After the Red Lake shooting, I was rather surprised at the lack of calls for gun control. Even the Brady Campaign, an organization usually inclined to politicize the death of children, only made a half-hearted attempt. The SacBee notes the same thing:

The day after the Red Lake reservation shootings – the latest of three mass killings in Minnesota and Wisconsin in recent months – a group of House Democrats fired off a letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., demanding a fresh look at new gun legislation.
More than a week later, they’ve received no reply, and nobody believes there will be a bill-signing ceremony for gun legislation anytime soon.

Gun control is not on the agenda when Congress returns from spring break next week. Most Republicans are loath to do anything that could restrict gun rights, and Democrat leaders – still smarting from recent election reverses – aren’t eager to be the anti-gun party either.

Even in Illinois, there is a line drawn among rural and urban folks. Urban folks tend to support gun control while rural people do not. As such, Chicago-led bans aren’t going to fly in the rest of the state:

Illinois hunters and gun dealers are trying to shoot down a flurry of gun-control proposals they say rose from fear in the streets of Chicago, far from the downstate prairies and woods where guns are appreciated for sport.

They see no room for compromise on Chicago-led efforts to ban assault weapons and .50-caliber rifles and ammunition, and they oppose proposals to require background checks for gun-show purchases and to limit gun buyers to one handgun per month.

Some, however, still call for gun control regardless of its merits, like the Christian Science Monitor:

Yet even with such startling figures, and just six months after Congress shamefully allowed the assault weapons ban to expire, the National Rifle Association (NRA) remains committed to supporting bills now pending in the House and Senate that would grant broad immunity from liability in civil lawsuits to gun manufacturers and dealers. Sen. Jack Reed (D) of Rhode Island rightly calls that “an unprecedented blanket protection that no other industry enjoys.” And worse, the bills apparently are on a fast track, with a vote expected soon.

Both measures should fail.

First, the assault weapons ban was not effective at anything. It is shameful that the CSM is pimping some junk science on the issue. Additionally, there is no blanket immunity in the liability bills proposed. The bills are designed to stop the lawsuits aimed at breaking the gun industry. For instance:

One of the many problems with the bills: They include granting immunity to gun dealers who are reckless, some of whom even supply the criminal gun market. What’s more, the civil damages claim brought by the families of victims in the 2002 D.C.-area sniper shootings could not have moved forward had these bills been law.

Granting immunity to reckless dealers? That line is totally made up. The claims of the DC sniper shootings should have failed (at least against Bushmaster, though there is question that the retailer may have not acted responsibly). In fact, Bushmaster merely settled the suit on its own because it was cheaper to pay out than fight the battle. That is what these bills are designed to stop. Bushmaster made a lawful product and lawfully sold it to a dealer. They were not negligent and committed no crime. They should not have had to pay out.

Posted in uncategorized on April 5th, 2005 by SayUncle | RSS 2.0 |