Pry Congress From Cold, Deadly Clutch of the NRA

The Atlanta Journal Constitution ^ | March 5, 2004 | Atlanta Journal Constitution

[kimber]

Those who say that negotiating with the gun lobby is like making a deal with the devil owe the archfiend an apology.

For months, the National Rifle Association has lobbied hard for passage of a bill that would make the gun industry immune to civil lawsuits. The measure -- the NRA's top legislative priority -- had already passed the House, and this week was close to passage in the Senate as well, until NRA lobbyists stepped in at the last minute and ordered that the bill be killed.

Why the sudden change of heart? Because Democrats and moderate Republicans had succeeded in attaching two quite sensible, reasonable gun-safety measures to the bill. One amendment extended the 1994 ban on military-style assault weapons that's set to expire in September; the other closed a loophole that permitted people to buy firearms at gun shows without having to undergo instant background checks.

Officially, President Bush backs both measures, although he has done nothing to support them. According to a recent survey by the Consumer Federation of America, the assault rifle ban is also supported by a majority of the nation's gun owners. The assault weapons ban is particularly important to law enforcement officers, who had pleaded with Congress to renew the ban and also close the gun show loophole. According to the Justice Department, the proportion of banned assault weapons traced to crimes had dropped by 65.8 percent since 1995, most likely as a result of that law.

Nonetheless, U.S. Sen. Zell Miller was among six Democrats who voted against renewing the ban on military-style assault weapons. "First of all, the term 'assault' was dreamed up to give the weapons included a bad name. Who could be for an 'assault weapon'? The definition is really 'semi-automatic,' and about 15 percent of all firearms owned in the U.S. meet the definition," said Miller.

Had the gun-immunity bill passed, it would have voided hundreds of pending lawsuits, including those filed by more than 30 cities devastated by gun violence and by dozens of shooting victims and their families. For example, it would have slammed shut the courthouse door to the families of the victims of Beltway snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo. The families are suing Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, the Washington state gun shop where Malvo either bought or stole the semi-automatic rifle used to slaughter 10 people. Between 2000 and 2002, the gun shop somehow "lost" 230 other guns from its inventory.

Bull's Eye tried to have the case dismissed, but the courts ruled that the store had some responsibility to ensure its firearms didn't fall into the hands of criminals. The judge relied on the established legal principle that a person who carelessly furnishes a criminal an open opportunity to commit a crime can be held liable.

The NRA and its supporters want to give the gun industry an immunity to being sued that no other American industry enjoys. As they have demonstrated, they want that immunity only on their terms, with no compromise and no tolerance for any effort that might reduce the toll in lost and broken lives attributed to guns. And while that absolutist approach is troubling, the docile willingness of so many in Congress to accommodate that extremism is more troubling still.

[kimber]

The NRA extreme! Get a grip on your left wing views, Atlanta Journal. You have got to love these guys!!

[MrB]

NRA - with 4 million members, called a fringe group with too much power in Congress.

Now, how about NOW? The Trial Lawyers?
I'd say they were much more disproportionately influential in Congress and the DNC.

[anniegetyourgun]

You forgot the barf alert. Shame on you. ; ]

[Pete]

The AJC writes this:

Nonetheless, U.S. Sen. Zell Miller was among six Democrats who voted against renewing the ban on military-style assault weapons.

And then in the next sentence quotes Zell Miller saying this:

"First of all, the term 'assault' was dreamed up to give the weapons included a bad name. Who could be for an 'assault weapon'? The definition is really 'semi-automatic,' and about 15 percent of all firearms owned in the U.S. meet the definition," said Miller.

Here is a tip for the AJC. Proof read.

[Gunner Mike]

The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

[thackney]

Barf-Alert & Bang

[from occupied ga]

quite sensible, reasonable gun-safety measures to the bill. One amendment extended the 1994 ban on military-style assault weapons that's set to expire in September; the other closed a loophole that permitted people to buy firearms at gun shows without having to undergo instant background checks. ... According to a recent survey by the Consumer Federation of America, the assault rifle ban is also supported by a majority of the nation's gun owners. The assault weapons ban is particularly important to law enforcement officers, who had pleaded with Congress to renew the ban and also close the gun show loophole. According to the Justice Department, the proportion of banned assault weapons traced to crimes had dropped by 65.8 percent since 1995, most likely as a result of that law.

You really have to admire how many lies the Urinal/Constipation packed into such a small place. I usually tell the people who come around selling this "news" paper I wouldn't have that piece of sh!t in my house if they paid me to take it. They then tell me what a bargain it is.

[Puppage]

Because Democrats and moderate Republicans had succeeded in attaching two quite sensible, reasonable gun-safety measures to the bill.

That's as far as I got....

[Puppage]

"First of all, the term 'assault' was dreamed up to give the weapons included a bad name.

Assault is an action, not a devise.

[The Grammarian]

The AJC writes this:

Nonetheless, U.S. Sen. Zell Miller was among six Democrats who voted against renewing the ban on military-style assault weapons.

And then in the next sentence quotes Zell Miller saying this:

"First of all, the term 'assault' was dreamed up to give the weapons included a bad name. Who could be for an 'assault weapon'? The definition is really 'semi-automatic,' and about 15 percent of all firearms owned in the U.S. meet the definition," said Miller.

Here is a tip for the AJC. Proof read.

The problem wasn't the proof reading. It was the editorial writer. The idiot of a writer decided to use his/their own biased definition of what was banned in the so-called "Assault Weapon Ban" ("military-style assault weapons") rather than the technical definition ("semi-automatic weapons"), but for some reason chose to include the quotation by Senator Miller, which gives the proper definition. If anything, that slip-up gave considerable weight to the anti-AWB crowd's argument--even if inadvertantly.

[Lunatic Fringe]

For months, the National Rifle Association has lobbied hard for passage of a bill that would make the gun industry immune to civil lawsuits.

The whole article starts off with a lie. The bill was to protect gun makers from lawsuits trying to hold the manufacturers liable for the acts of criminals.

[Spok]

"According to a recent survey by the Consumer Federation of America, the assault rifle ban is also supported by a majority of the nation's gun owners."

I've never heard of this group, and they darn sure never asked me.

[conservativecorner]

Never mind that their readers don't agree. A headline like that works great in Philly or San Francisco, but it ain't gonna fly in Dixie. Just another liberal rag trying to educate their dumb southern readers.

[drunknsage]

This is a perfect example of the Leftist mindset.

"It ain't my fault"

What's next? Should we sue alcohol makers for drunk driving deaths? How about auto makers for all the automobile deaths?

As far as the beltway sniper goes, the weapon he used didn't simply walk around on it's own committing crimes while being directed by it's manufacturer. It takes a person to pull the trigger therefore they are solely responsible for the crime they commit. Whether these two used guns, knives, or crossbows, the effect is still they same. They wanted to kill people and were going to find the most effective tool to succeed in their goal. Demonizing a tool is placing blame and sets a festering example to young minds. We already have enough people in this country with the jaded-victim mindset. The last thing we need is more.

[300winmag]

The families are suing Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, the Washington state gun shop where Malvo either bought or stole the semi-automatic rifle used to slaughter 10 people. Between 2000 and 2002, the gun shop somehow "lost" 230 other guns from its inventory.

This is only the second time I've heard a vague reference to "230" from that gun shop. Don't forget, it's already BATF's responsibility to police all FFL holders. Did they drop the ball (again)?

Why should the victims and survivors sue manufacturers if the dealer, the last stop in the supply chain, negligently or criminally "lost" 230 guns?

I think there is more to this gun store's story than the left wants known. Like BATF is more incompetent than even Inspector Clouseau? But if we just tripled their budget, and cut the number of dealers down to zero, they might be able to do their job a bit better.

[alaskanfan]

According to the Justice Department, the proportion of banned assault weapons traced to crimes had dropped by 65.8 percent since 1995, most likely as a result of that law.

I'd like to see a report of any sort from the Justice Department that would support that claim.

According to a recent survey by the Consumer Federation of America, the assault rifle ban is also supported by a majority of the nation's gun owners.

The most detailed study to date of the effects of the AWB were published in The Journal Of The American Medical Association in 2000. One of the publishers of the study, Dr. Philip Cook (a gun control supporter) said: "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure."

[cruiserman]

Because Democrats and moderate Republicans had succeeded in attaching two quite sensible, reasonable gun-safety measures to the bill.

Banning a particular rifle due to a cosmetic feature, and limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds are gun safety measures?

[facedown]

For months, the National Rifle Association has lobbied hard for passage of a bill that would make the gun industry immune to civil lawsuits.

Yup, that's as far as I read.

[alaskanfan]

This might be a little closer to the truth.

Why the sudden change of heart? Because Democrats and moderate Republicans Republicans in name only had succeeded in attaching two quite sensible, reasonable gun-safety measures to the bill. One amendment extended the 1994 ban on semi-automatic military-style assault weapons that's set to expire in September; the other closed a loophole that permitted people to buy firearms at gun shows from a private party without having to undergo instant background checks.

[Pete]

but for some reason chose to include the quotation by Senator Miller, which gives the proper definition. If anything, that slip-up gave considerable weight to the anti-AWB crowd's argument--even if inadvertantly.

Actually, that was my point. I think they were trying to be "fair" (as they might define it) but ended up shooting themselves in the foot (so to speak).