‘United We Stand,’ But Where’s the Action?
May 20, 2005
by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor
The phrase is ubiquitous since Sept. 11, 2001.
Almost everywhere you go you will see bumper stickers, window decals, counter signs and buttons that proclaim the truism of “United We Stand.” What goes unsaid in these displays is the rest of the historic phrase: “. . . Divided We Fall!”
The United We Stand pledge should have special meaning for firearms civil rights activists and gunowners as well as those who are engaged in the firearms business. They should know that the gun grabbers are determined to abolish the moral and constitutional right to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes have been trying to achieve their goals by dividing gunowners and those who support the right to bear arms for defense and recreation. When shotgunners don’t stand unified with handgunners, the antis win. When handgunners don’t support .50-caliber rifle owners, the antis win.
The antis also lie to the uncommitted public that helps decide the outcome of every public policy issue. One case in point is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (S-397 in the Senate; HR-800 in the House) which is still ripening in Congress after many years. The anti-gunners claim that, if passed, the measure will provide special protection for the firearms industry, stripping away normal liability concerns involving product defects and insulating the makers and sellers who violate the many existing laws from criminal prosecution.
Deception
That is patently false. S-397/HR-800 provides no such protection. The average citizens who buys, owns and uses firearms will still be able to sue for defects in workmanship and materials, for deceptive practices, improper warrantees and because of any illegal act. The manufacturers, distributors, importers and retail dealers licensed under existing federal law also will still be liable for criminal prosecution for any violation of law.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act merely does what its title says; it prevents the reckless and frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers designed to destroy a lawful industry by the torturous death of a 1,000 lawsuits. Such suits have the secondary purpose of shutting down legal access for Americans to a supply of new and used firearms, accessories and ammunition.
The lawsuits filed by anti-gun politicians—with the encouragement and assistance of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence—in some 30 cities, counties and states over the past seven years under novel theories of law that have cost the firearms industry over $100 million to defend against, are exactly the perversion of justice that would be ended by passage of S-397/HR-800.
The anti-gun organizations and their sponsoring fat-cat tax-exempt foundations have been relying on the frivolous lawsuit scheme to accomplish what they have been unable to accomplish through the normal legislative process. So far they have been dismissed by most state and federal courts where they were filed. A few such suits are still in a seemingly endless appeals process. Fewer still have been allowed to proceed to discovery. And some, like the suit filed by the city of Boston, have been withdrawn by their sponsors.
The anti-gunners keep trying because they only have to win one of these suits, even if all the others are dismissed by the courts. Once they are victorious in one court, they will file more such new suits, and trial lawyers will use this model to attack other industries they believe have deep pockets.
Non-Gunowner Support
That is why the US Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business federation, has endorsed passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Bullet Points, R. Bruce Josten, writing on behalf of the Chamber, said: “The US Chamber of Commerce is greatly concerned about the growing trend of litigation being filed against entire legal industries with the goal of either raising government revenue or achieving policy goals outside the constraints of the political process.”
“The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” he continued, “would help curtail this abusive situation. This narrowly tailored legislation is designed to limit speculative litigation against the firearms industry for legally selling their product. The legislation makes it clear that, in most circumstances, a cause of action does not exist against the manufacturer or seller of qualified firearms or a trade association for the criminal or unlawful misuse of the product by the plaintiff or third party.”
The whole anti-gun litigation process has involved a great and wasteful cost, not just to the lawful industry defending itself, but to the taxpayers in the communities which have filed the suits, to the foundations which have bankrolled the anti-gun lawyers, and to firearms consumers. Gunowners and would-be gunowners have been denied the fruits of new product research and development because the firearms industry has had to divert funds for R&D to the baseless lawsuits filed on fantasy legal theories. You have already experienced a loss because of these reckless lawsuits and you are at risk of losing even more, possibly all access to the arms for defense and recreation.
While these municipal lawsuits were first filed in 1998, the strategy of destroying the firearms industry and firearms rights through the judicial rather than legislative process was first postulated more than 20 years ago by Sam Fields, then an executive at the Coalition to Ban Handguns. The idea didn’t ripen until more recently, but the anti-gunners are nothing if not determined.
The anti-gun organizations are unified in their goals even as they have continued to try and divide pro-gunners in many ways over the past 40 years or so. They used to target all handguns, then aimed for a smaller target, the so-called Saturday night special. (Actually, in at least one measure that died in Congress during the 1970s, “Saturday night special” would have included the venerable Chiefs Special and the classic Model 1911.)
They have used countless other splintering devices, attacking legal full autos, common semi-autos, and even some shotguns commonly used for target shooting and hunting. All of these efforts were designed to deceive some gunowners into ignoring the attack on other gunowners.
NATO Doctrine
Some gunowners wised up and many have subscribed to the NATO Doctrine of activism first adopted at the 2nd annual Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC) in Buffalo, NY, in 1987 on a motion by Linda Farmer, then an officer in the National Firearms Association. The NATO Doctrine has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the activists attending the 17 GRPCs which have followed.
The NATO doctrine resolution is simple: An attack on one class of firearms ownership is an attack on all firearms ownership and should be resisted by all gunowners.
Essentially what the delegates to those GRPCs have been articulating is a restatement of “United We Stand.”
However, I’m never sure what many folks, including some gunowners, mean by United We Stand. I’m wondering if they just like the sound of the phrase, or if they believe by simply adopting such a position, they are really doing anything pro-active.
“United We Stand,” but for what and against whom? More importantly, what are those who display the slogan doing pro-actively to achieve an objective? Being “united” implies activism. And the minimum action that truly demonstrates that unity is to participate in the political process. It means contacting your senators and representatives to express your views on S-397/HR-800 or on any other issue. If you stand united with others, you have to clearly inform lawmakers with letters, calls and e-mails, and the media with letters to the editor, and other people by speaking out.
Where you stand united is important, but standing on an issue requires action of some sort. Have you told others where and for what you stand recently? Standing is grand, but action helps produce results, and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act deserves a clear up or down vote on a clean bill—and soon.
Return to Archive Index
