Senate Bill 397 -- a bill that grants legal immunity to firearm dealers and manufacturers in the event of wrongful misuse of their products by a third party -- passed the House and the Senate and is expected to be signed into law by President Bush. The anti-gun clauses that were added to the bill have left many in the gun rights community debating about the true benefits of this legislation, particularly since a similar bill -- H.R. 800 -- was also introduced but contained no anti-gun aspects.

Clearly the type of legal protection provided in S. 397 represents a much needed win. Firearm dealers and manufacturers, many of whom are small business owners, have been battling lawsuits for years costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to each defendant. Many small companies have been put out of business as a result. Without this legislation, anti-gun lawyers get richer, activist judges get to further their gun-ban agenda, gathering places for citizens who support the Second Amendment slowly disappears as does the ability to elect pro-gun representatives. So why did the American people get stuck with trigger locks and a ban "armor piercing ammunition"? (It is important to note that the term "armor piercing ammunition" is a gun-ban propaganda term that does not identify specific calibers. Any type of ammunition could eventually fall into this category.)

A similar protection bill (S. 1805) was defeated in 2004 due to a litany of amendments which not only included the mandatory sale of trigger locks and a ban on "armor piercing ammunition" but would also ban private party firearm transfers and would have extended the "assault weapons" ban for another ten years. There was absolutely no way that any self respecting supporter of the Second Amendment was going to vote in favor of this bill. When you compare the two bills, clearly S. 397 looks like a major improvement and firearm manufacturers and dealers will get the immunity that they really need, particularly when you consider all of the lawsuits that are being filed. But was the horse-trading really necessary? Could we have won without sacrificing the rights of the consumer/citizen?

The problem may very well lie in the isolationist mentality of gun owners and the gun rights movement. In his article on the Federal Observer, Andy Barniskis suggests that the legislation may have been more effective and easier to pass if it had been applicable to any product that could be wrongfully misused by a third party such as baseball bats, knives, and other similar objects. By widening the net the issue becomes less about firearms and more about tort reform. There is no guarantee, however, that such legislation would have passed without a litany of riders attached to it.

There are an estimated 80 million gun owners in this country. If half of them took their rights as seriously as you do, this legislation would have passed with no problem and with no anti-gun amendments. Most gun-rights supporters are not willing to withhold re-election support over trigger locks and a ban on unspecified ammunition as the risk would be too great. Politicians know this. For gun owners the dangerous effects of this bill have been postponed which means that they can continue not paying attention for a little while longer.

S. 397 is both a victory and a loss. It's a reflection of who we are and what we deem worth fighting for.

Jennifer Freeman is Executive Director and co-founder of Liberty Belles, a grass-roots organization dedicated to restoring and preserving the Second Amendment.
http://www.libertybelles.org
jennifer@libertybelles.org