Posted: 7/19/2005 3:50:01 PM EDT
|
Gun Violence Prevention Organizations Host Briefing Before NRA Remarks 7/19/2005 1:55:00 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Assignment Desk and Daybook Editor Contact: Casey Anderson of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, 202-408-0061 ext. 103, or Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign, 202-898-0792 News Advisory: The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence will host a joint briefing for news media on Wednesday morning, July 20, at 9:15 a.m. in the Lisagor Room at the National Press Club, 529 14th Street NW in Washington, D.C., just before National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre speaks at the Press Club at 10 a.m. Brady President Mike Barnes, CSGV executive director Josh Horwitz, Brady Center Director and attorney Dennis Henigan and gun violence victim Jennifer Bishop will speak and answer questions. Following are some suggested questions for journalists who intend to cover LaPierre's comments: Questions for Wayne LaPierre CLOSING THE GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE -- This year the NRA and the Illinois Rifle Association (ISRA), an NRA state affiliate, supported SB 57, a bill that would have closed the gun show loophole, which the NRA has said does not exist. In a press release issued May 19, Richard Pearson, the executive director of the state group, said that requiring background checks for all firearm sales at gun shows would "make it much more difficult for terrorists, gang bangers and drug lords to acquire weapons by exploiting loopholes in current law." How can the NRA reconcile its support for SB 57 in Illinois with its opposition to the proposal by Senators John McCain and Jack Reed for a federal requirement for background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows? And based on Pearson's comments, does the NRA now acknowledge that the absence of a requirement for background checks on all firearm sales at guns makes it easier for criminals to get guns? IMMUNITY FOR RECKLESS GUN SELLERS -- You say that the NRA-supported bill to protect the gun industry from lawsuits still allows gun dealers to be sued if they violate the law. But in the DC sniper case, a gun dealer was sued because it couldn't account for the disappearance of the gun used by the snipers. It also couldn't account for over 200 other missing guns. Shouldn't irresponsible gun dealers like that be subject to lawsuits, even if their conduct is not technically a crime? -- You say that the bill to protect the gun industry from lawsuits still allows gun dealers to be sued if they violate the law. But in one case brought by two New Jersey police officers, a gun shop was sued because it was irresponsible in selling 12 handguns to a gun trafficker for thousands of dollars in cash, even though the authorities could not prove criminal intent. The police officers won a settlement of $1 million from the gun shop. Why should Congress deprive police officers and other victims of gun violence of the right to sue gun dealers who arm criminals by negligently selling to traffickers? -- Over 75 law professors have joined a letter denouncing the NRA-supported bill to protect the gun industry from lawsuits, calling it "a literally unprecedented immunity from liability" for a single industry. Why should the gun industry get protection not available to other industries that make dangerous products, like tobacco or alcohol? If the makers of over-the-counter decongestants can take responsibility for taking steps to stop the use of their products in methamphetamine, why shouldn't gun makers be expected to take action to stop the diversion of firearms to illegal markets? -- The NRA often says "we don't need new gun laws; we need strong enforcement of existing laws." Yet two former ATF Directors, Rex Davis and Steve Higgins, have denounced the NRA- supported immunity bill because it would it restrict ATF enforcement actions against corrupt gun dealers who have violated existing gun laws. If the NRA believes in strong enforcement of our gun laws, why is it supporting a bill that would weaken enforcement of those laws? Why does the bill provide immunity from not only court actions, but also "administrative proceedings" used by ATF to revoke the licenses of corrupt gun dealers so that they can no longer sell guns? FLORIDA'S "SHOOT FIRST" LAW -- Why did the NRA support Florida's new law to permit the use of deadly force in self-defense even outside the home in public places? Most firearms instructors advise gun owners to flee rather than confronting an attacker whenever safely possible. -- James Loudon, whose adult son shot another man in the leg this month in Sarasota, Florida, after the other man allegedly tried to run him over with a car, said he did not think his son "would have been quite as anxious to pull the gun" if not for Florida's new law and said that "(b)y passing this law, the politicians have created a very confusing situation." Aren't Floridians now are more likely to believe - rightly or wrongly - that they can use deadly force to settle disputes? TERRORISTS AND GUNS -- The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported that dozens of individuals on the terrorist watch list were able to buy guns at American gun shops over a single four-month period. These same people would not be permitted on airplanes or cruise ships, but they can buy guns. Do you believe that our government should keep a list of persons who are suspected of terrorist activity and, if so, do you believe those on the list should be permitted to buy guns? MORE FIREARMS IN WASHINGTON, DC -- If the NRA believes that arming citizens helps to reduce violent crime -- particularly in Washington, D.C., where the NRA has made repealing local restrictions on gun ownership "a top legislative priority" -- then why doesn't it advocate allowing guns in the Capitol and other government office buildings? POLITICAL MATTERS -- How can the NRA claim George Bush's reelection was a victory for the NRA when the Bush administration repeatedly reaffirmed its support for legislation to renew the assault weapons ban and close the gun show loophole, both ideas opposed by the NRA? NRA CONVENTION -- You just reneged on your commitment to hold a convention in Columbus, Ohio because the City Council passed legislation putting reasonable restrictions on military-style, semiautomatic assault weapons. You were advised months earlier they were going to pass that legislation. You reneged on a promise. What should a city do to get you to keep your word? And does this episode mean that all a gun violence prevention group has to do to keep you out of town is to pass a gun ordinance you don't like? |
