The Senate is on the verge of approving a new sop to the gun industry that is the latest sad example of what has become of the gun control debate. Many Americans have labored under the mistaken impression that this was a debate about the Constitution and public safety, about the balance between saving lives and assuring law-abiding gun owners and cultural conservatives that the Second Amendment is being protected. In fact, as the legislation before the Senate demonstrates, the Bush administration and its allies in Congress have long been focused simply on making it easier for gun manufacturers and gun dealers to turn a profit.

A bipartisan majority is lining up behind a bill in the Senate that has nothing to do with gun owners' rights. The law would effectively grant reckless gun dealers and manufacturers an unreasonable immunity from civil suits by victimized families and local governments. The measure, already approved by the House, could scrap more than two dozen pending lawsuits, including those of families who suffered losses in the sniper shootings around Washington in 2002. Countless future suits would be denied standing. The bill would undermine fundamental principles of negligence law in shielding illicit gun traffickers.

Supporters, echoing the National Rifle Association, argue that they are intent on blocking only "frivolous" suits, as if that were ever a problem to compare with the annual scourge of thousands of gunshot deaths. In fact, the bill would all but end damage liability for the gun industry ‹ an extraordinary shelter never extended to the tobacco and alcohol industries in legislating controls over the harm their products cause. A woefully pliant Congress seems intent on protecting a small but lethal minority of shady dealers and the gun makers tolerant of them. The Washington sniper's rifle was traced to a dealer, Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, which claimed it was one of 238 weapons later found to be mysteriously "missing" from the shop. Dozens of other crimes were traced to these guns, yet the immunity bill would protect this dealer.

Proponents, counting on senators' raw fear of electoral retaliation if they dare to stand up on such an obvious issue of public safety, claim to be near the 60 votes needed to defeat any opposition filibuster. Failing that, gun-control advocates like Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, hope that they can at least amend the bill by adding a renewal of the assault weapons ban, which is about to run out after 10 years of protecting the public. But even that vital measure is being pronounced dead before arrival in the House in this election year.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

--
TO THE SOURCE:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/25/opinion/25WED2.html?th

   I believe in the doctrine of non-violence as a weapon of the weak.
 I believe in the doctrine of non-violence as a weapon of the strongest.
I believe that a man is the strongest soldier for daring to die unarmed.
                                                                          - Mahatma Gandhi