The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
- -
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:20:52 -0600
From: Scott Bergeson <scottb@xmission.com>
Subject: FW: States' Rights, Gun Litigation and NRA
Is It The NRA vs. The GOA In Texas All Over Again?
By Carl F. Worden
Here we go again! This time, the NRA is threatening to pull its support of
the most constitutionally aggressive representative we have in Congress,
Ron Paul. Why? Because Representative Ron Paul insisted on maintaining
state's rights under Article X of the Bill of Rights, by opposing federal
legislation to thwart all litigation against firearms makers for simply
manufacturing guns that might be used to kill people.
Now, most gun owners would rejoice at that legislation, and I thought it was
a great idea too, until I was reminded it is just another federal violation
of Article X. Talk about mixed feelings!! I have them too, but unless and
until we learn to support and defend the Constitution in ALL cases, whether
we like them or not, we are just going to continue down the same road of
defiling that legally binding document.
Representative Paul has proven time and time again that he will not
compromise constitutional principle for any reason, and he happens to
be the strongest supporter of Second Amendment individual guns rights
we have in the Congress.
The NRA is engaging in "Situation Ethics", whereby they support the
idea that the ends justify the means if it happens to be something
the NRA supports. It doesn't matter to the NRA if the legislation is
unconstitutional on its face, so long as it gets them where they want
to go.
Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the authority
to tell a state or a citizen what kind of remedy by litigation they may
pursue in state or federal court, and Article X of the Bill of Rights
specifically bars the federal government from seizing authority in any
area not specifically given the federal government by the Constitution.
Any questions? Read it for yourself.
Let's take this a step further: If the federal government can pass
legislation barring state, city and individual lawsuits against gun
manufacturers for manufacturing guns, they can pass legislation barring
the same kind of lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers. They can
pass similar legislation barring lawsuits against any industry, from
pharmaceutical companies to automobile manufacturers. Representative
Paul recognized that, and therefore voted his conscience by opposing
the legislation, and the NRA had a cow.
Gun Owners of America, the second largest gun rights group, strongly
supports Representative Paul, regardless of his position on this
legislation, because its Director, Larry Pratt, appreciates
Representative Paul's uncompromising stance on constitutional ethics,
whether it be Second Amendment rights, or Tenth Amendment restrictions.
Do any of you happen to remember a dirt-bag by the name of Representative
Jack Brooks of Texas? Hmm? Most of us gun owners do. He is the man who
sat as House chairman of the Crime Conference Committee in 1994, the
committee considering whether to pass the 1994 "Crime Bill" that included
the infamous federal Assault Weapon Ban and a restriction on gun magazines
holding more than ten rounds. Brooks was also Chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee. Brooks was a Democrat, who usually supported most gun
rights legislation, but in this case Jack Brooks allowed the Crime Bill out
of his committee to be voted on, and it was subsequently passed into
legislation that just happens to come up for renewal under our current
president, George W. Bush.
Through a spokesman, our darling "pro-gun" Christian president has recently
stated his support for renewing the federal Assault Weapon Ban if and when
it glides across his desk. If I'm right, GW will be a one-term president
just like his father for that transgression. Remember, "Read my lips."?
Anyway, we would not have the federal Assault Weapon Ban were it not for
turncoat Representative Jack Brooks. And by the way, it turns out our Miss
Brooks took a virtual bribe: The crime bill included ten million dollars to
Lamar University, which coincidentally, was in Jack Brook's district. What
a shock. Brooks had been in continuous office a total of 42 years, but his
luck was about to change.
As a result of Brook's betrayal, a Republican challenger by the name of
Steve Stockman decided to run against Brooks. Gun Owners of America
staunchly backed Stockman against Brooks. Stockman was aggressively
pro-Second Amendment, and asked the support of the NRA as well.
Incredibly, the NRA placed its support behind Jack Brooks. Here was a man
who had almost single handedly allowed the federal Assault Weapon Ban to
pass into law, yet the NRA backed Brooks for no other reason than the
usually pro-gun Brooks had a better chance of winning! I swear I'm not
making this up.
As it turned out, Steve Stockman defeated the 42-year incumbent for his seat
in 1994, and to those of us who remember it well, the NRA had egg all over
its face. 1994 turned out to be the year the Democrats lost their power in
Congress, and former President Bill Clinton admitted that the passage of the
federal Assault Weapon Ban was the sole reason.
I haven't been a member of the NRA ever since the Jack Brooks debacle. When
that shameful act played out, I completely lost confidence in the management
of the NRA and lent my full support to Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Jews
For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO).
It looks like the NRA is about to make the same stupid mistake all over
again. It is perpetually wrong and foolhardy to believe the ends justify
the means, and only the most immoral subscribe to situation ethics. Perhaps
this will be a most well deserved nail in the NRA's coffin. Assuming the
average member is as outraged as me, it will probably result in yet another
substantial loss of NRA members.
Do they take lessons to garner this high level of stupidity, or what?
- ---
- -
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:35:13 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Mere Presence of guns "commands respect" and may prevent problems
"In any event, it seems obvious to expect that fewer people will want to cause trouble once they know the officer nearby is packing heat."
The following editorial from the Deseret News makes some very valid points. I, for one, believe that anyone wearing a uniform and expected to maintain safety and order is a natural target and ought to at least have the option of being armed. Whether the UTA can handle security with any greater sucess than they handle bus schedules, is another question altogether. ;)
I just think we ought to all remember that even liberal papers now agree that the presence of a firearm will command respect among scofflaws and that the knowledge a gun is (or may be) present may actually prevent some problems. It seems to me, the same logic applies to legally carried concealed weapons--though, perhaps, to a lessor degree as the presence of those weapons is generally presumed, rather than known, at least prior to one needing to be displayed.
I suggest some letters to the editor to point out this conclusion and to thank them for finally seeing the light. The presence of guns does not escalate a situation. In many cases the presence of a gun will prevent a situation from ever arrising.
Charles
"To submit a letter to the editor for publication in our Readers' Forum: Send the letter to <letters@desnews.com.> Letters must include a full name, address, city and telephone number."
Even under normal circumstances, a mass transit system that carries thousands of passengers daily, huddled together in close quarters, needs to provide the best security system possible. It's hard to see how that could be done adequately without armed guards.
But these are not normal circumstances. Utah may not be a likely target for terrorists, but it's safe to say a security force of armed officers could respond more quickly and effectively to any brewing crisis than could a force armed only with a book of citations. Beyond that, Utah is a state that allows anyone with a concealed weapons permit to carry a gun onto a train or bus. Why should the people charged with keeping the peace have less firepower than the people around them?
A year and a half ago, we urged the Utah Transit Authority to hire an armed and well-trained group of security guards. We're glad to see that UTA general manager John Inglish, after compiling a mountain of research on the subject, has agreed. Beginning sometime soon, the security folks who patrol trains and buses along the Wasatch Front will carry guns.
We hope they never have to use them. But if the officers are properly trained and certified, they will know when, in rare instances, to fire and when to rely on other means for keeping the peace. The important thing is they will instantly command respect among scofflaws who may be tempted to challenge them.
That seems to have been a problem lately. UTA officials are quick to point to an incident on March 19 when a passenger and his companion held a UTA officer at gunpoint before escaping. They remain at large today. Perhaps they will board a TRAX train again soon.
Such incidents are rare. Regular riders will attest that UTA's TRAX and bus system generally is safe. People are courteous. They line up to buy tickets even though chances are they won't be asked to show them. But even rare problems can turn tragic in a hurry.
UTA officers have the authority to detain people and to cite them for violating UTA ordinances. They cannot, however, make arrests. This has led to some frustrations in the past when officers ended up having to let a suspect go because the local police force didn't show up to make an arrest. We trust those problems have been worked out.
In any event, it seems obvious to expect that fewer people will want to cause trouble once they know the officer nearby is packing heat.
Below are two articles on the shall-issue measure passed by Minesota. A few highlights here:
"O.J. Simpson was not seeking a permit," Pariseau replied. "But maybe his wife needed one."
"The State Capitol, courthouses, federal facilities, airports, prisons, jails and state hospitals already are off limits to guns in most instances. The bill would add K-12 schools, child care centers and school buses to the list. Private businesses and places of worship could post signs to prohibit guns on those premises."
"City halls, recreation centers, parks, state and county fairgrounds, public convention centers, sports arenas and stadiums could not bar handguns. But employers and colleges could restrict the carrying of handguns by employees and students."
"What happens if a sheriff wrongfully denies a handgun permit?
"Applicants can go to district court and, if they prevail, must be awarded attorneys fees and costs. Similarly, the sheriff must pay costs of an unsuccessful district court petition to revoke a permit."
metro / region - nation / world - politics - business - sports - variety - opinion - fun & games - talk - classifieds
index
war on terrorminnesota pollwashington politicslatest from washingtonphotosnews graphics
resources
the legislatureminnesota houseminnesota senatenorth starbill trackere-democracyfirstgov.gov
archive
storiesphoto reprintsprojects
contact us
correctionsfeedback
Highlights of the handgun bill
Associated Press
Published April 29, 2003 GUNSGL
The Minnesota Personal Protection Act, as its backers call it, would make it much easier for thousands of Minnesotas to carry handguns in public.
The bill establishes a ``shall issue'' policy for permits to carry a pistol in public. Essentially, it reverses the presumption on the issuance of permits to carry a pistol.
Under current law, a person must demonstrate an occupational or personal safety hazard to get a permit. Under the bill, a sheriff must issue a permit unless the applicant is disqualified for a specific reason.
The Senate approved the bill 37-30 on Monday. It now awaits the signature of Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who has said he supports the bill.
Who qualifies?
U.S. citizens or permanent residents 21 or older with no record of a disqualifying crime or mental disability would qualify, if they have taken certified handgun training, aren't listed on the state criminal gang database and can't be aren't a obvious danger to themselves or others.
How many people are expected to get permits?
In other states with similar laws, about 2 percent of the eligible population has become licensed. A legislative study estimated that 90,000 Minnesotans would do so within three years. That's eight times the current number of permit-holders.
Where would guns be banned?
The State Capitol, courthouses, federal facilities, airports, prisons, jails and state hospitals already are off limits to guns in most instances. The bill would add K-12 schools, child care centers and school buses to the list. Private businesses and places of worship could post signs to prohibit guns on those premises.
Where would they be allowed?
City halls, recreation centers, parks, state and county fairgrounds, public convention centers, sports arenas and stadiums could not bar handguns. But employers and colleges could restrict the carrying of handguns by employees and students.
What happens if a sheriff wrongfully denies a handgun permit?
Applicants can go to district court and, if they prevail, must be awarded attorneys fees and costs. Similarly, the sheriff must pay costs of an unsuccessful district court petition to revoke a permit.
Could permit-holders lose their license to carry?
Yes, by committing a disqualifying crime or carrying a handgun under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Punishment varies by level of drunkeness.
It took the longest debate in memory on the floor of the Minnesota Senate, but a bill to make permits to carry handguns in public available to more people gained final legislative approval Monday and was signed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty.
It is to go into effect in 30 days. Eventually, according to an official legislative estimate, it could increase the number of people licensed to tote guns on Minnesota streets from fewer than 12,000 now to about 90,000.
For 7 1/2 hours Monday, Senate DFLers railed against the measure and the parliamentary legerdemain that brought it directly from the House with no opportunity for Senate amendments. Six DFL senators even donned bulletproof vests as they denounced the bill as "insanity," "lunacy" and "sheer madness."
The bill's Republican sponsors, led by Sen. Pat Pariseau of Farmington, dismissed the protests as fear-mongering and doomsday predictions, maintaining that 34 other states have adopted similar measures without catastrophic consequences.
Sen. Pariseau listens to Sen. Olson defend handgun bill.
Jim Mone
Associated Press
"If I want to have a gun in my purse, that should be my choice, not the sheriff's," said Sen. Julianne Ortman, R-Chanhassen.
In the end, a small group of outstate DFL senators who favor gun rights bucked their leadership's opposition and tipped the balance in favor of the bill. The vote for final passage was 37 to 30.
What comes next is a sweeping reversal of Minnesota handgun policy that has been in effect since 1975. Under that system, police chiefs and sheriffs have had broad discretion to grant or deny permits for occupational needs or personal protection.
In some areas, especially the Twin Cities, critics say, authorities have abused that discretion by denying permits to nearly all applicants.
Under the new system, sheriffs will be required to issue permits to all applicants 21 or older who meet largely objective standards of U.S. citizenship or permanent residency, handgun safety training and a criminal and mental health background check.
Supporters vs. foes
The bill's final victory defied formal opposition from more than 300 churches and other groups in Minnesota, including the three major statewide police associations, city councils, and health and education groups.
According to senators on both sides of the issue, the bill was supported by only three organizations: the National Rifle Association (NRA), a local group called Concealed Carry Reform Now! and the Republican Party of Minnesota. But Pariseau said many individuals and street police officers also back the legislation.
She counted thousands of violent crimes in the 20 Minnesota counties where handgun permits have been most restricted and added: "It's time that we allow people to prevent the violence on themselves."
DFLers responded with statistics of their own: Minnesota now stands eighth-lowest in the nation in the rate of firearm deaths from homicide, suicide and accident. All of the states with better rates have gun laws similar to the one Minnesota is abandoning. The dozen states with the highest rates of firearm deaths all have the system Minnesota is adopting.
"This state will forever be changed, and not for the positive," said Sen. Dean Johnson, DFL-Willmar, a Lutheran pastor. "What are we scared of? Why are we so fearful? Why should violence beget violence? I'm supposed to arm myself and get even? It does not make any sense to me."
In addition, the House Republican tactic of amending the measure onto an unrelated bill previously passed by the Senate was branded "a conceal and carry approach to legislation" by Sen. Scott Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis.
The procedure meant that DFLers could criticize but not change details of the bill that they said made it worse than similar laws in many other states. For example, critics said, public parks, playgrounds, city halls and the State Fair may not bar guns from their premises, while malls and churches face a cumbersome process of posting signs and verbally informing licensed gun-carriers that their firearms aren't welcome.
"I wouldn't worry about honest people next to me in church carrying guns," said Sen. Michael Jungbauer, R-East Bethel, a graduate of Moody Bible Institute. "But I would worry about the criminals."
Sen. Jane Ranum, DFL-Minneapolis, said the bill's lack of a Minnesota residency requirement will make the state a magnet for gun-lovers from the handgun-restrictive neighboring states of Wisconsin, Iowa and Illinois.
"This bill was written by the gun industry and it's all about their profits," she said. "The Midwest is the one place they haven't infiltrated yet. This will make Minnesota the place to come and get your gun."
Ranum also criticized the bill's limits on evidence of applicants' dangerousness that sheriffs may consider in deciding whether to issue permits. For example, alleged crimes that a person has been acquitted of cannot be factored in.
That means a sheriff could not weigh any of the evidence presented in the murder trial of O.J. Simpson should he seek a permit, Ranum said.
"O.J. Simpson was not seeking a permit," Pariseau replied. "But maybe his wife needed one."
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
- -
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:38:00 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Nationwide CCW reciprocity bill in Congress
None of Utah's Congressmen appear as co-sponsors on this bill. The bill is simple. If you have a CCW permit from your home State, OR if your home State allows you to CCW without a permit, you get to carry in any State, subject only to local restrictions on specific locations. IE, one State may ban CCW in bars, another in churches, etc. IF this were to pass, I suspect a fair number of gun folks would be trying to figure out how to spend most of their time living and working in one State, while being legal residents of Vermont. ;-)
Full bill text, all 15 lines of it, follows the article below.
Charles
==========Forwarded Message=========
ISSUE: Radio talk show host Chuck Baldwin (www.chuckbaldwinlive.com)
recently notified his audience that, "while most new laws emanating from
Washington, D.C., these days tend to take freedoms away from us, there is
one bill currently in the U.S. House of Representatives that deserves the
full support of every American. The bill is numbered H.R. 990 and is
titled the 'Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2003.'"
The bill's chief sponsor is Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN).
What this pro-Second Amendment bill does is reciprocate state Carry
Concealed Weapons (CCW) permits in much the same way that driver's
licenses are reciprocated state to state. In other words, a person who has
a Concealed Carry permit in one state would be legally allowed to carry
his concealed weapon in other states. (Feel free to look up the actual
wording of the bill at http://thomas.loc.gov/)
One could argue that it shouldn't even be necessary to obtain a permit to
carry a firearm, as this freedom is duly recognized by the U.S.
Constitution as an unalienable, God-given right. However, the only state
in the Union that recognizes this right by allowing its citizens to carry
firearms without a license is Vermont. This is one reason why Vermont has
one of the lowest crime rates in the country.
However, as long as obtaining CCW permits is the only manner in which
law-abiding citizens may legally carry concealed weapons, it only makes
sense that they be allowed to freely carry weapons when visiting states
outside their residence. In fact, out-of-state visitors are often primary
targets of criminals, because they know most visitors will be unarmed in
compliance with those state laws restricting such carry. Therefore, this
law will doubtless save the lives of countless law-abiding people.
ACTION ITEM: Currently, the bill has 22 co-sponsors. Along with Chuck
Baldwin, we want to encourage our members to contact their representative
and encourage him or her to become a co-sponsor of this important bill.
The freedom to possess and carry a firearm is consistent with the Second
Amendment and should never be denied by law.
Go to the site below to contact your House member today, and encourage
them to support H. R. 990. And while we're at it, we'll copy President
Bush on your message. Let's see if he'll get behind this bill:
http://www.conservativealerts.com/042903.htm
<a href="http://www.conservativealerts.com/042903.htm"> AOL GO
HERE </a>
==============BILL Text==========
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 27, 2003
Mr. HOSTETTLER (for himself, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. CRANE, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. WAMP, Mr. OTTER, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr. NEY, Mr. CANNON, Mr. GOODE, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. HALL, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. ENGLISH, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. PENCE, and Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
To amend title 18 of the United States Code to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in that State.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2003'.
SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the following:
`Sec. 926B. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
`Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is--
`(1) carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm; or
`(2) otherwise entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State of the person's residence,
may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or with the laws of the State of the person's residence, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926A the following:
`926B. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The provisions of this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
- -
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:53:22 GMT
From: Charles Hardy <utbagpiper@juno.com>
Subject: Federal ban on lawsuits unconstitutional?
An interesting counter point of view on the issue of federlism and the federal gun lawsuit ban.
Charles
=====Begin Forwarded Message========
Is gun lawsuit pre-emption unconstitutional?
Jacob Sullum (back to web version <js20030418.shtml>)
April 18, 2003
The gun control movement, which pushes national restrictions on firearms at every opportunity, has discovered the virtues of federalism. Testifying before a House subcommittee last year, Michael Barnes, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, averred, "The notion that the common law of every state can be radically altered by a special interest bill in Washington should disturb even those members who support the gun lobby, but profess to a belief in federalism."
Barnes was talking about the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which the House recently passed by a bipartisan vote of 285 to 140. The bill, now being considered by the Senate, would protect gun manufacturers and distributors from lawsuits that seek to hold them responsible for the misuse of their products. Gun makers would still be liable for defective products, and gun dealers could still be sued if they broke the law or negligently sold a weapon when they knew or should have known that it was apt to be used in a crime.
Barnes clearly is one of those people who only "profess to a belief in federalism" when it's convenient. As it happens, two of the most important victories for federalism in recent years were Supreme Court decisions that overturned gun control measures.
In 1995 the Court concluded that Congress did not have authority under the Commerce Clause to ban possession of a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. In 1997 the Court ruled that Congress could not commandeer local and state authorities to perform a federally mandated background check.
Somehow, I doubt that Barnes cheered either decision. But even if his concern for the proper balance between state and national power is insincere, he could still be right that conservatives are supporting a bill that violates their avowed federalist principles.
It would not be the first time. In areas such as assisted suicide, medical marijuana, and "partial birth" abortion, conservatives have not just gone along with but actively pursued measures that impose the federal government's policy concerning local matters on recalcitrant states.
And on the face of it, Barnes and his fellow activists seem to have a point. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act would, after all, put a definitive end to more than two dozen lawsuits in state courts, dictating the outcome to local judges and juries, and forbid similar lawsuits in the future.
But as Manhattan Institute senior fellow Walter Olson, author of The Rule of Lawyers <buy book <http://www.thbookservice.com/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=c6084>> <read book review <http://www.townhall.com/bookclub/olson.html>>, pointed out in congressional testimony earlier this month, the lawsuits themselves pose a threat to the balance of powers envisioned by the Framers. "By design and by necessity," he observed, "the antigun litigation campaign is interstate in its anticipated effects." In seeking to set national gun control policy through state courts, the lawsuits usurp the authority of state legislatures and Congress.
Supporters of the lawsuits make no bones about what they're trying to accomplish.
"Litigation is a powerful tool to promote the public's health -- especially when other avenues are stymied," writes Julie Samia Mair of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. "An industry, wanting to avoid paying an award or engaging in costly litigation, may voluntarily make its products safer and/or change the way it markets or distributes them."
Notice that it doesn't matter whether the cases have any merit. Judges so far have dismissed most of the gun lawsuits by local governments, but the cost of fighting them, coupled with the possibility of one big judgment, could be enough to persuade the industry to make concessions that would have the same impact as legislation.
Cigarette billboards are a thing of the past not because of a statutory ban (which would have violated the First Amendment) but because eliminating outdoor advertising was part of the price for settling state lawsuits against the tobacco companies. Gun makers, whose financial resources are puny compared to the tobacco industry's, are especially vulnerable to that sort of pressure.
Hence a lawsuit brought in New Jersey can affect the availability of guns in Virginia through a settlement or, if the plaintiffs should manage to win, an injunction. This nationwide impact, an explicit goal of the lawsuits, is a strong justification for congressional intervention, especially given the Second Amendment rights at stake.
The right to keep and bear arms, of course, is one part of the Constitution that Michael Barnes will never even pretend to like.
