Findings and Purpose of S397 - Meaning to whole USA

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
AlanM
Posts: 9435
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:38 am
Location: Was Stow, OH now Charlottesville, VA

Findings and Purpose of S397 - Meaning to whole USA

Post by AlanM »

Someone calling themselves Brentton posted this on the GunTalk forum of Packing.org.
I agree completely with his comment and hopes.
ARM

S 397
Here is a link that allows you to search for any house bills:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c109query.html

I didn't realize the magnitude of the Findings and Purpose sections of this law, prior to the law passing. Perhaps someone out their familar with law could tell us whether the Findings and Purpose sections of S 397 apply broadly or if they only apply to specific applications and interpretations of S 397. If they did apply broadly, it would be quite significant. It certainly seems it would strike down any state law that banned or regulated firearms.

Here is the complete Findings and Purpose sections:

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

(3) Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms that operate as designed and intended, which seek money damages and other relief for the harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals.

(4) The manufacture, importation, possession, sale, and use of firearms and ammunition in the United States are heavily regulated by Federal, State, and local laws. Such Federal laws include the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National Firearms Act, and the Arms Export Control Act.

(5) Businesses in the United States that are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale to the public of firearms or ammunition products that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are not, and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended.

(6) The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our Nation's laws, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty, invites the disassembly and destabilization of other industries and economic sectors lawfully competing in the free enterprise system of the United States, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on interstate and foreign commerce of the United States.

(7) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, and private interest groups and others are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years of the common law and jurisprudence of the United States and do not represent a bona fide expansion of the common law. The possible sustaining of these actions by a maverick judicial officer or petit jury would expand civil liability in a manner never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, by Congress, or by the legislatures of the several States. Such an expansion of liability would constitute a deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(8) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, private interest groups and others attempt to use the judicial branch to circumvent the Legislative branch of government to regulate interstate and foreign commerce through judgments and judicial decrees thereby threatening the Separation of Powers doctrine and weakening and undermining important principles of federalism, State sovereignty and comity between the sister States.

(b) Purposes- The purposes of this Act are as follows:

(1) To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.

(2) To preserve a citizen's access to a supply of firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting.

(3) To guarantee a citizen's rights, privileges, and immunities, as applied to the States, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to section 5 of that Amendment.

(4) To prevent the use of such lawsuits to impose unreasonable burdens on interstate and foreign commerce.

(5) To protect the right, under the First Amendment to the Constitution, of manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and trade associations, to speak freely, to assemble peaceably, and to petition the Government for a redress of their grievances.

(6) To preserve and protect the Separation of Powers doctrine and important principles of federalism, State sovereignty and comity between sister States.

(7) To exercise congressional power under art. IV, section 1 (the Full Faith and Credit Clause) of the United States Constitution
________________________________________________

Kinda looks like majorities in both houses of Congress affirmed the 2nd Ammendment as an individual right when they passed S397.
ARM
ballistic
Posts: 433
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:06 am

Re: Findings and Purpose of S397 - Meaning to whole USA

Post by ballistic »

AlanM wrote: ________________________________________________

Kinda looks like majorities in both houses of Congress affirmed the 2nd Ammendment as an individual right when they passed S397.
And in the entire history of our country, all 200+ years, this is the first legislation passed by the U.S. Congress that specifically states the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right. I suspect this is the real reason why the anti-gunners did not want it to pass. I also suspect that but for the onslaughts of the anti-gunners, a relatively recent development, Congress felt no compelling reason to explicitly include in legislation what was so clearly expressed in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. Congress' passage of S. 397 should seve as a cautionary example of how far we've strayed from basic principles and what kind of anti-gun sentiment we still face.
Redhorse
Posts: 614
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 8:26 pm
Location: Licking county

Post by Redhorse »

8) Seems like someone willing to duke it out with Kolumbica could argue their AWB is in contradiction with Federal Law...

(2) To preserve a citizen's access to a supply of firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting.



:twisted:
Freedom isn't free!
User avatar
BB62
Posts: 2601
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Post by BB62 »

Can someone tell me why these "findings" are more than just feel good stuff?

As pleasing as it may be to read those words, I don't think they amount to anything.

Is the USSC going to cite them? Are they going to be used to overturn virtual (or actual) prohibitions in Kali, DC, IL, etc.?

I'd be quite thrilled to be wrong, so does someone want to correct/enlighten me?


BB62
Yes, I do believe in open carry. An openly armed man is clear in his intentions. Concealed carriers are sneaks and skulkers and elitist, boot licking, political contribution making, running dog lackies of The Man. <wink> (thx grumpycoconut - OpenCarry.org)

Got Freedom?

Accountant, Computer & Management Consultant
Scuba Diver, NRA Life Member, NRA Instructor
TunnelRat
Deceased
Deceased
Posts: 9710
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:31 am
Location: Toledo

Post by TunnelRat »

Can someone tell me why these "findings" are more than just feel good stuff?

As pleasing as it may be to read those words, I don't think they amount to anything.

Doggonit! Somebody just has to take the fun out of everything...

Is the USSC going to cite them?

No, of course not.

Are they going to be used to overturn virtual (or actual) prohibitions in Kali, DC, IL, etc.?

Nope, not there either...

I'd be quite thrilled to be wrong, so does someone want to correct/enlighten me?

I would love to correct you, but I cannot....
TunnelRat

"Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States." ~ McDonald v. Chicago

When your only tools are a hammer and sickle, every problem starts to look like too much freedom.
Post Reply