Senate Vote Sounds Bell Between Rounds in Rights Fight
March 20, 2004

by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

My Hindsight column in the Mar. 10 issue of Gun Week was written on Mar. 24, the day that issue went to press. In many ways, it proved to be prophetic.

In noting that the Senate debate over what we all called S-659 at the time but was really S-1805 when it hit the Senate floor was scheduled to begin that day, I reviewed some of the background to the bill.

“Officially,” I began, “S-659 is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Opponents have been using a variety of names, depending on their latest spin. For example, they have called it the gunmakers’ immunity bill, and more recently, the Bulls Eye protection bill, as they try to link the measure to the Tacoma, WA, store where the ‘Beltway snipers’ rifle was allegedly stolen.”

I stressed that this was an important piece of legislation for both sides of the gun rights debate.

“The firearms industry has been fighting a very costly defensive battle in federal and several state courts since some 30 cities and counties began filing lawsuits based on strange and unproven legal theories in late 1998. The industry is believed to have spent in the area of $10 million defending against these suits, and has won several outright, but is still facing appeals on others,” I said in that column. Actually, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the industry’s principle trade organization, released a later statement claiming that the industry has actually spent closer to $150 million defending against these politically motivated suits.

“These suits are at the heart of the anti-gun strategy,” I said, “because the courts are seen as the one route the Brady Gang can take to possible success when they have been failing to get state legislatures and Congress to pass the kind of legislation they want. The Brady Gang has followed the court strategy for several years in the hope of bankrupting the firearms industry out of existence.

“They will do anything to defeat S-659,” I continued, “because they are still hoping for just one lawsuit in which the court will impose punitive sanctions on the entire gun industry—manufacturers, distributors, importers and dealers. That’s all it will take, just one court victory.

“Gunowners have an important stake in this debate. If the anti-gunners manage to crush the industry in a court, the supply of new firearms products will suddenly dry up. No company will be able to afford the manufacture or sale of firearms and ammunition. Needless to say, there will be little or no research and development on new guns or cartridges. The lawsuits have already been keeping new product development down. . . .

“The original schedule called for S-659 to be debated over three days in early March. Then it was moved forward to this week. (Actually the final debate and amendments spanned the end of one week and the beginning of another, ending up about where it had originally been scheduled for the Senate calendar.)

“But at the same time, the stage was set for anti-gunners to bring out all the bills that have been bottled up throughout the Bush Administration and the GOP control of both the House and Senate to be offered as amendments to the liability bill.

“Nothing in Washington, DC, is ever as simple as it seems. Consider for a moment that the anti-gunners will be offering amendments that will renew and extend the 1994 ‘assault weapon’ ban which is due to expire this September, simply renew the ban, require background checks for all private sales at gun shows and matches, etc.

“I’m sure there are other ones to be offered by the likes of Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), John McCain (R-AZ) and John Reed (D-RI). I’m sure there will be others, including some that have nothing to do with guns at all. The point is not to turn S-659 into an anti-gun bill, but to insert poison pills that will end up dividing the gun industry and the gun community.”

The prophetic key sentence followed:

“For the anti-gunners, the strategy is simple: defeat S-659 and keep the door open for that one gun suit they want to win so desperately.”

Well, that has now happened.

The anti-gunners trotted out all their favorites: extending the ban on so-called assault weapons and “high capacity” magazines and shutting down gun shows by requiring a complicated background check system for private sales.

They managed to attach both of these key anti-gun proposals to what started out as a pro-gun measure. But the anti-gun Democrats and their helpful Republican allies were not the only ones messing with a measure that the White House hoped would arrive as a “clean” bill.

Some pro-gunners pushed and passed a controversial proposal to exempt active and retired law enforcement personnel from state prohibitions on concealed carry, as well as enhanced penalties for use of “armor-piercing” ammunition against police officers.

In the end, pro-gun forces were forced to push for defeat of the original bill. Fortunately, the whole mess was thrown in the ash can where it belonged. It may come back again this year, or next. However, in the meanwhile, the gun issue has been put squarely on the front burner for this year’s presidential and congressional elections.

Here are a few comments that reflect both the anti-gun jubilation over what proved to be a winning strategy for them and the media’s mouth-watering over a possible bruising political fight over guns this summer and fall.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (BCPGV) and its subsidiary “Million” Mom March put out a statement after the liability bill was rejected.

“The American people today won a major victory for public safety, police officers and the victims of crimes involving negligent gun dealers,” said Michael Barnes, president of BCPGV. “Our victory today empowers us to win the renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban and the closing of the gun show loophole later this year. And since President Bush has already said that he supports these measures, we hope he will now work to get these measures through Congress and enacted into law.”

“Quite simply, today’s victory shows that NRA extremism is completely out of sync with American values,” Barnes concluded.

The press release went on to extol people who should be remembered this fall.

“The bipartisan circle of Senators who ultimately brought down the immunity bill included Senators Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Dianne Feinstein of California,” the Brady Bunch continued. “They were joined on the assault weapons amendment by such Republican leaders as Senator John Warner of Virginia and, on the gun show loophole vote, by Senator John McCain of Arizona.”

And Associated Press (AP) commented that “The demise of Republican gun legislation in the Senate and a stalemate over renewing the assault-style weapons ban thrusts gun control squarely into the fall presidential campaign, both sides in the debate say.”

AP continued with “The Senate voted 90-8 on Tuesday to scuttle a GOP-sponsored bill that would have given gunmakers liability protection against lawsuits. The vote came after Democrats gained enough Republican support to amend the bill to extend the assault-weapons ban and to require background checks for gun show purchases.

“Those provisions caused the National Rifle Association to withdraw its support for the bill, and Senate Republican leaders decided to kill it.

“The vote gave Democrats and gun control advocates an unexpected victory in the GOP-controlled Congress and all but eliminated any chance for passage this year of gun legislation. The gunmaker liability bill was a priority for President Bush. It would have shielded gunmakers from suits stemming from use of a gun in a crime.

“Bush and Senate Democrats, including Bush’s likely Democratic challenger, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, support reauthorization of the assault weapons ban but there is no sure way of getting House approval before the ban expires in September.”

Then AP closed with words from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).

“You can be sure it’s going to be in the presidential campaign as a bona fide issue as to whether the American people want AK-47s, street sweepers and Uzis sold once again,” said Feinstein, according to AP.

For gunowners who thought the battle over gun rights had gone away, this may be a wake-up call. The struggle to retain and regain firearms civil rights never ended. The Senate vote on Mar. 2 was just a bell between rounds.