Bernie lies again about the gun immunity bill he voted for.

[DanTex]

From the now infamous Daily News interview.

“In the same sense that if you’re a gun dealer and you sell me a gun and I go out and I kill him [gestures to someone in room]…. Do I think that that gun dealer should be sued for selling me a legal product that he misused? [Shakes head no.]

“But I do believe that gun manufacturers and gun dealers should be able to be sued when they should know that guns are going into the hands of wrong people,” Sanders continued. “So if somebody walks in and says, ‘I’d like 10,000 rounds of ammunition,’ you know, well, you might be suspicious about that. So I think there are grounds for those suits, but not if you sell me a legal product.”

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/04/06/daily-news-slams-bernie-sanders/

Here's the thing Bernie. The whole reason the NRA wanted PLCAA so badly was precisely for the kinds of lawsuits you now claim you think have legal grounds. And everyone knew this at the time, because those were precisely the kinds of lawsuits that had already been filed, and some had been litigated successfully. Now, thanks to the law you voted for, those kinds of lawsuits get thrown out of court.

Not only that, but everyone also knew that in order to distract from the actual purpose (and the actual effect) of PLCAA, which was to thwart legitimate lawsuits, the NRA offered up the "frivolous lawsuit against mom and pop gun shop" talking point to sell the law. This was an obvious lie, because the gun industry, like every other industry, already had legal protection against frivolous lawsuits. But you repeated that false talking point, and you voted for that horrific law.

It was a flat-out giveaway to the gun industry who didn't think that they should be able to be sued when, in Bernie's words, "they should know that guns are going into the hands of wrong people."

[mikeysnot]

1. sHillary alert!

You get paid? Correct... per post?

[bobbobbins01]

3. He must, its the only explanation.

I think the job offer came with a pair of boots and a clothespin as well.

[DanTex]

4. That's the level of substance I've come to expect from Bernie fans.

[hobbit709]

7. What are people supposed to think when every one of your posts flings it?

you are evidently a major taurine metabolic byproducts agitation and dispersion specialist.

[DanTex]

9. Well, they could think about actual issues and policy. But I see your point: if they really did that

they probably wouldn't be Bernie fans anymore.

[hobbit709]

12. Can you look in the mirror and say that without flinching?

When have you ever posted about actual issues or policy? Every post you make is an attempt at feces agitation.

[DanTex]

32. LOL. This thread is about an issue, in case you didn't notice.

And based on the responses, the Bernie fans couldn't care less about Bernie's pro-NRA giveaway to the gun industry. Which is fine, people have the right to adopt far-right-wing positions if they want to.

Fortunately, most of the Democratic electorate disagrees with Bernie and the NRAers, which is part of the reason that Hillary is going to be our nominee.

[Armstead]

45. I couldn't care less about Sanders position on that "issue"

Sure I'm in favor of gun control as is Sanders.

But I'm much more concerned about the ways in which our current system exacerbates the poverty and sense of despair that fuels crime and violence.

[DanTex]

47. Of course you don't, because Sanders can do no wrong in your eyes.

I, on the other hand, do care about this issue. I've known about PLCAA and how bad it was long before this primary, and before I found out that Sanders voted for it.

[Armstead]

49. Well good for you then...My feelings long predated Sanders too

I never got worked up over it one way or the other. I think gun control is good, but it has its limits as a solution.

[gabeana]

55. Can Hilary do wrong in your eyes

if so please list

[NurseJackie]

11. What else have they got? (Just repetitive, tired, worn, predictable fall-back attacks and insults.)

[Seeinghope]

23. I agree with Bernie Sanders statement.

If a person follows the law and the gun dealer follows the law and the gun manufacturer follows the law then IF the person purchased the gun under all of these conditions and goes out and kills someone there should be no lawsuit against the gun dealer or gun manufacturer since they followed the laws. It is logical and legal.

If a person comes in and purchases 10,00 rounds of ammunition...now that is not a normal purchase. It could be called into question. The gun DEALER could alert the authorities about this person. He is not required to by law but he can make a judgement call. He can even call the FBI.

As far as the gun manufacturer goes, if they operate within the parameters of the law they are not breaking any laws. They should not be held responsible for individual's intentions or mental health. It is the same thing as a person that buys a car and then uses it to run down their spouse. Should the car manufacturer be held responsible for the person's actions? Or a person uses a knife to kill someone. Should the knife manufacturer be responsible for what the personable for what the person does with that knife?

There is such a thing as personable responsibility and if we try to blame the manufacturer for a person's choices than we are removing part of a person's responsibility.

Now if a gun misfires that is different. The gun malfunctions. That is the gun manufacturers responsibility.

If the gun dealer sells the gun to someone that is too young, then that is the responsibility of the gun dealer.


Bernie Sanders answer was clear and totally logical. It wasn't confused or muddied up with emotion which is how the laws are written.

Should we have stricter gun laws? I think so.

If we want the gun manufacturer to be liable then we have to restructure the gun industry as a whole...Good luck with that.

[Duval]

36. And I agree with you, Seeinghope! nt

[mariawr]

2. Paging Brock and Capehart. Shit needs flinging aisle two. Stat

[libtodeath]

5. *

[Betty Karlson]

6. He's not perfect, but at least he is good. Clinton is merely the lesser of two evils: still evil eom

[hobbit709]

8. Pretty much nails it. Once you cross the line into evil, the level doesn't matter.

[Bad Thoughts]

10. Laws are not opinion polls. Stop treating them that way.

[rock]

13. So this is a case (once again) of

"Liar, liar, pants on fire. Feel the Bern"? They're working their slogan to death.

[jmg257]

14. And darn it, where are his tax returns? And HOW is he getting to Italy anyway?

"Do I think that that gun dealer should be sued for selling me a legal product that he misused?"

Nope.

[DanTex]

15. Bernie fans aren't even trying to discuss policy anymore. I guess y'all figured out that

substance is a losing battle for team Bernie.

[jmg257]

16. It's been discussed a 100 times. We get it...

Guns are bad. Especially ones from Vermont. NRA sucks.

[workinclasszero]

29. Nope

Insults are all they have left.

[jmg257]

57. And SO many opportunities to use them!

What we like to call a "target rich" environment.

[LexVegas]

17. His lips are moving. nt

[Autumn]

18. A friend brought me a cake from the bakery yesterday, now I'm fat. I NEED A LAWYER

ASAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[uponit7771]

21. She make the already unhealthy cake more unhealthy?! Yes, well.. you have a good case...

... unless the cake is a gun then ... no dice

[Autumn]

22. Hey I ate the cake and now I'm fat. Trying to decide if I should sue her or the baker.

[DanTex]

27. You can sue if you want, but you'd probably lose.

[HDSam]

19. My wife and daughter,

while at a stop light, were rear-ended by the driver of an F-350 going 40 miles per hour. Our Subaru was totaled and fortunately they only sustained minor injuries. The driver admitted he was not paying attention because he was texting and driving - does my wife have a case against the cell phone manufacturer? Should she?

[DanTex]

25. If you think you have a case, you can sue. Cell phone companies don't have immunity.

[HDSam]

38. No,

I'm asking you if my wife has a legitimate case. If I knew, I wouldn't have asked, and you seem like a subject matter expert on this particular topic.

You'd think when we talked to several well-respected and experienced attorneys about this accident they would have addressed the liability issues facing Apple or Samsung, hell, maybe even the wireless carrier and Ford as well, but they didn't even bring it up.

[DanTex]

40. It doesn't sound like it to me, but what you really ought to do if you think you might have a case

is consult a law firm and go over all the details with them.

On edit: looks like there's already a lawsuit against Apple, Samsung, and some others over the effect of smartphones and smart watches on distracted driving.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-apple-driving-suit-20150421-story.html

[HDSam]

43. The attorney in that case

sued the manufacturer of Oreo's over trans fat and cities in California in an effort to rescind the ban on plastic bags.

[DanTex]

46. There's a movie you should watch.

http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/Default.asp

[HDSam]

53. I'm very familiar

with the Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurant lawsuit, we discussed it at length in a Con Law course. It is one of my favorite examples of a corporation getting rightfully hammered.

[kcr]

37. Gun manufactures have the same protections against frivolous lawsuits

that cell phone manufactures do. If your wife thinks she has a case against the cell phone company, she's free to sue and she can present whatever facts are relevant to her case. Defendants can move to have a case thrown out, and a judge can agree with them and do so. There's no reason gun manufacturers need to be protected from lawsuits. Doing so only harms citizens and takes away their rights.

[uponit7771]

20. +1, Sander bad judgement

[frylock]

24. #DanBeingDan

[Vinca]

26. You've really got to get some new material.

At least we know you're committed to recycling.

[DanTex]

30. I can tell you don't like hearing about Bernie's pro-NRA votes.

[Vinca]

33. I'm just tired of reading about it 1,000 times over.

I happen to agree with his vote about manufacturers. If a legal-to-own gun is legally manufactured, legally distributed and legally sold, the person who made it should not be on the hook if a legal buyers goes off his rocker and commits a crime. The laws that should be changed are what is legal to own. While I would prefer all guns out of the hands of individuals, we could start with assault weapons. I'm kind of puzzled why that law was put in place in the first place since there is no legal issue with what it seems to be trying to prevent. With or without the law in place, a person filing suit would fail to win a case if everything was legal.

[DanTex]

34. Bernie just made those statements recently in his Daily News interview.

And, as it happens, the way he voted in congress is entirely inconsistent with the answer he gave to the Daily News, because his vote on PLCAA prohibited precisely the kinds of lawsuits that he said he thought had merit -- where a gun manufacturer or vendor should have known (or in some cases did know) that the guns they were selling were going to be used in crimes.

And despite how tired you are of hearing about it, the fact that you are puzzled about why it was put in place means you don't know much about the issue. It was put in place because the gun industry was facing lawsuits that it thought it was going to lose, and rather than have the courts hear the cases, they found it easier to get the NRA to pass a new law for them.

It's fine of you side with the gun industry, everyone has their right to an opinion. But the fact of the matter is, this was a horrible vote on Bernie's behalf, and I'm glad to see that he's taking heat for it. Not just because of the primary campaign, but because PLCAA has always been a horrible law, and now a lot more people know about it, so maybe it will get overturned.

If anything has been repeated 1000 times, it's the empty rhetoric about "oligarchs" and "corporatists." The gun immunity is a real issue.

[Vinca]

35. I'm not "siding with the gun industry."

What is your legal theory that a legal manufacturer making a legal product that is legally sold can be held liable for a crime unrelated to said manufacture or sale?

[DanTex]

39. Yes, that's exactly what you are doing. This is a pro-NRA law, most Dems voted against it.

The "legal theory" I'm referring to is exactly what Bernie explained in the interview:

“But I do believe that gun manufacturers and gun dealers should be able to be sued when they should know that guns are going into the hands of wrong people,” Sanders continued. “So if somebody walks in and says, ‘I’d like 10,000 rounds of ammunition,’ you know, well, you might be suspicious about that. So I think there are grounds for those suits, but not if you sell me a legal product.”

That is precisely the kind of lawsuit that the bill that he voted for was designed to thwart. Before the law, this kind of lawsuit was not explicitly prohibited, and some of them were succeeding (google Smith and Wesson). That's why the NRA wanted to put a stop to it.


So what is your legal theory that holds that there should be a special law exempting the gun industry (or any industry for that matter) from certain kinds of lawsuits that any other company is not exempt from? If it's such a good idea to exempt companies from lawsuits involving unlawful misuse of their products, then why not just exempt everyone? How about banks, should you be able to sue them if they create legal financial products that they know are going to end up tanking the economy?

[Vinca]

44. It doesn't matter whether that law exists or not.

If I intentionally run someone over with my car, they'll get nowhere suing Toyota. If Smith & Wesson is sued after a legally purchased weapon is used in a crime, that lawsuit will go nowhere. This isn't rocket science. I don't care if the gun industry is exempt or not because the end result will be the same if a frivolous lawsuit is filed and the person filing will probably get stuck with the legal fees. The lawyers, of course, will clean up.

[DanTex]

48. Of course it matters.

You're right, frivolous lawsuits would go nowhere even without this law. The point of PLCAA was not to fight frivolous lawsuits, it was to fight the kind of non-frivolous lawsuit that Bernie described in that quote.

The NRA wouldn't have fought so hard for a law that did nothing.

[Vinca]

50. I swear . . . it's like talking to a rock.

[imagine2015]

28. DanTex ... do you believe the private ownership of firearms should be illegal?

I don't.

I agree with Bernie.

[DanTex]

31. No, I just think that gun companies should play by the same rules as everyone else.

[HDSam]

41. Everyone else?

"Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act blocks victims of online defamation from suing service providers (like Comcast) and content providers (like YouTube) for failing to monitor or remove defamatory posts uploaded by customers." (Signed into law by President Clinton).

"... The 1994 General Aviation Revitalization Act said small aircraft manufacturers cannot be sued for accidents involving aircraft more than 18 years old." (Signed into law by President Clinton).

"...President Clinton signed into force the Biomaterials Access Assurance Act of 1998 (the Act),1 which was designed to shield biomaterials suppliers from liability for medical device implants that harm consumers."

[DanTex]

42. Yes, everyone else. I don't know much about those other laws, but if you want to have them repealed

feel free to make your case.

[Armstead]

51. Those are similar rules that "apply to everyone else"

[DanTex]

52. I don't know anything about them. Is there some rationale, or are they

just giveaways to industries with good lobbyists like Bernie's vote was for the NRA?

[frylock]

54. I don't know anything.

FIFY

[Lucinda]

56. TY!