Alphecca

Weekly Check on the Bias

Welcome to the October 25th edition of my Weekly Check on the Bias where I examine how some in the media treat the subject of firearms and the Second Amendment. As Alphecca just celebrated it's 3rd Blogaversary, it's also, almost to the week, three years since I started keeping track of media bias against guns. This weekly endeavor has grown slightly since the first edition. Here's that first one:

"...Anyway, I've decided to keep a running weekly total of pro-vs-con links on the Yahoo Gun Control Debate page and every week will provide a running total for your pleasure. I'll only count articles that are shown, not archived. Articles will be counted from the following catagories listed: News stories, Opinions & Editorials, Feature Articles, and Audio files. Here is the current tally:"

Yahoo Gun Control Debate Articles
Pro More Gun Control Or Anti-Gun	Not More Gun Control Or Is Pro 2nd Amendment
21	4

Not terribly informative, huh? Returning to the present, a lot happened during the past week. The House passed the Senate version of the "Protection of Lawful Commerce Act" which would grant SOME limited liability to the firearms industry from frivolous lawsuits resulting from the criminal misuse of their products. Gun makers, distributors, and dealers could still be sued for negligence although most in the media seem to be ignoring that. Let me reprint what I said last week:

from Newsday we get this:

Confronted with a clear choice - protect the firearms industry or protect victims of gun violence - Congress is poised to side with the gun trade. In a shameful display of special-interest politics, the Senate voted in August to make it all but impossible to sue gun makers or firearms dealers for any role they may play in putting guns into the hands of criminals.

In a shameful display of misleading the public, Newsday has just told a fib: If the manufacturer or distributor is negligent or otherwise ignores BATF regulations and the law, they CAN BE SUED! Newsday furthers the error with this:

Had this bill been law before victims of the infamous D.C. snipers settled a lawsuit against the gun shop responsible for the rifle used in those deadly attacks, the victims' families would have been booted out of court. They would have been barred from collecting a dime, even though the gun dealer involved couldn't account for 239 guns that had gone missing from his inventory, one of them the rifle used in the 2002 Washington-area rampage.

WRONG! The Bull's Eye Gun Shop was clearly negligent in allowing a bunch (the number is in dispute but not that it was a lot) of guns to "disappear" from it's inventory. Once again, since Newsday and the New York Times don't seem to have actually READ the bill, here are the exclusions to immunity from liability as appearing in the bill:

(5) QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTION-

(A) IN GENERAL- The term 'qualified civil liability action' means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief' resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include--

(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;

(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;

(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including--

(I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product, or aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or

(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code;

(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product; or

(v) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage.

(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- As used in subparagraph (A)(ii), the term 'negligent entrustment' means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.

I've added the emphasis to parts that could be applied to Bull's Eye and would have allowed the DC Victim's suits to proceed. Certainly the "negligence per se" is applicable.

The above parts of the bill are also the reason I think the bill will stand muster -- it allows due process but only in a valid case. There would be no more of these throwing the spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks suits where the plaintiffs don't even know who actually manufactured the gun.

I bring this up because today, Newsday has a hysterical op-ed by Marie Cocco:

Historic, the National Rifle Association calls it. And when the NRA makes history, the rest of us should shudder.

The legislation that has the gun lobby preening is a measure, given final passage last week in Congress, to grant what amounts to legal amnesty to the purveyors of weapons that kill about 30,000 Americans each year. With the stroke of President Bush's pen, the gun industry will have greater protection from lawsuits than a homeowner whose loose handrail leads to a trip-and-fall claim.

Well, no, Marie. As the excusions to protection above clearly show, if there is a defect or there is negligence on the part of the gun maker then they can be sued and held liable. Bejus! All this legislation does is say that if the gun operates as advertised --so to speak-- and is marketed and sold in a legal fashion then the criminal can be sued but not the gun maker or dealer. She blathers on:

The instinct is entirely understandable. But the lawsuits do not get at the dark heart of the matter: The United States, as a matter of policy, allows too many guns with too much firepower to be sold to too many people who should not have them. It allows the gun industry to remain free of regulation, one of only two makers of consumer products - the other is the tobacco industry - that does business without basic oversight to ensure safety.

The gun industry is "free of regulation"??? There are only about 20,000 laws on the books dictating how guns are made and distributed and sold and sold to whom and where those guns can be used and how and on and on... Ask any firearms manufacturer how much time they have to spend dealing with BATF regulations and endless paperwork keeping track of every gun they make and sell! And then there's this:

Congress has not, to this day, seen fit to close the "gun show loophole." It hasn't restricted the sale of guns and ammunition over the Internet, either.

Nor did it renew the 1994 ban on some assault weapons, guns that were often used for spraying urban sidewalks and sometimes schoolyards, and were the scourge of police, who complained they were outgunned...

Firearms sold over the internet still have to be shipped to a FFL dealer and the transfer to a buyer still involves at the very least the NICS background check. It's also instructive to note that the so-called "gun show loophole" mostly involves individuals trading or selling in the parking lot, not at the actual show itself.

And of course, she brings up the ridiculous vision of a semi-automatic "spraying" again, showing she hasn't a clue how they operate. *Sigh*

Of course, if greedy cities and trial lawyers can no longer file frivolous lawsuits, there's always Canada to fill the gap. From Yahoo/Canadian Press:

Prime Minister Paul Martin says the Americans have an obligation to help stop the smuggling of guns into Canada.

Martin made the comment Monday as his government prepares a series of gun-control initiatives aimed at curbing a wave of violence in Toronto. Those measures, which sources say could include suing U.S. weapons manufacturers, will be announced next month. But the prime minister used a visit by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to press the issue immediately.

He said the Americans expect Ottawa to help keep their borders secure and Canada expects the same in return.

"The Americans ask us to do things in terms of the border; I think there's an obligation on their side to work with us to prevent gun-smuggling into Canada," Martin told a news conference.

The prime minister said up to half the gun crimes in Canada involve weapons smuggled from the United States.

One federal source said the government could file lawsuits against gun manufacturers when they lose track of those weapons.

"If (gunmaker) Smith & Wesson says to us, 'Well, we're not responsible for tracking the weapons once they leave our factory' - that's not good enough guys," said the official.

"At some point in time there's a breach.

"These guns aren't ending up in the hands of folks in Canada by accident. So the question is where did this thing fall apart?"

The official said Ottawa won't take kindly to the suggestion that the guns are being stolen: "If that's the case, start protecting your shipments. Get a Brinks truck."

Earth to Mars...Earth to the un-named "official"... I doubt very much that shipments from Smith & Wesson are being waylaid unless you're accusing FedEx or UPS of allowing grand theft on a massive scale large enough to fuel all the gang wars going on in your cities and towns.

I think, rather, it (the smuggled guns) is that the guns find their way into the hands of criminals the same way they do in any country. Most are stolen by burglars, thugs, from homes, businesses, or are bought through other illegal means. Again, though, isn't this a problem of criminal control (or lack of) on the part of the Canadian government and their border agents? They already -- now -- require a passport from anyone in the US crossing into their country. Update: Actually, that's only under consideration in response from a measure by the US to require the same. Thanks to reader Timmy for the correction. Canada does require a photo ID and if they need to increase their searches of vehicles, so be it.

I wonder though, folks, if this is the harbinger of things to come? Will other countries, perhaps at the behest of the United Nations, start suing gun companies as a way to shut-down the industry? I don't know much about international law but maybe Congress should think of expanding the protections of the firearms industry to include frivolous suits from foreign countries.

I wonder if what is pissing-off all these anti-gunners is that they are losing in the court of public opinion? They (mistakenly) think their arguments are logical (those on the left always do) and yet they lose in the courts, and in referendums. It must drive them nuts to see a resounding vote in Florida in favor of the "Castle Doctrine" and in other states of seeing "shall issue" concealed-carry laws passed.

I'm sure the international community of gun-grabbers was agog at what occured in Brazil on Sunday. From the Otago Daily Times (Brazil):

In the nationwide referendum, about 64% rejected banning arms sales, the electoral court said, with more than 90% of the expected 122 million votes counted.

Only 36% supported the ban, even though more than 36,000 people were killed by guns last year in Latin America’s largest country. Full results were expected today.

We didn’t lose because Brazilians like guns. We lost because people don’t have confidence in the government or the police, Denis Mizne of anti-violence group Sou da Paz said.

Many voters had expressed concern before the vote that a ban would leave them defenceless against heavily armed criminals. Public confidence is low in a police force widely considered inefficient, abusive and corrupt.

This referendum . . . is not going to end violence, said Assis Augusto Pires (60), who voted against the ban in Sao Paulo’s wealthy Jardim Paulistano district, where high walls, electrified fences and private guards protect residents.

Not just in Brazil but anywhere; the cops are there to react to, not prevent crime. They come after it's happened. Also, while there is no constitutional right to firearms in Brazil, certainly it is an assumed right or civil liberty and the majority of voters knew that once you forfeit a right, it's gone forever. Dave Kopel has more:

It's true that Brazil--unlike the United States, Guatemala, or Mexico--does not have an explicit constitutional right to arms. But various provisions of the Brazilian Constitution imply the right to possess the means to defend oneself. For example, Article 5, section 11 states:

the home is the inviolable asylum of the individual, and no one may enter it without the dweller's consent, save in the case of "flagrante delicto" or disaster, or to give help, or, during the day, by court order;

Note that the above provision is limited not limited to "state action." The right to exclude burglars from the home is just as strong as the right to exclude rogue police.
More generally, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes a right to forcibly resist tyranny (a purpose of arms-bearing which was repeatedly stated in the "Vote Não" campaign).

Speaking of rights... FEMA gives in! From Yahoo/AP:

NEW ORLEANS - Following complaints from gun-rights groups, FEMA said Monday it is lifting a ban on firearms at temporary housing parks built in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Under the new federal policy, residents can possess and store firearms. Use of weapons is still prohibited in the parks, said Butch Kinerny, a spokesman for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Gun rights groups had sought the change, saying the original policy violated Second Amendment protections for gun ownership. Kinerny said FEMA made the change after consulting with lawyers.

FEMA said it has been general policy for several years to prohibit guns at such parks anywhere in the country. But two gun rights groups — the National Rifle Association and Second Amendment Foundation — said they found out about it only this month as a 600-trailer encampment opened near Baton Rouge.

NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre praised the change. "It is wrong to force citizens to give up their constitutional rights in order for them to get a needed federal benefit," he said in a news release.

Col. Greg Phares, chief sheriff's deputy in Baton Rouge, had asked for a firearms ban at the park.

What's interesting is that FEMA says it's their policy but the Sheriff says he asked for it. I guess we'll never know but at least the hurricane displaced people won't have their rights infringed or rely on the cops to protect them.

Not everyone believes in rights... Certainly not the Toledo Blade:

Ohio lawmakers who succeeded in imposing concealed-carry legislation on the rest of the state just over a year and a half ago promised they'd revisit the measure to relax some of its more restrictive clauses. They wasted no time fulfilling that vow.

Their goal is to water down provisions that were inserted into the original bill in order to win passage and the governor's signature.

Without stipulations like media access to lists of concealed-carry permit-holders and a requirement that guns carried in cars be in plain sight to law enforcement officers or locked up, the bill would have been opposed by the Ohio Highway Patrol and guaranteed a veto by Gov. Bob Taft.

But now, pro-gun lawmakers and lobbyists are flexing their legislative muscles to eliminate some of the most reasonable elements of an eminently unreasonable law. First to be tinkered with is the media provision insisted upon by Governor Taft.

I've already discussed the provisions allowing folks to opt out of having the media snoop on them. There IS NO REASON why the media needs to know who has a concealed-carry permit. It is also NOT reasonable to require someone who is conceal-carrying to remove his gun everytime he gets into his car and lay it on the seat in plain view. Cops will know, if they pull someone over and run a records check, that the person has a permit.

No, instead I want to focus on two phrases from this editorial. The first is: Ohio lawmakers who succeeded in imposing concealed-carry legislation on the rest of the state... Imposing? The only thing lawmakers were "imposing" was the will of the people who voted them into office. "We the people" -- I'm sure the Toledo Blade recognizes the phrase -- as in "the people" who vote, buy newspapers (and probably support the Toledo Blade's First Amendment rights) decided they wanted a "shall issue" concealed-carry law. Their legislators crafted a bill and got it passed. If it needs fine-tuning, that is also the right of "the people" and the duty of the folks they elected to office to REPRESENT THEM.

Secondly, why is the current law unreasonable? Aren't the people entitled to their constitutional rights? Or has the Toledo Blade decided that IT shall be the final arbiter of what sections of the Bill of Rights apply to Ohio residents? Has the Toledo Blade also decided to snip-out parts of the Ohio State Constitution such as:

§ 1.04 Bearing arms; standing armies; military powers (1851)

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

Pretty clear to me! Apparently "the people" of Ohio feel the same way. Only the Toledo Blade begs to differ...

Look folks, none of the bills or referendums discussed today state that any citizen HAS to keep or bear arms, just that they have the right to do so. If someone doesn't want to, fine; God speed to them. And that brings us to the final story today about Antonio Banderas:

ANTONIO BANDERAS is a crack shot when it comes to movie shootouts, but the DESPERADO star is terrified of guns in real life.

The Spaniard refuses to have guns in his home because he hates to think he'd ever need to use one for real.

He says, "I have learned to use guns but I don't believe in guns. I don't have guns in my house. I don't want to practice with guns in my own personal life. I don't even like to go to a place and just shoot a target."

Fine. He doesn't have to own a gun but his logic is a bit strange when he says he won't keep one at home "because he hates to think he'd ever need to use one...". By that reasoning, maybe he shouldn't have a fire extinguisher around, either.

Update on Mike Wallace: For background see this post. Public Eye, the "watch dog" of CBS News is now reporting:

First, some quick background. Wallace’s appearance raised questions for CBS News from some quarters, most notably from Cam Edwards, host of the Cam and Company show on nranews.com. At issue were comments made by Wallace at the event and the fact he showed a 47-second video of a past “60 Minutes” segment that, by Wallace’s own admission, cast former NRA President Charlton Heston in a less-than-favorable light.

We were asked what CBS News standards are on appearances such as these. Linda Mason, senior vice president for standards and special projects at CBS News at the time informed us that if a CBS correspondent becomes identifiable with one side of a controversial issue, that correspondent would no longer be allowed to cover that issue. When we asked if Wallace’s appearance in this case made him “identifiable” on this issue, Mason said CBS was looking into the matter to determine that.

I spoke with Mason late yesterday and she told me how CBS News will deal with this issue in the future. Mason said that if Wallace “suggests a story that we feel is a potential conflict, we’ll look at it and if we see a conflict, we’ll turn it down.” I take that to mean we won’t be seeing Mr. Wallace doing any more stories involving Second Amendment issues.

When I first addressed this issue, it was with mixed feelings. I sympathized with Wallace and the explanation he provided me for his appearance. He emphasized what he saw as his humorous approach to his comments and his focus on his very good friend’s 80th birthday party. But I also found the fact he had brought a video addressing the gun issue to be troubling.

I have since seen some of Wallace’s remarks and am far less conflicted. In introducing the video, Wallace calls Heston the “self-righteous enemy of the Sarah and Jim Brady bunch.” Coming out of the video, he mocks Heston’s widely-seen comments that the government would take away his gun only from his “cold, dead hands.” And he referenced, we assume, the relatively unknown position on gun control of Chief Justice John Roberts, calling him part of “the legions of the already convinced.”

Wallace told me his appearance was “meant to be and was received as a joke.” If so, it was one that was out of my range of humor. Others present at the event stressed to me the relative lack of discussion over gun control or the Second Amendment, saying the primary focus by far was Buchwald’s birthday. I have not seen a tape of the entire event but have no reason to doubt that. Even so, Wallace did make reference to the gun debate in a way that made him identifiable with one side of this issue.

I trust Mason and CBS News to carry through with the pledge to turn down a Wallace story if there is a conflict involving his Brady Center appearance. It is the right thing to do. And I have no doubt that we’ll hear about it if that does not happen.

We shall see...

Hey folks, I'll be doing my weekly gig today -- of course -- on Cam Edwards and as always, I thank you for stopping by! I guess I've come a ways in three years...

Posted by Jeff Soyer at October 25, 2005 09:40 AM