← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · BlueBonnet
Thread ID: 20716 | Posts: 8 | Started: 2005-10-21
2005-10-21 04:36 | User Profile
So when this get's challenged in court, because some lawyer figures this will make his name, will that put an end to the gun manufacturers? [URL="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051020/ap_on_go_co/congress_guns_16"]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051020/ap_on_go_co/congress_guns_16[/URL] [B] [IMG]http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/nws/p/ap_small.gif[/IMG] Congress OKs Gun Industry Lawsuit Shield [/B]
<!-- END HEADLINE --> <!-- BEGIN STORY BODY --> By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer[I]Thu Oct 20, 7:08 PM ET[/I]
Congress gave the gun lobby its top legislative priority Thursday, passing a bill protecting the firearms industry from massive crime-victim lawsuits. President Bush said he will sign it. "Our laws should punish criminals who use guns to commit crimes, not law-abiding manufacturers of lawful products," Bush said in a statement. The House voted 283-144 to send the bill to the president after supporters, led by the National Rifle Association, proclaimed it vital to protect the industry from being bankrupted by huge jury awards. Opponents, waging a tough battle against growing public support for the legislation, called it proof of the gun lobby's power over the Republican-controlled Congress. "This legislation will make the unregulated gun industry the most pampered industry in America," said Kristen Rand, director of the Violence Policy Center. Under the measure, a half-dozen pending lawsuits by local governments against the industry would be dismissed. Anti-gun groups say some lawsuits filed by individuals could be thrown out, too. The Senate passed the bill in July. The bill's passage was the NRA's top legislative priority and would give Bush and his Republican allies on Capitol Hill a rare victory at a time when some top GOP leaders are under indictment or investigation. "Lawsuits seeking to hold the firearms industry responsible for the criminal and unlawful use of its products are brazen attempts to accomplish through litigation what has not been achieved by legislation and the democratic process," House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., told his colleagues. Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, did not vote. He is in Texas in connection with his indictment in an alleged scheme to violate state election law. Propelled by GOP election gains and the incidents of lawlessness associated with the passing of Hurricane Katrina, support for the bill has grown since a similar measure passed the House last year and was killed in the Senate. Horrific images of people without the protection of public safety in New Orleans made a particular impression on viewers who had never before felt unsafe, according to the gun lobby. "Americans saw a complete collapse of the government's ability to protect them," said Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president. "That burnt in, those pictures of people standing there defending their lives and defending their property and their family," he added, "where the one source of comfort was a firearm." With support from four new Republicans this session of Congress, the bill passed the Senate for the first time in July. House passage never was in doubt because it had 257 co-sponsors, far more than the 218 needed to pass. The bill's authors say it still would allow civil suits against individual parties who have been found guilty of criminal wrongdoing by the courts. Opponents say the strength of the bill's support is testament to the influence of the gun lobby. If the bill had been law when the relatives of six victims of convicted Washington-area snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo sued the gun dealer from which they obtained their rifle, the dealer would not have agreed to pay the families and victims $2.5 million. "It is shameful that Republicans in Congress are pushing legislation that guarantees their gun-dealing cronies receive special treatment and are above the law," said Rep. Robert Wexler (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla. Bush has said he supports the bill, which would prohibit lawsuits against the firearms industry for damages resulting from the unlawful use of a firearm or ammunition. Gun makers and dealers still would be subject to product liability, negligence or breach of contract suits, the bill's authors say. Democrats and Republicans alike court the NRA at election time, and the bill has garnered bipartisan support. But the firearms industry still gave 88 percent of its campaign contributions, or $1.2 million, to Republicans in the 2004 election cycle. Gun control advocates, meanwhile, gave 98 percent of their contributions, or $93,700, to Democrats that cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
The bill is S. 397.
On the Net: Congress: [url]http://thomas.loc.gov[/url]
<!-- END STORY BODY -->
<!-- END MAIN CONTENT --> <!-- BEGIN FOOTER --> Copyright é 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
<!-- start footer --> <script language="javascript"> var ADFadids = "1894157,3026328,2962099,1030392"; function ADFlaunch() {var w; var l="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12fconl41/M=224039.1983420.3465435.1919853/D=news/S=83018124:FOOT/_ylt=AnZkW9IWS6e9fDagjyZ97rWMwfIE/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1129876414/A=1030392/R=0/id=adfeedback/SIG=12gmalv1u/*http://surveys.yahoo.com/user_ad_feedback?source=83018124:FOOT&.q28=news&.q26="+ADFadids; w=window.open(l,"AdFeedbackWin","toolbar=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable,location=no,height=400,width=640"); }</script><table width="750"><tbody><tr><td align="center" valign="top">Copyright é 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
[URL="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12fconl41/M=224039.1983420.3465435.1919853/D=news/S=83018124:FOOT/_ylt=AnZkW9IWS6e9fDagjyZ97rWMwfIE/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1129876414/A=1030392/R=1/SIG=1124ddvo1/http://help.yahoo.com/help/news/"]Questions or Comments[/URL] [URL="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12fconl41/M=224039.1983420.3465435.1919853/D=news/S=83018124:FOOT/_ylt=AnZkW9IWS6e9fDagjyZ97rWMwfIE/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1129876414/A=1030392/R=2/SIG=11a1ak88p/http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us/news"]Privacy Policy[/URL] -[URL="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12fconl41/M=224039.1983420.3465435.1919853/D=news/S=83018124:FOOT/_ylt=AnZkW9IWS6e9fDagjyZ97rWMwfIE/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1129876414/A=1030392/R=3/SIG=1136qnvkg/http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/"]Terms of Service[/URL] - [URL="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12fconl41/M=224039.1983420.3465435.1919853/D=news/S=83018124:FOOT/_ylt=AnZkW9IWS6e9fDagjyZ97rWMwfIE/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1129876414/A=1030392/R=4/SIG=11lp7krrc/http://docs.yahoo.com/info/copyright/copyright.html"]Copyright/IP Policy[/URL] - [URL="javascript:ADFlaunch()"]Ad Feedback[/URL]
<!-- END MAIN CONTAINER -->
2005-10-21 04:57 | User Profile
Every once in a while, Congress actually does something right. This is one of those instances.
Suing gun manufacturers for the criminal misuse of guns is NO different from suing cutlery manufacturers for criminal assaults with kitchen knives. Some people argue that there's a difference because "a gun's only purpose is to kill, whereas knives have legitimate uses." This argument is idiotic because it ignores the fact that guns are made for a perfectly legitimate purpose, too: self-defense! Shooting (or threatening to shoot) someone in self-defense is every bit as legitimate as slicing onions with a kitchen knife.
Gunmakers should only be liable when their products are defective and lead to injury.
"This legislation will make the unregulated gun industry the most pampered industry in America," said Kristen Rand, director of the Violence Policy Center. "Unregulated"?!
What I hate most about the gun control groups is their shameless LYING. It's just nauseating.
2005-10-21 06:10 | User Profile
Angler, Great Post.
If it's ok to sue gun manufacturers for criminal misuse of a firearm, then it must be OK to sue an automobile manufacturer for drunks misusing automobiles.
It's a great day in America when the government does somthing right, but we should remember, that even a blind squirrel can occasionallly find an acorn.
2005-10-21 14:09 | User Profile
Blind Squirrel...:wink:
I'm afraid though that after this is passed sometime down the road some lawyer will find a family of a gunshot "victim" and try to overturn the lawsuit sheild law. Then it will be an uphill struggle. Maybe I should just worry about it when we cross that bridge, but you know these groups don't just sit around waiting for stuff to happen.
2005-10-23 20:37 | User Profile
Our President deserves a little bit of credit here. :cowboy:
2005-10-23 22:05 | User Profile
[url]www.gunowners.org[/url] Oct 2005
While gun control passes in the House, GOA expresses a big THANK YOU to all of its members and activists who waged a lone battle of opposition -- And you can be encouraged that your calls made a HUGE difference in one area Gun Owners of America 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102 Springfield, VA 22151 (703)321-8585 Thursday, October 20, 2005
"The anti-gun provisions in S. 397 would probably be stripped out in the House if all the gun groups were working together with GOA." -- Rep. Ron Paul, Sept. 15, 2005
It's a shame really.
Rep. Ron Paul is totally correct. Working united, we could have encouraged the House leadership to bring up a CLEAN bill.
H.R. 800, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, garnered well over 250 cosponsors and would have passed the House easily if the leadership had brought up this bill rather than its Senate counterpart, S. 397.
Unfortunately, GOA was the ONLY national group that was not calling for passage of the Senate bill, which contained new gun control. And likewise, GOA was the ONLY national group that was pressing for passage of the clean bill, H.R. 800.
The House today passed S. 397 and sent it to the President. Because he has promised to sign this legislation, it is all the more tragic that House and Senate leaders refused to send him a clean bill.
FIRST, HERE'S THE BAD NEWS... As we have mentioned before, S. 397 imposes a mandatory "gun tax" by forcing every gun buyer to purchase a trigger lock and takes us to the verge of mandatory trigger lock usage.
The bill provides immunity (from lawsuits) for those who use trigger locks, but there is no such immunity for gun owners who keep a firearm available for self-defense WITHOUT a trigger lock.
The push towards trigger locks may very well follow the push for mandatory seat belts and motorcycle helmets. And if our country ever takes that next step -- and straps every gun owner with California-style lock-up-your-safety legislation -- then we will need to remember this day as the day that laid the foundation.
Mary Carpenter certainly will. She is the grandmother who has had to live with the fact that two of her grandchildren were killed in 2000, because no one in the house could get to the family weapons to protect themselves against the pitchfork wielding thug.
People in the home had been trained with firearms and knew how to use them. But the guns were locked up in compliance with California state law. Gun owners can go to [url]http://www.gunowners.com/psatext.htm[/url] on the GOA website to view the public safety ad -- produced by Gun Owners Foundation -- which features Mary Carpenter and her tragic story.
Another amendment which passed as part of S. 397 would give impetus to adopting a "penetration standard" for armor piercing bullets by commissioning a Justice Department study of the issue. If a "penetration standard" were adopted, a gun-adverse administration could probably use it to ban virtually all ammunition.
The Senate passed its gun control-laden version as Congress was getting ready to go out for their summer recess. At that time, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave's office had promised to mobilize pro-gun members in the House to oppose the Senate version, by asking them to join her in approaching the leadership in favor of H.R. 800. A Musgrave-led effort such as this would have made it much more likely that the House bill would have been considered. Unfortunately, Rep. Musgrave decided to do nothing, and the voices that were demanding S.397 -- gun locks and all -- carried the day.
You can see how your Representative voted by going to [url]http://www.clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/[/url] on the House of Representative's website.
NOW FOR THE GOOD NEWS... GOA is glad that Congress has passed legislation that is intended to stop predatory law suits designed to destroy the gun industry. That much is very good, and GOA supports that 100%. GOA hopes that the law accomplishes what its sponsors intended.
Also, GOA would be remiss if we failed to mention that there is at least one "silver lining" in this entire ordeal. Don't forget that your hard work KILLED the Feinstein semi-auto ban this past summer.
Remember several months ago when Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) wanted to offer a renewal of the semi-auto ban to S. 397? Gun Owners of America asked Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to use whatever means possible to block her anti-gun amendments.
Well, that request fell upon deaf ears. So we asked you to lobby him, since his office had been incorrectly asserting this strategy couldn't be done. (Some in his staff were even claiming there was no Senate rule allowing the majority party to block bad amendments.)
But after GOA members and activists like you applied the heat, Frist took another look. He then used parliamentary rules to "fill the amendment tree," which is exactly what we asked him to do. "Filling the amendment tree" is a technical term which explains how the majority party can offer amendments in such a way as to block the minority party from offering other amendments.
Democrats were beside themselves. On the floor of the Senate, Harry Reid (D-NV) complained about the strategy Frist had employed:
I have nothing in my memory that [Sen. Frist] has ever done this before; that is, immediately going to a bill and FILLING THE TREE SO NO OTHER AMENDMENTS CAN BE OFFERED. [Emphasis added.] I have never, ever known him to do this. It is so unusual. It is not in keeping with how he has done business here during his tenure as majority leader. While filling the tree is within the rules, it is done very rarely. And again, I am surprised that Senator Frist did this. (Congressional Record, July 27, 2005, pp. S9104-5) You guys achieved this significant victory! You guys were responsible for making the sure the Feinstein ban was never offered on the floor of the Senate. You guys deserve the credit.
It was just so unfortunate that, after achieving this great victory, Frist blinked. He could have blocked EVERY SINGLE anti-gun amendment, but he allowed two to be offered, namely, the trigger lock amendment and the armor-piercing study.
So take heart... your hard work did accomplish much. You convinced Frist to block Feinstein's ban in the first place. And that was no small undertaking.
WHY REMAINING "NO COMPROMISE" IS ALWAYS THE RIGHT THING TO DO Some have faulted GOA for remaining "no compromise" throughout this battle. They claim that by sticking to our guns, we were endangering the chance to pass this legislation that might have the effect of protecting gun makers.
First, please realize that this underestimates YOUR collective power. This ignores the power of the grassroots. Remember, GOA was also told that blocking the Feinstein ban couldn't be done through parliamentary procedures. But together, we convinced the Senate Majority Leader to think differently, and we accomplished a tremendous feat together. Don't ever underestimate the strength of the gun rights community working together as one!
Second, as a pragmatic matter, the desire to compromise ignores one simple fact: we could have EASILY won this battle to pass a clean bill! Consider:
So why couldn't we insist on a bill that had no trigger locks? What was the problem? Why couldnââ¬â¢t we stare down the anti-gunners and just say, "We're going to pass a clean bill because you don't have the votes to stop us."
Winston Churchill once said that, "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed, if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival."
Early on, we had the upper hand. GOA was insisting on a clean bill. Why do some think that was too much to ask?
The answer is quite simply this: the spirit of Neville Chamberlain lives on, from one generation to the next. Some people just always seem to have the desire to placate the other side, even when they've got the muscle to get things done right.
Winston Churchill didn't buy it, and neither should we. Speaking to the failings of appeasement, Churchill said, "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile -- hoping it will eat him last."
Well, at GOA, we don't appease. We prefer to shoot the crocodile.
Again, thanks to all of you who worked so hard and stood with us. Your efforts have not been in vain.
HEARD ON C-SPAN TODAY: "Actually, the organization that does a better job of [keeping me informed] is Gun Owners of America. I'm on their mailing list, and we know when something pops up and we're informed as to what's going on so we can write our emails and make phone calls to our respective representatives." -- C-SPAN caller from Pensacola, Florida (October 20, 2005)
We are always glad when we hear our members say they find our alerts worthwhile. GOA is here to keep you informed. And so, if you've never officially joined GOA, please consider becoming a member by signing up at [url]http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm[/url] or call 703-321-8585.
You can become a GOA member and help protect the Second Amendment with a contribution of $20 a year -- or a mere 5 cents a day!
[url]http://www.gunowners.org/a102005.htm[/url]
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Your stinking El Presidente Bush :thumbd: wanted to extend the semi-auto ban, I'm sure he loves the trigger locks...[/COLOR]
2005-11-04 13:51 | User Profile
Thanks Charley! :gunsmilie :thumbsup:
[url]http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20051104/index.php[/url]
Keep The Canary Alive
Congress finally did something right, and we should all applaud. The Senate and the House passed a law that shields gun manufacturers from politically-motivated lawsuits.
I just read a rant by a liberal columnist on the subject, and as usual, in his hysteria, he got the facts wrong. The new law, which President Bush is expected to sign, does not exempt gun manufacturers from lawsuits. If they produce a defective product that causes injury, they can still be sued. All the new law does is put them on a level playing field with every other manufacturer.
You hear a lot about the gun lobby, mainly the National Rifle Association, of which I am proud to be a life member. There is also, however, an anti-gun lobby that over time has masqueraded under different names. Its goal is to abolish the private ownership of firearms. The lobby doesn't openly admit it, but that's its aim.
With rare exceptions in a few cities and states in which no decent American should live, the anti-gun lobby has failed miserably through the democratic process. If the lobby was honest, which it is not, it would simply seek the repeal of the Second Amendment. Instead, it tries roundabout ways to accomplish the goal of disarming the populace.
Lawsuits against gun manufacturers were intended to bankrupt the companies. These lawsuits were so ridiculous that if we had a decent class of judges, they would have been thrown out without even a hearing. A mayor in New Orleans some years ago sued gun manufacturers in an attempt to blame them for the city's sorry crime rate. Other suits try to blame the manufacturers for the actions of criminals in individual cases.
Before America's exceedingly excessive number of lawyers corrupted the civil-court system, the principles involved in liability were simple and logical. You can't be held liable for something over which you have no control. A manufacturer has no control over or even knowledge of the behavior of the end user of his product. The fact that these lawsuits were politically motivated is shown by the absence of such suits against other manufacturers.
Nobody has sued Ford Motor Co. because some Ford owner uses his car to rob banks or kidnap children or run down pedestrians. Nor should you be able to sue Smith & Wesson because some crackhead uses one of its pistols to commit murder. As I said, all of these lawsuits should have been immediately dismissed, but because of the low quality of so many judges, many of them were not. Even when the manufacturers win, as they have so far, the legal costs are exorbitant. And that was the strategy of the anti-gun lobby ââ¬â to bleed the companies with endless lawsuits.
America's gun manufacturers produce some of the highest-quality products in the world. They are safe. Manufacturers sell to wholesalers, who sell to retailers, who in turn sell to individual customers. Some of these suits tried to blame manufacturers for the actions of retailers. That was stupid on its face.
All gun retailers in the United States are licensed and regulated by the federal government. Agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms have the authority to walk into any retailer at any time without notice and thoroughly inspect all of the records and inventory. If any retailer is engaged in hanky-panky, and the overwhelming majority are not, that is the fault and responsibility of the federal government, not the manufacturer.
To buy the anti-gun ploy would be like holding General Motors responsible for the behavior of every used-car salesman who sold a secondhand GM car. Responsibility and control of the actions of gun retailers lie squarely with the federal government and the retailers themselves, not with manufacturers.
Machiavelli once remarked that the Swiss were the "most armed and most free" people in Europe. When the day comes that your government tells you it is forbidden for you to own and keep a firearm, you will no longer be living in a free country. A government that is afraid of its own citizens is undemocratic and authoritarian. The Second Amendment is the canary that monitors our freedom. When it dies, freedom dies. Even if you don't wish to own a firearm, you should join the National Rifle Association and defend the Second Amendment against those who want the government to have a monopoly on force.
2005-11-04 14:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Our President deserves a little bit of credit here. :cowboy:[/QUOTE]Surely you cannot be that naive. El presidente Jorge Bush had nothing to do with this. Bush's record on gun rights, like that of his father, is not good. He'll sign this legislation not because he agrees with it, but because he can't afford to piss off his conservative base right now. It's the Republican Congress you should be thanking right now, not Bush.