PDA

View Full Version : Landmark Gun Bill Becomes Law



Knimrod
10-26-2005, 11:42 PM
Landmark Gun Bill Becomes Law
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
October 26, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - President George W. Bush on Wednesday signed a bill intended to protect the gun industry from politically motivated lawsuits stemming from the criminal misuse of their products.

The "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" (S. 397) passed both the House and Senate with bipartisan support.

"This is an historic day for freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, which made the bill its top legislative priority. He called it the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in 20 years.

"History will show that this law helped save the American firearms industry from collapse under the burden of these ruinous and politically motivated lawsuits," LaPierre added.

In late July, the Senate approved the measure 65-31. Last week, the House overwhelmingly passed the bill 283-144.

"What we witness today is the culmination of a seven-year effort that included a comprehensive legislative and election strategy," said Chris W. Cox, NRA's chief lobbyist.

"We worked hard to change the political landscape to pass this landmark legislation." Cox said, adding that "key electoral victories" in 2000, 2002 and 2004 paved the way for passage of the law.

LaPierre said the law will preserve both the American firearms industry as well as American manufacturing jobs.

"American companies will cease to make products if they continue to be sued every time a violent criminal they do not know, have never met and cannot control, misuses a legal non-defective product," LaPierre said.

Legal challenge expected

Before Congress even passed the bill, a gun control group announced it would challenge the measure on constitutional grounds.

Lawyers at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence call the bill a "special interest extravaganza" that threatens the rights of "gun victims."

The Brady Center, which has filed a number of negligence/nuisance lawsuits against the gun industry, said Congress can pass the bill, the president can sign it, but "this shameful law will not stand."

Dennis Henigan, director of the Brady Center's Legal Action Project, said earlier this month that his group believes state and federal courts across the nation are prepared to strike down the law.

Link to story (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200510\CUL20 051026b.html)

Jim Simmons
10-27-2005, 07:47 AM
Dennis Henigan, director of the Brady Center's Legal Action Project, said earlier this month that his group believes state and federal courts across the nation are prepared to strike down the law.

On what basis? This is about as clearly about interstate commerce as it gets?

I'm suprised, quite frankly. I didn't think the Senate had the cajones to get it through without debilitating amendments.

ZIPGRAVER
10-27-2005, 08:08 AM
I thought I read somewhere that the bill had a couple of amendments that could basically outlaw ammunition.... I think.

Divegeek
10-27-2005, 11:17 AM
I thought I read somewhere that the bill had a couple of amendments that could basically outlaw ammunition.... I think.

There were two items that some are refering to as gun control compromises:

1) mandatory trigger locks or locking cases must be sold with all new handguns.

2) a ban on "armor piercing" ammunition.

The problem with the AP ammo ban is that the definition of AP ammo was a little vague and under the right circumstances could be changed to include 90% of the ammo out there.

bluethunder
10-27-2005, 12:38 PM
All in all, IMHO it's a win for us. :deal2:

Kimber45
10-27-2005, 12:55 PM
From the NRA-ILA site:

"The second measure--an amendment by Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)--passed by a margin of 87-11, and was offered this year (as it was in 2004) in a successful attempt to defeat Senator Edward Kennedy's "armor piercing" ammunition amendment that would have banned all centerfire rifle ammunition. By providing an alternative to Senator Kennedy's amendment, pro-gun senators were able to marshal the votes to defeat the Kennedy amendment.

The amendment restates the existing prohibition on manufacture, or sale by manufacturers, of "armor piercing ammunition," except for government use, for export, or for use in testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General. This law has been in effect for nearly two decades. It increases the mandatory minimum sentence for the use of "armor piercing ammunition" in a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. Use of armor piercing ammunition in a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime is already a federal offense punishable by five years in prison. The amendment increases the penalty to 15 years, and authorizes the death penalty if the ammunition is used in a murder. It also directs the Attorney General to conduct a study "to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible." In fact, we know such a standard is "feasible" because the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has been testing projectiles against body armor since the early 1970s, and has regularly written and updated the standards for testing projectiles against body armor. NIJ's research has saved lives by improving the design and manufacture of body armor.

The amendment does not give the Attorney General (or anyone else) any new authority to ban ammunition, nor does it change the definition of "armor piercing ammunition." Under current law, ammunition is only "armor piercing" if it has a bullet that "may be used in a handgun" and that is made entirely from certain hard metals such as tungsten, steel, bronze or depleted uranium; or if the bullet is "designed and intended for use in a handgun" and has a jacket that weighs more than 25% of the weight of the projectile. The current definition has been in place for more than 12 years.

And finally, the amendment does not create any kind of new ammunition ban. The only ammunition that is banned as "armor piercing" is ammunition that fits the current definition, and neither the amendment nor the study would change the definition."