|
||
Gunmakers Now Last Unregulated Industry
President Obama's signing of a bill granting the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory authority over the tobacco industry now leaves the gun industry as the last American industry not regulated for health and safety.
Let me repeat. Guns are now the only consumer product manufactured in America not regulated by a federal agency for health and safety.
Household consumer products (except for guns and ammunition) are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
Airplanes? The Federal Aviation Adminstration (FAA).
Motor vehicles? The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Pesticides and toxic chemicals? The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Food, drugs -- and now tobacco? The Food and Drug Administration.
Health and safety regulatory powers commonly include the authority to set design standards, recall dangerous or defective products, and require reporting from manufacturers.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the default "regulator" of guns in our nation, has no such powers. ATF is currently empowered only to oversee commerce in guns.
The bottom line is that under federal law, if you make a gun that is 50 caliber or less, is not fully automatic, and (in the case of long guns) meets specific barrel length requirements, manufacturers are free to make what sells -- even if the market is U.S. street gangs or Mexican drug trafficking organizations.
If the gun happens to blow up in a consumer's hand or go off when you drop it (e.g., the Ruger Blackhawk) because of a manufacturing defect, don't count on ATF recalling it. They can't.
If a manufacturer develops a handgun for the civilian market that can pierce the bullet-resistent vests worn by law enforcement (e.g., the Smith & Wesson Model 500 50 caliber revolver) or down an aircraft on take-off or landing (e.g., the Barrett 50 BMG sniper rifle as seen below) there's nothing ATF can do about it.
When presented with guns' unique niche in the pantheon of consumer products, the industry and its cheerleaders like the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) go into a well-practiced spiel of how in fact they're actually the most regulated industry in America -- citing dealer and manufacturer licensing, the minimal paperwork necessary to buy a gun under federal law, the Brady background check all buyers must go through to purchase a weapon from a licensed dealer, and the fact that ATF is allowed to check a dealer's sales records once a year (a privilege the agency has the manpower to employ on a far less frequent basis). Yet these are sales standards, not product safety standards. ATF lacks any of the health and safety authority that is routinely granted -- and usually expected by the American public -- for other consumer products. Imagine if there were no FAA and National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to oversee air safety. Would the public tolerate it if 100 Boeing 777s crashed every year? Of course not. But that would result in the same loss of life as the 30,000 Americans who are killed year in and and year out by guns.
In fact, the arguments the gun industry makes today to fend off meaningful regulation mirror those made in the past made by another industry "regulated" by ATF -- yes, the tobacco industry. If ATF authority over a given product equaled true health and safety regulation, there wouldn't have been a need for the bill signed today.
And as the gun industry continues to exploit its unique status with increasingly lethal military style weapons for the civilian market, this disparity can only become more evident.
Al Norman: Sandbags and Machine Guns At Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart took another bullet this week -- fired from its own gun.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Hey Josh!
I just bought a new gun to celebrate our Independence Day!
What did you buy to celebrate, Josh?
It is probably too much too hope for--maybe Josh could actually use his FFL for the intended purpose--selling and repairing guns
If gun owners are so sure about their right to own guns in the way they choose too own them, then why are they so nervous about gun control and confiscation? This seems like a situation of hysteria by gun owners, an hysteria since no one has tried to limit gun rights in any serious way lately, and gun owners could bring about restrictions because of this hysterical reaction. Gun fanatics are shooting police and security guards because of hysteria and the rest of the population may take notice and regulate. Had you guys not thrown such a tantrum, you could be enjoying your rights fearlessly all this time. I supported gun rights and voted republican 50% of the time, until very recently. I was also pro gun, until i listened to the average gun owner.
"I supported gun rights"
No you didn't.
"until i listened to the average gun owner"
Didn't do that either.
Maybe you should wonder why there have been less and less support for gun control. It hasn't been because of people like you. It's due to the activities of the 'average gun owner'. You know, the ones that actually pay attention when people like Josh Sugarmann say they want to ban handguns and hunting rifles. They pay attention when it's pointed out that Obama was on the board that funded Josh while he said these things. They pay attention to actual voting records instead of campaign rhetoric.
Would it surprise you to know I have owned a gun and shot many riffles, a few shot guns, several hand guns, tried a fully automatic, illegal, assault weapon and I have defended myself twice, both times I had a head in my sites, cocked and loaded with the safety off. In fact, I shot a gun five days ago. I was raised around guns and hunters safety classes.
My point was, the law is based on power and the popular vote, if you force a vote, you will lose more rights. Life is not always fair nor rational. you fell for a silly scare tactic from the republicans. The truth is the economy, energy, and health care are all that this administration will pursue so keep quiet and no one will bother to vote on the issues. You are digging your own hole and being a pest about it!
I dont know if you want my advice on keeping your rights, but you are going about it the wrong way.
We're afraid of losing the right because the right has already been eroded. And even openly attacked. Senator Feinstein once said, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an OUTRIGHT BAN, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn
them all in, I would have done that. I could not do that, the votes weren't there."
I'm also pro-choice, and why are people so nervous about that right? It's not even an enumerated right, where arms are enumerated. Where you nervous about our rights during Bush? Habeas Corpus? Domestic Spying? I hope so.
"Gun fanatics are shooting police and security guards because of hysteria and the rest of the population may take notice and regulate."
Wrong. Criminals which our judicial system is not keeping locked up, and mentally instable individuals which our system is failing to identify and rehabilitate (or at least attempt to) are shooting police and security guards, not the average gun fanatic. I consider myself a gun fanatic and have never shot at anything I didn't intend to eat or use for target practice.
"I supported gun rights...until very recently. I was also pro gun, until i listened to the average gun owner."
Hint: The average gun owner is far different from what the HuffPo and the NY Times tell you to think he/she is.
"If gun owners are so sure about their right to own guns in the way they choose too own them, then why are they so nervous about gun control and confiscation?"
The objections by supporters of the second amendment to the constant encroachment of gun grabbing authoritarians is much like the rattling noise made by a rattlesnake. It's kind of a courtesy to let you know that you are treading on dangerously thin ice.
Many politicians, including our President, have spoken out or voted in favor of banning guns. As the majority of these anti gun politicians are in the ruling party (currently), I believe a little worry is prudent.
Yes, the Democrats are saying they aren't interested in gun bans or more restrictions. The problem is that many of them, such as Boxer and McCarthy, are just biding their time and waiting for enough votes.
They aren't interested in more gun laws.....until they decide that they are interested.
Of course you might believe that politicians are honest, trustworthy and honorable. As for myself, I live in the real world.
Josh , could you please explain this closing sentence in your article ?
And as the gun industry continues to exploit its unique status with increasingly lethal military style weapons for the civilian market,
Since you currently hold a Federal Firearms Dealers License issued by the ATF , I figure you of all people should be able to explain exactly how it is that a weapons "military style " cosmetic appearance some how magically imbues it with " increased lethality "
This would be analagous to putting racing stripes on a Chevette and claiming that doing so made it perform like a Corvette .
The elephant in the room Josh , is that any number of hunting shot guns and rifle calibers have a siginifcantly greater " lethality " then " Assault Weapons " . But as a dealer Im sure you already knew that
"If a manufacturer develops a handgun for the civilian market that can pierce the bullet-resistent vests worn by law enforcement (e.g., the Smith & Wesson Model 500 50 caliber revolver) or down an aircraft on take-off or landing (e.g., the Barrett 50 BMG sniper rifle as seen below) there's nothing ATF can do about it." Sad Panda
Josh, you forgot the chemical plants. Part of the talking point is the inclusion of chemical plants being destroyed by a gang of nutty right-wing Domestic Terrorists(tm) Armed To The Teeth(tm) with their Bullet Hoses(tm) and .50 Cal Mass Destruction High Powered Sniper Rifles(tm).
Please! Not only for "The Children"(tm), but For "The Chemical Plants"(tm)!!
SInce criminals have a hard time hitting the broadside of a barn with a 9mm--there is no way in hades that they could hit the broadside of a barn from the INSIDE with an S&W Xframe
Anyone that has the intellectual integrity to be honest should feel free to look up two things
The National Academy of Sciences report , set up by the Clinton Administration , that examined 19 seperate reports and policies on gun control and could not identify a SINGLE gun control measure , proposal , policy or law that had ANY effect on gun crime .
And research the racist roots of gun control , where it was first practiced in the Southern States during the post Civil War reconstruction era . These gun control measures were a major reason for the enactment of the 14th Ammendment . So , how do all you pro gun control folks feel about embracing and promoting an agenda rooted in racism ??
Here's some more of Josh's gems
Assault weapons— The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."
-Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988
Hey Mr Sugarmann , can you explain why it is that you currently hold a Federal Firearms Dealers License ??
Lets see what Freud had to say about hoplophobia shall we ?
A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. -- Sigmund Freud
so dapperd....women who own guns are what....nymphomanics...so where does the bow and arrow or spear fall in your argument....guns are a recent invention historically speaking....300 years ago if you where killed it was the old fashioned way...beaten to death...stabbed to death....by bow...sword....lance..knife...or spear....those weapons still work today...just ask the deer.....
Actually, black powder based weapons can be traced back to the 1300's.
Josh, thanks for your informative and appropriate article addressing this insulting peculiarity in federal regulatory statutes. As far as I'm concerned, those who are paranoid about the prospect of Obama or anyone in his administration "taking away our guns" needs to find a new hobby that contributes something productive and beneficial to our society, instead of death, destruction and mayhem. Guns of all shapes and sizes are merely phallic symbols that happen to cause death or serious injury when used according to their "fitness for a particular purpose" as we say in business law. The only exception to this rule is when guns are fired at paper targets instead of living beings. As George Carlin said, "If you think hunting's a sport, ask the deer! The only thing sporting about hunting is the many accidents that happen on the weekends!" Other than recreationally massacring innocent animals, what "exciting" purpose do guns ever serve? If you think you need guns to defend yourself, your family or your home, then you need serious counseling for a dire persecution complex. They really are out to get you! The only question is whom. In a civilized society, so-called "gun rights" would never be an issue because such paranoia would be prima facie moot.
Firearms contribute a lot to our society beyond their use in crimes. Less than 1% of all firearms will ever be used in a crime.
"Guns of all shapes and sizes are merely phallic symbols "
Great, another armchair psychoanalyst speaks.
"that happen to cause death or serious injury when used according to their "fitness for a particular purpose" as we say in business law."
If so, that 99.99% of them are being misused. Stay in law school.
"If you think you need guns to defend yourself, your family or your home, then you need serious counseling for a dire persecution complex. "
Hundreds of thousands, even milions of people succesfully use firearms for defense every year.
"Guns of all shapes and sizes are merely phallic symbols".
Firearms instructor Massad Ayoob has a good response for that nonsense:
"If a gun was a phallic symbol, then no man would ever buy one with a 2-inch barrel".
lol....if guns are phallic symbols, guess i'm in trouble with my 10 gauge 30'' shotgun barrels
Is that why the itty bitty guns are called "palm pistols?"
Get it?
hahahahahahhahaha
"If you think you need guns to defend yourself, your family or your home, then you need serious counseling for a dire persecution complex."
Congratulations on having apparently lived a very sheltered life. Others of us have been thankful to have a firearm available to protect ourselves, our homes and our families from harm. Crime is real, it does happen, and usually (no offense to OdinsEye or other law enforcement officers present) happens before the police can arrive to do anything about it.
"An armed society is a polite society".
Herr Sugarmann is one of the gunbanners that is the worst about getting the facts straight--he fabricates and prevaricates because he has no case to support his unConstutional gun bans
Based on the logic presented, one can only conclude that knives must be banned as well. A faulty consumer product meant for kitchen use, ends being used to terrorize the public.
Look at England.
And pencils, and baseball bats, and golf clubs, and boards, and rocks, and machetes, and axes and...
Where do you stop? Nerf world?
Nerf is a serious choking hazard.
I wonder when they will start advocating confiscating garden implements--machetes, axes, hatchets, shovels etc all make good weapons (evidence of this is that many Okinawan weapons started as farm tools)
Please have the courage to come out and just say you advocate the total confiscation of firearms as opposed to this thinly disguised indirect approach.
"Imagine if there were no FAA and National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to oversee air safety. Would the public tolerate it if 100 Boeing 777s crashed every year? Of course not. But that would result in the same loss of life as the 30,000 Americans who are killed year in and and year out by guns."
Over half of the 30,000 Americans killed every year by guns are suicide. In 2006, 42,682 people where killed in traffic accidents even though automobiles are "regulated". Your argument is flawed and misleading.
It's true that gunfire kills somewhat fewer Americans than auto accidents. But if the gun industry really keeps trying it can catch up.
I am not sure why the arguments for lack of gun control hinges on the second amendments meaning. Being a bit older then some on this page, I have seen some politics change for many reasons. For the gun proponents, yours is a losing argument; the second amendment is what the supreme court decides it means. You must have a lot of money or public support. Both are waning as fewer people purchase guns.
The other flaw is seeing the number of gun owners versus non owners, most people do not own guns therefore, do not care a fig about gun rights. When the minority insists on "my way or the highway," the minority is shown the highway.
Lastly, it never occurs to gun owners that regulation is possible without any new laws. Domestic violence, hate crimes and plain old felonies of any flavor, get guns confiscated. Gun owners, that is actually the plan so get ready to have your rights curtailed.
"...Both are waning as fewer people purchase guns."
The firearms market has taken a rather noticeable and newsworthy leap in recent months.
"...most people do not own guns ..."
Approximately 40% of Americans own at least one firearm.
"Domestic violence, hate crimes and plain old felonies of any flavor, get guns confiscated. Gun owners, that is actually the plan so get ready to have your rights curtailed."
The things you are talking about here are called crimes.
Are you makingthe claim that gun owners in general are criminals, or are you simply unable to tell the difference?
I think Loris is unable to tell the difference (which is probably why Loris is unfamiliar with Heller)
"You must have a lot of money or public support. Both are waning as fewer people purchase guns."
In case you have been sleeping for the last 8 months, firearm sales are through the roof and the NRA and GOA ranks are increasing quickly.
"Lastly, it never occurs to gun owners that regulation is possible without any new laws. "
It not only occurs to us, but in some cases we insist on it.
Odin,
You missed my points. I meant to say that guns are taken away for felonies, there fore, an amendment is not needed, charging gun owners with felonies will eventually do this. I did not imply the person was guilty. Domestic violence laws can take guns very easily and many men get charged with this. Redefine criminal, is all I am saying.
As for the other points, the number of gun owners may not have increased, merely the number of guns owned per gun owner. As you say, 40% of americans own guns 60% do not. It will likely decrease and gun owners are history.
No you silly person. The second amendment means what the people decide it means. This is still at least nominally a nation governed by the consent of the governed. When that consent is withdrawn, then it won't matter what rulings the supremes hand down, because the people won't be listening anymore.
Who do you think is going to disarm the millions of Americans that believe in their right to keep and bear arms? Are you going to do it? Hmm, who's going to win a fight between 40% of armed Americans, and 60% of unarmed Americans? Chairman Mao was right when he said "Power comes from the barrel of a gun".
Oh, really sean! People decide? How is roe vs. wade working out for american people? you just do not get it, because your type represents a kick ass take names later attitude. Atilla the Hun did that and was beaten by refusing to fight with him and giving him no enemy to fight. The huns pointless running around shouting war is similar to what will happen with gun ownership. screech all you want, the second amendment does not matter. (who do you think the supreme court is made up of and represents other then the people you are citing?)
I would also remind you that the gun nuts fantasy of taking over the us from the socialist second amendment violaters will face the full fury and wrath of the military and the allies.
In Heller and about 40 other cases--SCOTUS determined that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right and judging by the fact that the only legislation concerning guns going anywhere is proRKBA--you don't have much of a case.
Just because most people don't own guns doesn't mean they don't support gun rights.
Most people arn't journalists either, but there is still strong support among the non-media population for freedom of the press.
Oh, and the Barrett .50 BMG "sniper" rifle? It was originally designed for civilians for long range competition -- a target rifle. It was only after some of our military folks saw it in action that they decided to give it a try as a "sniper" rifle.
btw......as of this time, only 30 comments, since this article has been up for two days.
Guess there's a write up of Britney Spears somewhere that's getting more attention........
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
