
business who lawfully engages in interstate or foreign commerce of
firearms from restrictions on commerce. These restrictions include
civil penalties or other limitations ordered by federal, state, or local
courts. H.R. 1036, legislation largely identical to S. 659, was
passed by the House of Representatives and has been referred to
the Senate Judiciary Committee.
I too believe that lawful manufacturers or sellers of firearms should
have the right to participate in legal interstate and foreign
commerce. However, I am concerned about how this bill could
affect legitimate lawsuits against firearms manufacturers and
sellers for their negligent acts. This bill's prohibitions against
restrictions on commerce could provide an untended shield for
firearm manufacturers and sellers that engage in dangerous and
As a U.S. Senator, I support common sense gun control legislation
that reduces gun violence while providing the least possible
inconvenience to law abiding gun owners. Rest assured, should S.
659 or similar legislation come before the Senate, I will keep your
concerns in mind.
Again, thank you for contacting me. If I can be of service in the
future, please be in touch.
United States Senator
Posted 28 February 2004 - 12:18 AM
Posted 28 February 2004 - 12:31 AM
Posted 28 February 2004 - 10:16 AM
I'd be curious to hear your letter and the response from our senators here in Tennessee. Washington has become the arm of the political donors (ie corporations, lawyers) who are working hard to take away our rights one by one, starting with our ability to protect ourselves from THEM, so they can send more of our jobs overseas and take our money and property away from us.
BTW, has anyone read Perfectly Legal by David Cay Johnston? It is a great book about how some of the workings in Washington affect our lives.
Posted 28 February 2004 - 12:11 PM
Gun Suit Reform Could Still Be Shot Down
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
By John Lott, Jr. and Grover Nordquist
Since October 1998, 33 cities and the state of New York have brought lawsuits against gun makers and retailers seeking to hold the companies responsible for the misuse of their products. More than 35 major private suits have also been filed since 1998. Funded with millions of dollars from George Soros (search), the Brady Campaign (search) (and its predecessor Handgun Control) has paid for much of the legal costs behind these suits.
The goal has not been to win these legally weak cases but rather, with so many simultaneous suits, to bankrupt these companies through massive legal costs. Unfortunately, despite most of the city suits having been knocked out on pretrial motions, this strategy has had some success. Litigation fears helped discourage venerable companies such as Colt from continuing to produce handguns, and Kmart, along with other retailers, have stopped selling handgun ammunition.
This week, the Senate is poised to pass legislation that will rein in many of those lawsuits against gun makers and retailers, such as those that claim that gun makers should “know and foresee” that crimes will be committed with the guns they sell. The new legislation will of course not end lawsuits against defective products that cause harm or injury. Similarly, a company will still face civil liability in addition to criminal penalties if it has violated state or federal law or sold a gun knowing that it would be used to commit a crime. Even prominent Democrats such as Sen. Diane Feinstein concedes that the bill is going to pass.
Yet, amendments to extend the ban on some semi-automatic guns and to further regulate gun shows face close votes. These amendments threaten to kill the bill in conference committee, yet some senators, including Tom Daschle, are simultaneously promising to vote for the bill but also promising gun control groups that they are "solid" for the gun show and assault weapons amendments.
A recent poll conducted by the Roper Center asked Americans whether "companies that make guns should be held financially liable if judges or juries find that their products were used to commit a crime." Seventy-eight percent disagreed. With such grassroots support, 10 Democratic senators from southern and western states have joined 45 Republican senators in sponsoring the current legislation. But can such senators as Tom Daschle and Harry Reid-- who face re-election this year--really convince voters that they want to stop these lawsuits while, at the same time, they vote for additional gun control amendments that jeopardize the final passage of the bill?
Renewing the "Assault Weapons" Ban
Seven states now ban certain types of semi-automatic guns (search), and there has been a federal ban on certain semi-automatic guns since 1994;Gun control advocates ominously predict that eliminating the ban will result in a surge in police killings or, as Sen. Carl Levin claims, a rise in gun crimes .
Yet, despite the heated rhetoric, there is not a single academic study showing that these bans have reduced violent crime. Even research funded by the Justice Department under the Clinton administration concluded merely that the ban's "impact on gun violence has been uncertain."
The 1994 federal assault weapons ban applied to semi-automatics that fire one bullet per pull of the trigger. Rebuilding semi-automatic weapons into machine guns is very difficult, as completely different firing mechanisms are used. Terms such "military-style" or "assault weapon" describe cosmetic features of the gun, not the way the gun fires bullets.
Ironically, notorious "assault weapons," such as the 223-caliber Bushmaster rifle used in the District of Columbia area sniper killings (search), are not allowed in most states for hunting deer or larger animals because it is such a low-powered rifle, it will too frequently wound rather than kill the deer.
The ban arbitrarily outlaws some guns based upon brand name or cosmetic features-- such as whether a rifle could have a bayonet mount, a pistol grip, a folding stock or a threaded muzzle. Not only could someone buy another not-banned semi-automatic gun that fired the same bullets, at the same rapidity and with the same damage, but even the banned guns can be sold under a different name or after, say, the bayonet mount was removed.
Proponents for keeping the semi-automatic "assault" gun ban (search) argue that 10 of the 50 police officers shot to death annually over the four years from 1998 to 2001 were killed by these guns. But the Violence Policy Center, which put these numbers together, never examined whether the guns used to kill police possessed two or more of the features defining them as "assault weapons." Rather, the guns were counted as assault weapons if it was possible that they had at least two of the banned features.
The stakes for this amendment represent much more than a legislative battle for gun control advocates. Defeat would put their very credibility at risk if it becomes obvious a year from now that their horror stories have not come true.
Gun Show Regulations
Despite the term "gun show loophole," (search) there are no special exemptions for buying a gun at a gun show. Dealers must perform the same background checks as in a store. What gun control groups refer to is the non-regulated private transfers of guns. Eighteen states regulate the private transfers of handguns, with some having regulations going back more than several decades. However, just as with the semi-automatic gun bans, there is not a single academic study showing that these regulations reduce any type of violent crime.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics under Clinton conducted a survey of 18,000 state prison inmates in 1997 -- the largest survey of inmates ever conducted. Less than one percent of inmates (0.7 percent) who had a gun obtained it from a gun show. The vast majority of criminals—40 percent—say they got their guns either from friends or family, and 39 percent from the street or other illegal sources.
Burdening these needed legal reforms with regulations that cause only other problems accomplishes only one goal: the legislation will be defeated and the lawsuits seeking to eliminate guns will proceed.
John Lott Jr., a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of The Bias Against Guns (Regnery 2003).
Posted 01 March 2004 - 04:33 PM
Neal Knox has weighed in on the current proceedings in the Senate, and is encouraging calm in the face of the AWB renewal and other anti-gun amendments that will undoubtedly be added to S.1805.
March 1 Neal Knox Update -- The anti-gun crowd?s sole focus right now is
killing S. 1805, the renumbered S. 659 gun industry liability protection
So why on Earth are so many panicky gun rights defenders (or people
claiming to be) doing everything they can to help the enemy?
Yes, S. 1805 is in danger of being loaded up with anti-gun amendments in
the Senate. But anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that
the Senate is overloaded with anti-gunners and has been for several
The only way to get the bill passed is to get it back to the House, where
it can be cleaned up or killed.
The identical House version, H.R. 1036, passed last April 285-140.
The Senate bill has 55 co-sponsors -- five more than necessary for
passage. Last week the Schumer-Lautenberg, et al, filibuster failed by
75 votes -- fifteen more votes than the two-thirds necessary to bring it
to the floor.
The day the voting started, the White House sent Congress a Statement of
Administration Policy calling for a "clean bill" -- one without
amendments. That's what President Bush has said he will sign -- which
greatly improves the chances of a cleaned Conference Committee bill
getting through the Senate.
Sen. Schumer fumed the Bush position will cost 10 or eleven Republican
votes against his and Dianne Feinstein's amendments. Let's hope he's
right, but I doubt it. Three or four might be enough.
With everything stacked against them, the only way the anti-gunners can
kill the bill is to load it down with a bunch of killer amendments --
causing the gun rights people to do what the anti-gun crowd can't do.
Kill it -- like our Nervous Nellies are already clamoring to do.
Schumer's "useful idiots" -- some of our people -- are in a panic because
Sen. Larry Craig and other pro-gunners signed a "Unanimous Consent
Agreement" allowing a series of anti-gun (and pro-gun) amendments to be
considered without a string of filibusters.
That's the only way the Senate ever can consider a controversial bill --
but many of those screaming about "Unanimous Consent" think it means the
pro-gun side has consented to evil amendments. They haven't.
Sen. Barbara Boxer added an amendment requiring all dealer-sold handguns
to be delivered with a safety lock, as most already are.
The Internet is being flooded with emails from people I never heard of --
forwarded by people who should know better -- demanding that S. 1805 be
killed because it "contains gun control."
Let me assure you: S. 1805 WILL CONTAIN A LOT MORE GUN CONTROL --
probably including the Feinstein "Assault Weapon" ban and the McCain gun
show-killer bill -- before the Senate's final vote.
But I want the Senate to hold their noses and send it back to the House,
warts and all.
The letters going out right now from misled gun owners to their Senators,
telling them to vote against S. 1805, were probably drafted in the
offices of "Americans for Gun Safety" and Handgun Control Inc.
If not, they might as well have been.
As most of you know, I have been personally involved in every Federal gun
rights battle since 1966 -- as founding editor of Gun Week, editor of
Handloader and Rifle, Executive Director of NRA-ILA, legislative
columnist for Guns & Ammo, Shotgun News and other publications, and Vice
President of NRA for three years, until Charlton Heston beat me 38-34.
In short, I've been around this block twice. I have never seen such a
well-orchestrated campaign to kill a pro-gun bill.
Every Senator who voted FOR the Boxer/Schumer/Feinstein /Kennedy
amendments will vote AGAINST the bill. I want to see every Senator who
voted AGAINST those amendments to vote FOR an anti-gun bill, and we
should let them know that we'll never hold that vote against them.
Because that's the only way we can get the bill to the House, where those
amendments can be stripped -- so the United States Arms Industry can
survive, and prices on the guns they produce won't continue to skyrocket.
Am I absolutely certain that every anti-gun amendment can be stripped off
in the House-Senate Conference? Or else knocked off in House votes?
No, I'm not.
But I AM certain that if they aren't WE CAN KILL THE BILL IN THE HOUSE.
And from what I've been personally told, NRA will lead the effort to kill
their own bill if the corruption remains.
Yes, it's dangerous. Passing legislation when the Senate is against us
is always dangerous -- and it's difficult, but with the House and White
House on our side, it's doable.
Let's show a little courage, friends.
Posted 01 March 2004 - 05:35 PM
Posted 01 March 2004 - 07:02 PM
Posted 01 March 2004 - 07:34 PM
Repeal the Hughs amendment from the Volkmer-McClure act or
Allow Law enforcement agencies to transfer their form 10 guns to form 3 or 4 or whatever form would bless them to be owned by, or transferred to, us commoners.
Posted 01 March 2004 - 08:09 PM
Chuckie suggested that Vice President Cheney be available tomorrom in case a tie breaker was need.