Help Rep. Musgrave Strip Gun Control From Liability Bill

More Calls Needed to the House of Representatives
— Help Rep. Musgrave strip ALL gun control language from lawsuit protection bill

“We’re going to hit them right where it hurts — in their bank accounts — and we won’t stop hitting until they stop flooding our streets with guns.” — Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, a leading proponent of the “bankrupt the gun industry” movement

This quote demonstrates the rabid zealotry that exists in the anti-gun community. It also shows why it’s so important for Congress to enact good legislation that will put an end to the dozens of frivolous lawsuits that have been launched against the gun industry.

At least two gun makers — Bryco and Navegar — have already been put out of business. And many other gun makers have been forced to dole out millions of dollars to protect themselves from these unscrupulous attorneys.

If we want to continue enjoying our Second Amendment rights, it is imperative that we work through the Congress to put a halt to these injurious attacks.

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave has taken up the cause in the House. She wants the Congress to send the President a CLEAN bill that will protect gun makers and sellers, without punishing gun owners in any way. The House bill (H.R. 800) is much better than the Senate version (S. 397), since the former is free and clear of all gun control.

As introduced, S. 397 would have been a good first step towards curtailing anti-gun lawsuits. Unfortunately, Senator Frist allowed two anti-gun amendments to be offered, and they turned a marginally beneficial bill into a huge albatross.

The first amendment — offered by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) — requires gun dealers to include a “lock-up-your-safety” device with every handgun sold. In addition to imposing a “gun tax” on every handgun buyer, this amendment paves the way for future legislation mandating that gun owners use those trigger locks.

The second provision — offered by Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) — amended the armor-piercing bullet provisions of federal law. At its core, the Craig language did two things:

* It gave impetus to adopting a “penetration standard” for armor piercing bullets by commissioning a Justice Department study of the issue. If a “penetration standard” were adopted, a gun-adverse administration could probably use it to ban virtually all ammunition.

* It established a fifteen year MANDATORY MINIMUM PRISON SENTENCE for anyone who carries a single armor piercing bullet during the commission of a “crime of violence” — or who “possesses” such a bullet “in furtherance of… such crime…”

It is significant that “crime of violence” is defined in 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3) to mean a felony that (1) involves the actual, attempted, or threatened use of force against person or property, or (2) involves a “substantial risk” of force against person or property.

Hence, if a concealed carry permit holder opens his coat to display a firearm in order to thwart an assault — and such an action is prohibited by a state’s anti-self defense law and therefore constitutes a felony of “criminal threatening” — then the court must sentence the concealed carry permit holder to a fifteen year mandatory minimum sentence if he is carrying an “armor piercing bullet.” The judge has no discretion.

The only “good news” in regard to the Craig language is that the 18 U.S.C. 921 definition of “armor piercing ammunition” was not affected. The definition is fairly restricted and limited to:

* A handgun projectile wholly made of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium, or

* A handgun projectile larger than .22 caliber with a jacket weighing more than 25% of the total weight of the projectile.

Thankfully, Rep. Musgrave is pushing the House leadership to get real lawsuit protection enacted, without endangering the Second Amendment rights of gun owners in any way.


Do You Understand the Meaning of “the Militia”?

Border security is a hot topic these days. But the solution isn’t another alphabet-soup government agency, or more taxpayer dollars funneled into even more federal law enforcement. It’s using the militia, the way our Founding Fathers intended.

Listen as GOA’s Larry Pratt interviews Dr. Edwin Vieira, who has been doing some astounding research into the constitutional basis of the militia and how it applies to both the Second Amendment and the security issues facing our country today.

Got to and scroll down to the show “News & Views,” click and then select the 08/04/05 broadcast.