Friday, November 07, 2003

From this editorial which I fisked below comes this tidbit:

"Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Jack Reed, D-R.I., Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., have introduced compromise legislation to close the gun-show loophole. heIt will be offered as an amendment to the gun-manufacturers immunity bill expected to come up for a vote this session. In addition, an amendment to renew the automatic weapons bill is expected to be attached."

& this:

"The problem is that the manufacturers immunity bill has the votes - TheRepublican votes are there, as well as and some key Democrats. Sadly, it is likely to pass, and President Bush has already said he'll sign it..."

This is the first i've heard about it. It's common to attempt to attach amendments to bills. But in case you miss the implications, here they are:

If both of these amendments gets attached to the S. 659; The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act then they would pass along with the parent bill. In other words a choice would have to be made between supporting a bill that offered some protection for legitmate firearm manufacturers & sellers, prevent private transactions of firearms at gun shows & extended the assault weapons ban or oppossing all three provisions.

Now what's likely? Who knows. The bills could both be attached to S. 659, or just one of them, or neither. Assuming one of them gets attached then it'd be a question of how many Senators thought the compromise was worth it.

Here is one thing to look for: no matter which bill gets attached, or even if both bills get attached, look for the NRA to still support passage of S. 659. Why? Because it's in the interest of the firearms manufacturers to pass this legislation at almost any cost. The gun show "loophole" attachment wouldn't create much of a stir, as it would actually increase business of dealers as they'd be running the background cheks on private transactions for a feee in most cases. & the industry is used to the assault weapons ban. They're l;aready working around it. They simply stand to profit more by preventing frivilous lawsuits than by manufacturing assault weapons. & the NRA has shown repeatedly that they care not for the Right to Arms, but their own self interests.

The GCA of 68 (two seperate bills that comprised what is known as the GCA of 68) was passed with the support & encouragement of both the NRA & the firearms manufacturers. Among other things the GCA stopped the mail order slae of surplus firearms & prevented the import of firearms without a "sporting use". This benefitted the manufacturers as they were receiving healthy competetion from mail order companies that sold surplus military weapons. The GCA of 68 stopped that competition. It benefitted the gun manufacturers fnancially & they supported its passage even though it interfered with our ability to exercise our Right to Arms.

The NRA will not go against the gun manufacturers without a very compelling reason. & that reason will not likely be found as a desire to protect the Rights of the people.

Also look for the NRA to justify any support of an amended S.659 by saying that either or both attachments would have passed regardless of their efforts & by supporting it they at least got a "partial victory" where they would have only had defeat. This is BS but don't say I didn't warn you.

To sum up, if either attachment gets attached to S.659 look for the NRA to betray us all again by supporting its passage while pretending to have fought the good fight. In fact I would not be surprised if it turns out a deal was struck by the NRA: support for S.659 in exchange for support for the attachments.

But at this point it's all speculation as I have nothing further to go on than the statements quoted above from a Denver Post article written by a gun control supporter. If anyone has info feel free to e mail me.

No comments: