Anti-gun forces fire away at issues

[LifeNRA]

Anti-gun forces fire away at issues affecting sportsmen

Mike Barcaskey, Times Outdoor Sports

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was introduced again this year as S.B. 397 in the U.S. Senate and H.R. 800 in the U.S. House.

The National Rifle Association-backed legislation would protect law-abiding firearm manufacturers from reckless, predatory, and potentially bankrupting lawsuits. Any gun that is misused, including common sporting arms like a Mossberg 835 or Winchester 70, could trigger a lawsuit that would bankrupt all involved with the firearm from the manufacturer down to the local gun shop.

In 2003, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on a vote of 285-140, enjoyed more than 50 Senate co-sponsors, and had the full support of President Bush. The legislation was torpedoed in the Senate in 2004, after senators attached a number of anti-gun amendments to the underlying measure.

Sportsmen can contact their U.S. Senators and Representatives and ask them to co-sponsor and support S.B. 397 and H.R. 800, without any anti-gun amendments, and put a halt to these reckless lawsuits once and for all. Be sure to let them know that you consider any votes in support of anti-gun amendments to this legislation as votes against the bill itself.

Current information on this issue can be found on the NRA-ILA website at www.NRAILA.org

--

I usually don't take much stock in polls. Whether political, social or otherwise, they typically are touting some idea on the other side of the fence from where I'm sitting. So when I see a poll commissioned and conducted by two reliable organizations, about a subject I am interested, I take notice.

The Second Amendment Foundation recently released the results of a recent poll it commissioned, conducted by Zogby International, which shows overwhelming rejection by likely American voters of the notion that banning guns would be effective in the fight against terrorism.

Since the 9/11 tragedy, anti-gun forces have tried to use the threat of terrorism to disarm law-abiding sportsmen and gun owners.

Asked whether they agreed or disagreed that banning guns would reduce the threat from terrorists, poll respondents disagreed by a margin of 75 percent. Only one in five supported the notion, and five percent were not sure. Zogby polled 1,009 likely voters chosen at random nationwide with a margin error of plus/minus 3.2 percent.

Second Amendment Foundation Founder Alan Gottlieb said the poll results clearly show that anti-gunners trying to use terrorism as an excuse to pass more restrictive gun laws are out of step with the American public.

--

On March 31, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell signed an Executive Order creating the "Commission to Address Gun Violence."

Rendell said he is asking the 21-member commission to provide to him by May 16 proposed "sensible" legislation that "balances our responsibility to protect our citizens with their constitutional right to own guns as law-abiding citizens and sportsmen."

To a large extent, this has sprung from a rash of violence that has occurred in Philadelphia recently. Thus far this year, 72 people have been killed by gunfire in Philadelphia.

Pennsylvania sportsmen will have to keep an eye on this commission to insure our rights are protected and not compromised.

Mike Barcaskey is The Times Outdoors Coordinator.

[Bruce Schmeck]

Re: Anti-gun forces fire away at issues

John thanks for the heads up. I don't trust "Fast Eddie Rendell" further than I can spit. (Maybe not even that far, on second thought) We need to remain vigilant on this issue since most of his power base comes from the Philly area.

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

Re: Anti-gun forces fire away at issues

[ QUOTE ]

In 2003, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on a vote of 285-140, enjoyed more than 50 Senate co-sponsors, and had the full support of President Bush. The legislation was torpedoed in the Senate in 2004, after senators attached a number of anti-gun amendments to the underlying measure.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read an article yesterday that was quoting DNC Chairman Howard Dean as saying that "guns will not be an issue for the Democrats in their 2006 and 2008 campaigns."

How much do you want to bet that when this bill comes up in the Senate this year, it gets torpedoed again by the same bunch of anti-2nd Amendment senators?

Watch for Sens. Clinton, Schumar, Kerry and Kennedy to do everything they possibly can to defeat the legislation. And when that happens, I'm going to be on here asking Howard Dean just what he meant by "guns aren't going to be an issue with Democrats."