-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Summary of senate events around S1805 Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 18:50:57 -0600 From: Matthew Hunter <matthew@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> You might find this interesting for Politech; although the firearms angle isn't your usual fare, there is a politech angle: the influence demonstrated by the Internet (and bloggers in particular) on the political process. S1805 is the "Lawful Protection of Commerce in Arms Act" (ie, the gun liability bill), and the fight concerned the amendments to that act (containing, among others, the assault weapons ban renewal and a measure restricting gun shows). Here's a summary: http://www.triggerfinger.org/weblog/entry/4959.jsp And for a more in-depth examination: http://www.triggerfinger.org/weblog/category/119 Here's a snip from the first link: Rocky Mountain Gun Owners sends out email warning its members that the NRA is brokering a backroom deal to get the legislation passed, with the AWB and/or the gun shows bill attached, in the hopes that it can be stripped out in the house. This is a ricky legislative strategy, and the NRA's record is far from spotless; suspicions are understandable but lacking in proof. This warning sparked a LOT of opposition from within the gun-owning Internet community -- enough tthat the NRA started sending out emails of its own denying the accusation, but leaving themselves a suspiciously large amount of wiggle room. So, Senators are getting deluged by gun owners urging them to pass a clean bill, and at least some of these are specifying "but if the AWB is attached, kill it." Maybe some antis are calling in, too. Hard to say. [.....] Larry Craig, as I understand it the original author of S1805, stood up on the Senate floor and urged his colleagues to vote against his own bill. It was his bill, and he took personal responsibility to putting it out of its misery after the anti-gun amendments had tortured it. That takes balls. I'm proud of him for standing up and making that call. He made this tough decision and he got a vote of 90+ against his own bill. That's the anti-gunners voting against and that's the pro-gunners voting against; the ones left in the middle were the ones who wanted a compromise. Why is this such a big deal? Remember the pro-gun strategists were saying they could kill the provisions in the House! That's the NRA, folks, who issued a half-hearted denial of exactly that intent after the RMGO called them on it. For a long time, compromise has been the order of the day for the NRA and for pro-gun forces in the Senate. The Brady Bill, the Assault Weapons Ban, both were examples of compromise at work. Compromise a little here, a little there -- one slice of rights at a time. -- Matthew Hunter (matthew@private) Public Key: http://matthew.infodancer.org/public_key.txt Homepage: http://matthew.infodancer.org/index.jsp Politics: http://www.triggerfinger.org/index.jsp _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Mar 05 2004 - 07:07:50 PST