Bernie Sanders, Gun Nut

[4now]

He supported the most reprehensible pro-gun legislation in recent memory.

When Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders jumped into the 2016 presidential race, he was widely hailed as a far-left socialist who would appeal to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. A liberal challenge to Hillary Clinton, said Politico. True progressives’ liberal alternative, trumpeted FiveThirtyEight. But before liberal Democrats flock to Sanders, they should remember that the Vermont senator stands firmly to Clinton’s right on one issue of overwhelming importance to the Democratic base: gun control. During his time in Congress, Sanders opposed several moderate gun control bills. He also supported the most odious NRA–backed law in recent memory—one that may block Sandy Hook families from winning a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the gun used to massacre their children.

Sanders, an economic populist and middle-class pugilist, doesn’t talk much about guns on the campaign trail. But his voting record paints the picture of a legislator who is both skeptical of gun control and invested in the interests of gun owners—and manufacturers. In 1993, then-Rep. Sanders voted against the Brady Act, which mandated federal background checks for gun purchasers and restricted felons’ access to firearms. As a senator, Sanders supported bills to allow firearms in checked bags on Amtrak trains and block funding to any foreign aid organization that registered or taxed Americans’ guns. Sanders is dubious that gun control could help prevent gun violence, telling one interviewer after Sandy Hook that “if you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen.” (He has since endorsed some modest gun control measures.)

None of these views are particularly shocking for a Vermont representative: Sanders’ deep-blue state has both high gun ownership and incredibly lax gun laws, and it’s perfectly logical for the senator to support his constituents’ firearms enthusiasm. And a close friend of Sanders once said that the senator “thinks there’s an elitism in the anti-gun movement.”

The act’s primary purpose is as simple as it is cold-blooded.

But Sanders’ vote for a different kind of pro-gun bill is more puzzling—and profoundly disturbing. In 2005, a Republican-dominated Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This law doesn’t protect gun owners; it protects gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers. The PLCAA was the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association for years, because it shields gun makers and dealers from most liability when their firearms are used criminally. It is one of the most noxious pieces of pro-gun legislation ever passed. And Bernie Sanders voted for it. (Sanders’ campaign has not replied to a request for comment.)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html

[NYC_SKP]

1. Good for him on the Second Amendment. Makes him more electable.

And manufacturers cannot be held liable for the misuse of their products.

If they could, GM and Nissan would be out of business.

[rbnyc]

3. Also...

...it reminds me of when I was a bartender, knowing that our restaurant and that I personally could be held responsible if someone got drunk at my bar and then broke the law. I can go to a bar and drink and then be responsible not to get into a car. I was not comfortable with this generalization of liability.

[SunSeeker]

5. Car manufacturers ARE held liable for the foreseeable misuse of their products...

That is why they work so hard to make car crashes as survivable as reasonably possible. They ARE held liable if their car failed to reasonably protect the occupant and others in a crash--even if (as is likely) misuse of the car caused the crash.

What that horrible law did was make gun manufacturers immune from product liability lawsuits. No other civilian manufacturer has this immunity.

Now, gun owners whose rifles explode in their faces, or innocents mowed down by lunatics with AR-15s meant for military use, cannot sue the gun manufacturers. That is tragic. I am shocked that Bernie would vote for such a law.

[hack89]

7. You need to read the actual legislation

it specifically says that gun manufacturers can be sued for defective products. What the law says is that they cannot be sued for the criminal or negligent use of their product if they adhere to all state and federal laws pertaining to the manufacturing, marketing and sales of guns. Just like you cannot sue Coors if someone gets drunk on their product, gets in a car, and causes a fatal accident.

This law came about because the gun control movement overplayed their hand - they put together a campaign to drive gun manufacturers out of business by overwhelming them with endless civil law suits. This was the blow back.

[SunSeeker]

12. By your own description, it absolved them of negligence, unlike any other manufacturer. nt

[hack89]

13. Not of their own negligence

Only of the negligence of those that use their products.

[SunSeeker]

15. Wrong.

Letting a lawsuit go forward may not sound like a big deal, but Congress enacted a law in 2005 — under heavy lobbying from the NRA and the gun industry — that gives gun manufacturers and dealers broad immunity from being sued. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) shields the gun industry even when it makes guns that are unnecessarily dangerous and sells them recklessly.

http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/24/why-is-congress-protecting-the-gun-industry/

[hack89]

16. Have you ever considered reading the actual legislation

instead of someone's agenda driven opinion piece?

Here are the exceptions to the law - these are the things gun manufacturers can be sued for:

The term “qualified civil liability action” means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include—

(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924 (h) of title 18, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;

(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;

(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including—

(I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product, or aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or

(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) ofsection 922 of title 18;

(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product;

(v) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or

(vi) an action or proceeding commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of title 18 or chapter 53 of title 26.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7903

[SunSeeker]

17. I did. Those provisions are interpreted to BAR normal products lawsuits.

One of the most egregious results of this shameful legislation is that it bars lawsuits against gun manufacturers for failing to install simple child-proofing mechanisms, resulting in the headlines we read every day about toddlers killing themselves or others:

Adames v. Sheehan, 909 N.E.2d 742 (Ill. 2009): The Illinois Supreme Court found that the PLCAA preempted a claim for design defects, failure to warn, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability against firearms manufacturers.  One young boy was playing with his father’s gun and accidentally shot his friend.

The decedent’s family brought claims against the gun manufacturer for design defects and a failure to warn.  They alleged that the gun was inherently dangerous and defective because: 1) it did not incorporate safety features, including technology that would have prevented children from firing the gun; and 2) it did not include adequate warnings concerning the foreseeable use of the gun by children.

The Illinois Supreme Court found those claims pre-empted by the PLCAA.  The plaintiffs asserted that the fifth exception to the PLCAA – for certain design defect claims – was applicable, but the court found it was not because the child’s death was caused by a volitional act and therefore was preempted.

[hack89]

18. What simple childproofing mechanisms are you talking about?

and why don't gun locks and storage laws meet the same requirement?

[SunSeeker]

19. I love how you change the subject when you're proven wrong.

A TriggerSmart Childproof RFID Smart Gun looks promising, but gun manufacturers will not develop it or anything else that costs them a penny, because they don't have to, there's no lawsuits to force them to.

And no, storage laws and after-market gun locks don't "meet the same requirement" because a significant portion of "responsible gun owners" don't follow/use them, as is obvious from the headlines.

So, kids are left to die in our gun-flooded culture. Again, shocking that Bernie would be party to this. But even he apparently has to bend his principles to get elected.

[rbnyc]

2. I'm glad you brought this up.

I think it's really important to talk about this. Many people vote on this issue; people have passionate beliefs about gun rights and gun control; and it is polarizing.

We can't be afraid to talk about it and try to get clear, especially for those of us who strongly support Sanders.

Personally, I think reasonable restrictions on access to guns and ammunition are not unconstitutional. And my idea of what constitutes reasonable gun control is probably more liberal than the average voter. However, I believe that there are more factors that may have a profound impact on gun violence than gun control legislation alone has the capacity to influence. So when Bernie says that he's uncertain that gun control legislation would have had a profound effect, I'm willing to consider that.

I think that the industry has flooded the market with weapons. I think that people are under-educated, under-employed, and often feel hopeless. I think that living in a country that does not see health care as a right both limits access to treatment and support for the mentally ill and creates a culture where it is affirmed that it's not important for us to care for each other. I think that Bernie has a superior platform in addressing these issues, which could make a real difference.

That probably doesn't mean I support those votes. I don't know. I'd have to look more closely at it, though I am generally in support of gum control.

However, I don't think those votes, even if I disagree with them, are that damaging, even directly on the issue of.gun violence. I think creating a more equitable society with a commitment to health care as a fundamental right will reduce gun violence.

Much in the same way that I believe restricting access to abortions does not reduce abortions.

[william cail]

4. Sanders Bots

Hell if Bernie Sanders throw a burlap sack full of kittens into a body of water the Sanders bots will say that he is practicing responsibe pet ownership.

[frylock]

6. aren't you ever so cute and clever!

[LiberalElite]

20. Enjoy your stay nt

[Arkana]

8. Oh for god's sake.

Why is everyone so hell-bent on proving that "MY GUY IS MORE PURE THAN YOUR GUY"?!

So Bernie voted for a few shitty bills in his Congressional career. Who. Gives. A Damn. If you honestly think that he'd somehow become Rick Perry on guns if by some miracle he made it to the Oval Office you're delusional.

[hollowdweller]

9. Sanders danced with who brung him.

Rural Vermont people who liked guns, but wanted a social safety net.

He managed to do what only a few dems have done. To snag rural votes with a progressive voting record.

Hillary was a senator from NY, it's no wonder that she supported Wall Street as a senator.

LBJ fairly consistently opposed civil rights till he was President.

Personally other than mass shootings, gun homicides are at historic lows in the US.

If we could snag 5% of the voters who vote their guns but really agree with us on economic fairness issues I would consider that good.

[mackdaddy]

10. Vermont has the most liberal gun carry laws in the country.

You do not need any kind of permit or license to carry a gun in Vermont either openly or concealed.

Concealed Permit:
It is lawful to carry a firearm openly or concealed provided the firearm is not carried with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow
man. There is no permit required to carry concealed.

Requirements:
1. Be of age. In the state of Vermont, that age is 16 or older. You must be at least 16 years of age to legally purchase a gun and keep it loaded on your person in public.
2. Obtain permission from a parent or guardian to carry a gun if you’re under the age of 16. Failure to do so may result in being deemed a delinquent child by the state.
3. Have a clean record if purchasing a firearm. Things like felony convictions and dishonorable military discharge will show up during the federal instant check, and prohibit purchase.

http://www.usacarry.com/vermont_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

[hollowdweller]

11. But also a very low rate of gun homicide. Correct?

[november3rd]

14. It's Okay

It's okay for reasonable and sincere, well-informed to people to disagree on some issues. That's why we want to have a Democracy.

[HooptieWagon]

21. The NRA gives him an F.

And the gun banners give him an F. IMO his position is areasonable and pragmatic middle ground between the hysterical extremists. And the only people who give a shit are the Hillary supporters, go figure. They must be getting desperate.

[petronius]

22. The PLCAA is appropriate: manufacturers (of any product) should be shielded

from liability when their products are used criminally or negligently by a third party. Liability should only apply to the misconduct, egregious error, or demonstrable negligence of the responsible party...