I do not think it means what he thinks it means
Andy Barniskis of the Federal Observer isn’t real happy with S.397, the gun immunity bill:
I am convinced that S.397, the federal legislation recently passed to protect the firearms industry from frivolous civil liability claims, was nothing but industry protectionism, with little or no consideration provided for the protection of the rights of gun owners. From the way it was passed, I suspect a segment of the sporting arms industry received undue benefits at the expense of our individual rights.
In general I do not support government protection of industries, but not all such protection is bad. Protection of an industry from competition is almost always bad. Protection of an industry from abuses of its genuine rights (which are extensions of the rights of the individuals who own it or benefit from it) is always good. The recently passed protection for the firearms industry would seem to fall in the latter category, but the non-germane, anti-gun amendments contained in it call to question the purity of the motives of its more strident supporters. There was no need for anti-gun amendments to be included, yet the loudest industry lobbyists insisted that only the bill containing those features be passed.
Which anti-gun bills? The only one I recall was the addition of the gun lock requirement for handguns, which is really irrelevant since I figure 99% of new handguns come with locks anyway.
As suggested by Angel Shamaya, founder and former owner of KeepAndBearArms.com, protection of the rights of the firearms industry should have been approached from a much broader, constitutional rights foundation, acknowledging the Second Amendment and other recognized civil rights.
Uhm, it did:
(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.
If Mr. Barniskis is upset about the bill being protectionism, that’s not a very good way to express it. And it does some of the things he says it should. It doesn’t look like he researched the bill very much.
October 25th, 2005 at 11:53 am
Not wishing to start another NRA vs GOA flame war, but the idea that there was “gun control” in the bill was started by the GOA.
They claim the two amendments *might* be someday construed to require trigger locks and ban rifle ammo.
Amusing aside: Up until a few days ago, the GOA had an update on their website claiming to have “stopped” S.397 in its tracks and that it would not be considered this year. It got taken down the day after the bill passed.
I really need to figure out how to do screen captures.
October 25th, 2005 at 11:57 am
Hit print screen then paste into a word document or image file.
October 29th, 2005 at 2:48 am
I truly love it (NOT!) when a bill that violates the constitution, cites the constitution in its preamble.
I like to think that concept was invented here in Pennsylvania, when Act 17 of 1995, a gun control bill that violated our state constitution eight ways to Sunday, cited Article I, Section 21 (our state “Second Amendment” in its preamble. The author of that preamble contended that his words “made the state constitution more powerful” (!) but many of us thought it weakened the constitution by creating a precedent that the “rights of the citizens” encompassed gun control.
October 29th, 2005 at 9:09 am
Yeah, ironic isn’t it. While I don’t care for the bill, it doesn’t really upset me. I’m rather lukewarm on it.
Thanks for the comment.