In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
victory is ours.
65gto389
Member Posts: 2,850 ✭✭✭✭✭
S397 (protection of lawful commerce in arms act) passed out of the senate with 65 "ayes". I guess all that if left is Bush to sign it into law.
" Those who give up a little freedom for temporary security, deserve neither freedom nor security "
- Benjamin Franklin
" Those who give up a little freedom for temporary security, deserve neither freedom nor security "
- Benjamin Franklin
Comments
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
Well, maybe with the lock thing, but that's debatable. [}:)]
The gene pool needs chlorine.
If so maybe we have smooth sailing ahead in regards to the anti-gun crowd not being able to use litigation to put gun manufacturers out of business.
We must have the firearms manufacturers protection bill if we are going to be able to continue to purchase firearms, parts and probably Ammo. I can live with having to buy a trigger lock each time I buy a gun.
And in regards to it becoming a law that the locks have to be on all guns at all times (except when shooting them) the key word about that happening is the word "eventually". This means that it hasn't happened yet and hopefully we can make sure it never does.
Besides, how would such a requirement ever be put in place in regards to a person having and using a CCW for just one example?
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.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
Therefore I will be very grateful if S397 (protection of lawful commerce in arms act) passes and becomes law even with the trigger lock requirement.
If we pro-gun people have the clout to get S397 passed over the strenous objections of the anti-gunners, even with the trigger lock amendment we have a great victory and this shows our strength. Why can't we focus on the hopefully current "victory" as a victory and use our strength in the future to ensure that the trigger lock requirement is not expanded to become mandatory?
Or even use our strength to in the future remove the trigger lock requirement entirely?
The "glass" is even more than "half full" as compared to being "half empty". In this case our glass is 90% full and only 10% empty. Let's not waste time, energy and emotions complaining about that missing 10%. IMHO it is only counterproductive.
Tha Kalifornia requirement is that each firearms purchase must also be accompanied by:
A) A Kalifornia DOJ certified gun lock (with a receipt of purchase that is dated within 30 days of the gun purchase date).
-OR-
I purchased a Sig Sauer P228 in March of 2002, about 3 months after this law went into effect. This firearm included a trigger lock supplied by the manufacturer (shrink-wrapped in the original package), but since there was no separate receipt of sale I was required to either purchase another brand new gun lock or supply the above mentioned affidavit of owning a DOJ certified gun safe. This had to be done before they would let me take home MY FIREARM that I HAD ALREADY PAID FOR AND PATIENTLY WAITED 10 DAYS TO PICK-UP, as per Kalifornia law. The gun dealer totally neglected to inform me of this stipulation at the time of purchase and waited until I arrived 10 days later to receive my firearm to spring this on me. Needless to say, I was PISSED, but they had me by the balls.
Now they have all of you by the balls too.
-WW
MOLON LAVE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
...or at least they can think that.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
Proposed Senate Bill: Is S. 397 A TROJAN HORSE?
You may have heard a lot of praise for S. 397, which last
week passed the U.S. Senate. This bill is supposedly
intended to protect firearms manufacturers against nuisance
lawsuits.
There's been minor grumbling about the "safety lock"
provisions in the proposed legislation, but otherwise S.
397 has had overwhelming support.
Just about the time we were wondering why even some usually
gun-unfriendly senators like Herb Kohl (D-WI) were in favor
of this bill, an alert Congresswatcher contacted us with a
warning.
"The only thing I see that's good about the bill," this
sharp-eyed observer wrote, "is that it hasn't become law."
After taking a closer look, we agree.
As our correspondent pointed out, the real problem lies in
Sec. 6 "Armor Piercing Ammunition."
THIS SECTION COULD ALLOW ALL CENTERFIRE RIFLE AMMO TO BE
BANNED
Here's how.
Part One of Sec. 6 makes it illegal to make, import, sell
or deliver any "armor-piercing" ammunition EXCEPT:
1) For the use of state and federal government departments
or agencies.
2) For export
3) For Attorney General-approved testing.
Part Two "enhances" criminal sentences for anyone who
possesses "armor-piercing" ammunition during the commission
of a crime.
Part Three is where the trap is really sprung. Because this
part instructs the U.S. Attorney General to "conduct a
study to determine whether a uniform standard for the
testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible."
NOTE WELL: The tests to determine whether or not ammo is
"armor piercing" are NOT to be conducted against armor
plate, such as that used on military combat vehicles. The
tests are to be conducted against body armor. And as anyone
knowledgeable about firearms knows, VIRTUALLY ALL RIFLE
AMMO WILL PENETRATE BODY ARMOR. So will some pistol ammo.
We asked firearms maker Len Savage if the warning we
received was well-taken or whether this was simply a
misinterpretation of the proposed law. Here's Len's reply:
"Yes. This gives the A.G. the power to say what is and is
not "armor piercing." There is no language for what type of
test is to be conducted (other than ballistic vests). If
the test were on 1 inch "rolled homogeneous armor plate"
then there would be no problem. If the test is a level I
"vest" material, then EVERYTHING including .22 longs, are
going to be illegal ammo.
"The bill would effectively give the power to decide to ONE
person. NO vote, NO appeal, NO rights. (Just like the
current mess with [the sloppy, no-standards testing
practices of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms].)
"I figured it was a matter of time before they got around
to figuring out: Control the ammo and you control the guns.
Of course there would be born a "black market" for ammo,
very close to the black market for marijuana, in size,
scope, and risks. Next will be the sentencing
recommendations for possession, and distributing (dealing).
Components will be viewed as constructive intent of illegal
manufacturing of "terrorist material."
"This is a dangerous path for America. I am forced to ask
myself: Why the continued attack and obvious methodical
disarming of American Citizens? There is only one answer:
control and power."
Just as "Saturday-Night specials," "military-style assault
weapons," "cop-killer bullets," and "sporting purposes"
have all been used as deceptive, emotionally loaded key
words to justify regulations and outright bans, it now
appears that the designation "armor-piercing ammunition" is
likely to be mis-applied in an attempt to deprive Americans
of their rights.
We should all be asking some serious questions about the
real impact S. 397 will have on our freedoms if it becomes
law. One important question is: Why are our "leaders" so
desperate that they would attempt to slip such a
potentially draconian provision into a supposedly pro-gun
bill?
The Liberty Crew
LINKS:
S. 397, Sec. 6
http://tinyurl.com/9u8mt (click on [S.397.ES])
MOLON LAVE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
The part about armor piercing ammo sounds really bad. You don't have to be a lawyer to easily see that it give the right to one unelected person to declare most ammo as being "armor piercing" and out law that ammo and make criminals of us gun owners who don't rid ourselves of all our ammo. Ironically we would still have our guns without ammo. Pretty clever of the anti-gunners.
I going to pass your post around and copy and mail it to my representatives and see if I get a response.