S.397, NRA, Guns, Second Amendment, Brady Center
John J. Cahill
July 27, 2005
As this editorial goes to the editor this breaking news arrived: On Monday, the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act acquired a 60th Senate co-sponsor - Sen. Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia Democrat. It easily passed the first hurdle on passage, being brought to the floor for debate on a 66-32 vote.
Mr. Byrd's signature gave the bill 60 co-sponsors, assuring a filibuster-proof majority and passage on the floor, said Dan Whiting, spokesman for Sen. Larry E. Craig, Idaho Republican and the bill's sponsor.
And from another source: Debate began Tuesday on the bill after a test vote indicated it had strong support. Twelve Democrats, including minority leader Harry Reid, joined the Republican majority in the 66-32 vote. The bill's proponents say it could pass before the Senate adjourns later this week for its summer recess.
The story about the Brady Center deception, or misunderstanding (editor’s caution, thank you), using the names of Nevada Sheriffs on a letter used in their Congressional testimony opposing S.397 received nearly 2000 hits in the first five days of publication at AmericanChronicle.com. That attention is strong testimony to the interest and involvement of the Second Amendment community in protecting individual rights.
Our rights can never be sustained by fighting for them in one party. We must have an organized voice in both major parties if our rights are to be recognized and respected in the long run. We should not allow our rights to be politicized, and we should not allow either party to use such rights for political purposes. That happened on the vote for Gun Liability legislation in 2004.
Here is the story the way I saw it, and you may only hear this right here.
The 2004 Gun Liability legislation came up for three days of debate that started on Feb 27, 2004 and ended with an impressive display of NRA lobbying power when the amended bill S.1806 was voted down hard with 90 NAY votes.
The most interesting vote was the amendment to extend the Assault Weapon Ban (so called). That amendment stood alone as a bill-killer. Gun owners and their lobbyist were just sick and tired of the AWB baloney. That ban offended logic and reason. It had no effect on crime, it didn’t change a darned thing in our gun safes, and the only thing it changed in sales was that some wiley firearms traders profited from marketing of “pre-ban” guns at inflated profits. Extension of that ban was nonsense of a variety that could not be tolerated, so the Gun Liability legislation died.
While persuaded by the CATO argument that Congress should keep its nose out of state tort law, what remains is an unacceptable circumstance of taxpayer’s money being paid to local government lawyers to file lawsuits that take up the time of overburdened courts and require the employment of additional lawyers by small arms manufacturers to defend against claims that are motivated more by political agendas than a fight for justice. In other words, we are sick of paying for both sides of this nonsense, even when nearly 100% of the suits have been kicked out of court and the few that have been paid reflect an expedient settlement to avoid costs involved with further litigation (this might be called paying blackmail in almost any other circumstance).
While most gun rights activists can name some high-profile gun control Democrats in our Senate, few or none can name the ten Republican Senators who voted YES on the AWB renewal amendment in 2004, and thus effectively killed the bill. Equally unknown to the laymen are the names of the six Democrats who voted NO.
That 2004 AWB renewal amendment passed 52-47-1 and so would have failed easily without the ten Republican votes.
So how could it happen that the majority would allow ten members to kill a bill that the majority said it wanted to pass? There are sometimes a couple of obstinate and independent members who oppose their own party on an important vote, but where did ten come from?
Here is one observer’s analysis. The ten Republican votes were placed by very secure Senators representing states that include at least a few large urban constituent groups that would forgive, maybe even support, the renewal of the AWB. These Republicans were given cover by President Bush who says he will sign the AWB renewal if the Congress puts it on his desk. Think here “have you cake and eat it too” – certainly the Congress has instruction to NEVER put it on Bush’s desk.
So what could possibly be gained by the majority allowing this legislation to be killed by its own members and letting down a constituency that helped bring them to power, and how could that majority resist their friends in the NRA, commonly described as the most powerful grassroots lobbying organization in this nation? Politics is the answer. Politics won and our rights lost when that AWB renewal amendment was voted on to the bill.
All this took place in a Presidential election year. A year when it was viewed as critical to have issues that would divide the electorate along predictable lines of a mythical culture war.
So it was politically expedient to let the 2004 gun liability be killed by amendments sponsored by Senators who would be touted as evil gun-hating Democrats, and then voted for by Republicans from a majority that would later use it as proof that more Republican Senators were needed to avoid such injustice. This strategy can only be successful if a majority of voters do not know how majority/minority power works in the Senate. Hey baby, loyal Second Amendment voters got played.
If it helps in considering this cynical perspective, remember that the 2004 gun liability bill was made filibuster-proof by the leadership of then Minority Whip Harry Reid. The threat of a filibuster was taken out of play by the bipartisan support of 60 Senators. Filibuster was never a threat in the debate.
Bottom line is that the majority failed in 2004 as a political strategy and this week we will see if they will do it again looking toward 2006, or if they will do what they promised and pass S.397.
Do not take for granted your Senator’s action on S.397. Contact him or her and say you want it now. No more ‘04 politics.
Ten Republicans who voted YES to the AWB renewal in 2004
Chafee (R-RI)
Collins (R-ME)
DeWine (R-OH)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Gregg (R-NH)
Lugar (R-IN)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Six Democrats who voted NO to the AWB renewal in 2004
Baucus (D-MT)
Feingold (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Not voting - Johnson (D-SD)
Mr. Byrd's signature gave the bill 60 co-sponsors, assuring a filibuster-proof majority and passage on the floor, said Dan Whiting, spokesman for Sen. Larry E. Craig, Idaho Republican and the bill's sponsor.
And from another source: Debate began Tuesday on the bill after a test vote indicated it had strong support. Twelve Democrats, including minority leader Harry Reid, joined the Republican majority in the 66-32 vote. The bill's proponents say it could pass before the Senate adjourns later this week for its summer recess.
The story about the Brady Center deception, or misunderstanding (editor’s caution, thank you), using the names of Nevada Sheriffs on a letter used in their Congressional testimony opposing S.397 received nearly 2000 hits in the first five days of publication at AmericanChronicle.com. That attention is strong testimony to the interest and involvement of the Second Amendment community in protecting individual rights.
Our rights can never be sustained by fighting for them in one party. We must have an organized voice in both major parties if our rights are to be recognized and respected in the long run. We should not allow our rights to be politicized, and we should not allow either party to use such rights for political purposes. That happened on the vote for Gun Liability legislation in 2004.
Here is the story the way I saw it, and you may only hear this right here.
The 2004 Gun Liability legislation came up for three days of debate that started on Feb 27, 2004 and ended with an impressive display of NRA lobbying power when the amended bill S.1806 was voted down hard with 90 NAY votes.
The most interesting vote was the amendment to extend the Assault Weapon Ban (so called). That amendment stood alone as a bill-killer. Gun owners and their lobbyist were just sick and tired of the AWB baloney. That ban offended logic and reason. It had no effect on crime, it didn’t change a darned thing in our gun safes, and the only thing it changed in sales was that some wiley firearms traders profited from marketing of “pre-ban” guns at inflated profits. Extension of that ban was nonsense of a variety that could not be tolerated, so the Gun Liability legislation died.
While persuaded by the CATO argument that Congress should keep its nose out of state tort law, what remains is an unacceptable circumstance of taxpayer’s money being paid to local government lawyers to file lawsuits that take up the time of overburdened courts and require the employment of additional lawyers by small arms manufacturers to defend against claims that are motivated more by political agendas than a fight for justice. In other words, we are sick of paying for both sides of this nonsense, even when nearly 100% of the suits have been kicked out of court and the few that have been paid reflect an expedient settlement to avoid costs involved with further litigation (this might be called paying blackmail in almost any other circumstance).
While most gun rights activists can name some high-profile gun control Democrats in our Senate, few or none can name the ten Republican Senators who voted YES on the AWB renewal amendment in 2004, and thus effectively killed the bill. Equally unknown to the laymen are the names of the six Democrats who voted NO.
That 2004 AWB renewal amendment passed 52-47-1 and so would have failed easily without the ten Republican votes.
So how could it happen that the majority would allow ten members to kill a bill that the majority said it wanted to pass? There are sometimes a couple of obstinate and independent members who oppose their own party on an important vote, but where did ten come from?
Here is one observer’s analysis. The ten Republican votes were placed by very secure Senators representing states that include at least a few large urban constituent groups that would forgive, maybe even support, the renewal of the AWB. These Republicans were given cover by President Bush who says he will sign the AWB renewal if the Congress puts it on his desk. Think here “have you cake and eat it too” – certainly the Congress has instruction to NEVER put it on Bush’s desk.
So what could possibly be gained by the majority allowing this legislation to be killed by its own members and letting down a constituency that helped bring them to power, and how could that majority resist their friends in the NRA, commonly described as the most powerful grassroots lobbying organization in this nation? Politics is the answer. Politics won and our rights lost when that AWB renewal amendment was voted on to the bill.
All this took place in a Presidential election year. A year when it was viewed as critical to have issues that would divide the electorate along predictable lines of a mythical culture war.
So it was politically expedient to let the 2004 gun liability be killed by amendments sponsored by Senators who would be touted as evil gun-hating Democrats, and then voted for by Republicans from a majority that would later use it as proof that more Republican Senators were needed to avoid such injustice. This strategy can only be successful if a majority of voters do not know how majority/minority power works in the Senate. Hey baby, loyal Second Amendment voters got played.
If it helps in considering this cynical perspective, remember that the 2004 gun liability bill was made filibuster-proof by the leadership of then Minority Whip Harry Reid. The threat of a filibuster was taken out of play by the bipartisan support of 60 Senators. Filibuster was never a threat in the debate.
Bottom line is that the majority failed in 2004 as a political strategy and this week we will see if they will do it again looking toward 2006, or if they will do what they promised and pass S.397.
Do not take for granted your Senator’s action on S.397. Contact him or her and say you want it now. No more ‘04 politics.
Ten Republicans who voted YES to the AWB renewal in 2004
Chafee (R-RI)
Collins (R-ME)
DeWine (R-OH)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Gregg (R-NH)
Lugar (R-IN)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Six Democrats who voted NO to the AWB renewal in 2004
Baucus (D-MT)
Feingold (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Not voting - Johnson (D-SD)
Print
Email
