Sanders Won't Say Vote Granting Immunity For Gun Manufacturers Was Wrong

[RandySF]

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton is cornering Bernie Sanders on gun control every chance she can get, but the Vermont senator isn't backing down on his history of votes against stronger gun legislation.

Defending his vote in favor of a 2005 bill that granted broad immunity to gun manufacturers from civil liability lawsuits in state and federal courts, Sanders said Sunday on ABC's "This Week" that "there were aspects of it that were absolutely right."
Rather than saying his vote was wrong, Sanders shifted, saying aspects of the bill were wrong.

"I will vote to revise that bill," said Sanders, who is challenging Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary. "There are parts of it that made sense to me."

The legislation shields gun manufacturers and sellers from being sued if a gun or ammunition they sold is used in a crime, including a mass shooting.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sanders-gun-immunity-vote_56927ed7e4b0cad15e652de1?utm_hp_ref=politics

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. I wonder what part of immunizing a gun corporations made sense?

And why he likes gun manufacturing corporations so much?

[pipoman]

10. The part about not immunizing anyone but the bogged down court system...

Only complete tools can't figure out that we don't allow people to sue any manufacturers of any industry for the actions of people using their products illegally. If we did we would allow people to sue pharmaceutical companies for drug interactions, car makers for duo accidents, cell phone makers for cell phone car accidents, bucket manufacturers for infant drownings ...must we go on?

No, this law keeps big gun control from suing small businesses out of existence in legal bills for no win frivolous law suits...that is all...this is the Mike Bloomberg law designed to keep that narcissistic asswipe from using our court system as a weapon for injustice.

[mythology]

13. Bars can get sued for serving somebody over the limit who then drives drunk

Airline companies were sued over the September 11th attacks.

Paul Walker's kid is suing Porche for Walker's death.

About half of states have laws saying you can't sue a restaurant for making you obese, but that means about half the states don't have that law and many lawsuits have been filed over that.

Music publishers are suing Cox ISP for their users downloading music illegally.

A Native American tribe has sued the major beer companies for the rampant alcoholism on their land.

I can continue if you'd like, but the point is clear. You actually can sue a company for a legal product that has a negative impact. Except gun manufacturers and gun shops who have special exemptions that ban suing them for straw sales or not putting legitimate safety features on their guns.

[pipoman]

15. And gun stores selling guns to felons without a check can be sued

Gun companies selling faulty guns can be sued. Your examples are apples and orangutans. If you don't get the difference I can't help you. Maybe your local community college has a law 101 class to help you with the fundamentals...

[krispos42]

53. Yeah, the AIRLINES were sued. Not Boeing.

Is Boeing responsible in any way for the 9/11 attacks? That's a much different question than asking if the separate company operating Boeing aircraft is responsible.

And Cox Cable is the immediate provider of cable as well. The MPAA and the RIAA are not suing "the internet", or Cisco Systems, or Intel... they're suing the direct provider of internet service.

I'm not privy to the Walker case or the Native American one so I can't comment on those.

[Agnosticsherbet]

20. Then why didn't he vote against immunizing other corporations in the same period?

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-10/bernie-sanders-supported-gun-company-immunity-but-opposed-it-for-other-industries

Seems Sanders particular singled out gun manufacturing corporations for a special privilege. So you comment asbout that Bloomberg ass wipe doesn't hold water.

And gun corporations worth hundreds of millions are not small business, so that is two parts of your answer that have basis in sense, logic, or fact.

[pipoman]

23. Because they are completely different issues and Bernie isn't a corporatist.

For all you know these other bills were giving vacations to repugnant congressmen ...we know what this bill said and your lying about it and/or pretending doesn't change a single thing.

Your link comes from the flaming asshole who made it necessary for the legislation to begin with.

Pretending that all bills say the same thing is one of the stupidest ass-ertions I've seen made by the corporate elite DNC rethugs in disguise...

The Queen of Corporate money pretending anyone is in corporate pockets is transparent nonsense for the dumbass kool-aid drinkers in the party.

[Thinkingabout]

30. Maybe Sanders is a corporatist, these are some issues he is siding with corporations.

[pipoman]

34. He's not siding with corps..he's siding with small business and small manufacturerers

Against multi billionaire assholes misusing our system.

Oh, "Maybe Sanders is a corporatist..."

LOL...there ain't no "maybe" with the other candidates now is there?

[Thinkingabout]

35. Do you know the small business and small manufacturers are not

a corporation or not? Do you think Ben & Jerry is a small business? Do you think Lockheed Martin is a small company?

[pipoman]

41. I know that the combined sales if all gun manufacturers

In the US wouldn't make a single Fortune 500 company.

[Thinkingabout]

51. It is not necessary to be a fortune 500 company to be a corporation.

Lockheed Martin is a Fortune 100 corporation. Ben & Jerry is a corporation.

[pipoman]

54. Who said it did?

Every mom and pop business is a corporation. This is about keeping Bloomberg from destroying innocent people. If this was any other republican trying to sue mom and pop businesses out of existence you would agree.

This was a liberal bill supported by the most liberal candidate in the race.

Tiny business doesn't buy politicians, that is your wall street candidate .

[Thinkingabout]

55. In post #34 you said Sanders was not siding with corporations but

With small businesses. One corporation he sides with is Lockheed Martin which ranks as the 74th position on the Fortunate 100 list. That is not a small business, in fact the F-35 program which Sanders continues to vote funding has gotten over a trillion dollars of tax payer dollars for the F-35 project, the plane is still not developed and useful. The helmets cost $400,000 a piece. Yes Sanders sides with corporations.

[pipoman]

57. You really don't want to compare the Democratic candidates

Based on who has more vile, sickening, monstrous donors....again...Sanders wins....

[Thinkingabout]

60. I compare candidates on their qualifications to do the job, how large or small their

donations does not enter into their qualifications. I have looked at Clinton, O'Malley and Sanders, I also looked at Biden, Warren, Chaffe, and Webb.

[pipoman]

61. Ridiculous

Not caring who your candidates handlers and owners are is ridiculous.

[Thinkingabout]

65. Ridiculous to think money or the lack of money qualified

One to be president. Sanders has a lack of foreign policy, dances off to his financial response when ask about foreign policy. In real time as president knowledge of foreign policy can not be passed off. This is just one issue, there are more.

[pipoman]

67. No it isn't....you've been lied to...

"Experience" is the DC insiders sales pitch.

Corruption is what we get when we worry about "experience". Every president gets an army of advisors. Bernie has ample "experience" to be president....

Now about corrupt presidential candidates and their puppet masters...in candidate never met a donor she didn't bow to, the other has turned down more donations than any presidential candidate in recent history....

Help yourself, you can vote for more-of-the-same corrupt bullshit, you'll be in the minority...

[Thinkingabout]

68. We see how George W army of advisors worked, no, don't want to go back there.

you can continue with your talking point of she has never met a donor she didn't bow to, and then you can look at Sanders votes on gun issues after the NRA donated $18000 to defeat his opponent when he won his election to the house, oh, yes, Bernie bows, has over and over, against the wishes of the majority of US citizens. We will see where the minority will be.

[pipoman]

69. Remind me...

What was Bill's "experience" when he went in? Governor of Arkansas?

What about Obama? What was his "experience" again?

Hillary will suffer the same fate as all of the "experienced" candidates in those 2 races...

[DisgustipatedinCA]

64. And maybe you're Albert Einstein and I'm Edward Teller. nt

[Thinkingabout]

66. Maybe I am, it still does not chsnge the fact that Sanders sides

With corporations. Follow the trillion dollars plus to Lockheed Martin on defense spending Sanders wants to stop, he continues to vote for funding on one project , the F-35.

[uponit7771]

43. He's not a bank corporatist but a gun corporatist ... unnn, maybe

[Thinkingabout]

52. He has his Wall Street banker friend also.

[Yupster]

17. If somebody stabs someone to death with a kitchen knife

should the knife maker be sued. That just seems stupid.

[Agnosticsherbet]

22. He singled out gun manufacturing for a special deal, corporate welfare.

Yes, if people are hurt they should have their chance in court against huge corporations. The courts are capable of sorting out claims that have no merit.

Corporate Welfare for gun manufacturers makes no sense.

And he voted against other corporations having immunity at the same time. So just to keep the courts clear and deny people the write to take their claim to court is not the answer.

[TeddyR]

28. The bill he signed

Was necessary because a bunch of people were suing gun manufacturers under the ridiculous theory that the manufacturer was somehow responsible because a criminal misused a gun. You don't get to sue a company because someone misused a product. Just like you can't sue a knife company because someone stabbed you with their knife. As a Hillary supporter I find it pretty disgusting that someone is trying to create an issue when there is none here.

[Agnosticsherbet]

38. Corporate Welfare is Corporate Welfare. The courts can deal with frivalous cases.

That is their job.

And Sanders supported Corporate Welfare for gun manufacturers.

That makes him absolutely wrong on what Americans need on this issue from our government and our courts.

I find it disgusting that people support refusing Americans the right to seek redress in the courts to keep Corporate Profits healthy.

[uponit7771]

44. That's what magistrates are for, they decide on the viability of the case not congress

[John Poet]

63. That's because it IS.

If someone ran over my daughter with a Camaro,
I wouldn't have a valid case against General Motors.

[sadoldgirl]

2. We have had these discussions before, but

since you insist we go into it ad nauseam.

No company producing a legal product without any
faulty designs should be held responsible for the
abuse of the customer.

I detest guns, BUT they are legal for crying out loud!

Get that idiotic proposal of the law to the SC, and you
will find it to have been an unconstitutional infringement
of the companies.
HRC knows that as well, but makes this a political issue.

Let her go with her proposal to the West or to Ohio, and
many other states.Will she be honest enough to do that?

I doubt it, after the problems she had before by supporting
guns in 08. She will shift again. Good luck

[RandySF]

3. I will talk about it as long as that law is off the books.

So get used to it.

[Ed Suspicious]

4. You're working really hard tonight supporting Bernie, like you say you do. Keep up the `

good work. We appreciate the support.

[cantbeserious]

7. Riddle Me This - Why Is A Firearms Manufacturer Responsible For Unsafe Product Operation

eom

[JRLeft]

11. I'm pro gun, so your bashing of Bernie on the issue doesn't bother me.

[Fawke Em]

16. They saw the polls.

They're scared.

[sadoldgirl]

5. Great, that is your decision,

but the fact is that it is at this point just a political
ploy. There is no legal support for it: thus you
have to admit to wishful thinking and not to
the reality in the US.

HRC is a lawyer. She knows that this is absurd,
but yet she is using it as way to discredit Bernie.

Honesty? My foot!

[RandySF]

6. Immunity was granted by legislation, not case law.

[pipoman]

18. You don't know what that means...it is an absurd statement...

[RandySF]

21. I don't know the difference between an act of Congress and a court decision?

If it had been the courts who granted immunity, then why do we have a recorded vote (Sanders for Clinton and Obama nay) on granting legal immunity to gun manufacturers? What do you have in mind?

[pipoman]

24. It is because your hero Mike Bloomturd insisted on using our court system

As his personal whipping board. He filed suit after suit against innocent people only to cost them as much money as he could in an effort to put legitimate, completely legal and compliant companies out of business.

I know you support the ultra wealthy buying our system...I get that...most people including Bernie do not support it....

Maybe Mike need someone to kick old ladies out of apartments or patrol the streets cracking heads of 32 ounce soda drinkers..he is a rethug clown

[RandySF]

25. NYC was not the only city to file suit.

[Autumn]

8. No reason he should say it was wrong. It was the right thing to do.

[Juicy_Bellows]

12. Bingo. Sanders got it right. Nt.

[uponit7771]

45. No it wasn't, viability of cases should be left up to magistrates not congress

[petronius]

56. Exactly. Sanders was correct to support the PLCAA, and he's correct now

to be willing to revisit for tweaks--it does seem like there are few examples where cases legitimate negligence were excluded due to this law, so some minor adjustments are worth considering--but he would be mistaken to abandon his support for it in general...

[malokvale77]

9. Riddle me this...

The legislation shields gun manufacturers and sellers from being sued if a gun or ammunition they sold is used in a crime, including a mass shooting.

When did Hillary Clinton ever try to pass a law making any of those products illegal?

[safeinOhio]

14. Seems a little more important to me.

Has HRC ever said her support of wars in Middle East were wrong? There is no perfect person running for office, we just have to pick the best person.

[NCTraveler]

19. Decades of NRA propoganda have worked extremely well on some.

At least he is willing to revisit this.

[Logical]

59. Wrong, unless faulty, what would you sue them for? Nt

[HERVEPA]

26. Do they pay you by the word? You should ask to go on salary.

[earthside]

27. Pres. Obama is wrong about this politically.

And Hillary Clinton is making a huge mistake in so fully embracing this anti-gun attitude.

Hey, I'm very sympathetic to the gun violence problem.

But politically this is a stupid move for Clinton especially.
She can skew to the right on many issues (and has) but Hillary Clinton pro-gun control is a loser.
There are a lot of gun-owning Democrats and a lot of Democrat-leaning independents out there and she is going to lose them all on this issue.

I'm in Colorado, this stance of Clinton on guns will lose this state for her if she becomes the nominee -- she doesn't have enough counterbalancing stands on issues to make up the difference (unlike Sanders).

Face it, Democrats and many liberals just don't understand the emotion and power of this issue, but it is real (I sometimes don't completely get it myself, but I recognize it).

I think Sanders is exactly where he ought to be on this issue ... it shows really how politically adept he is; the goal is for a genuine progressive to win.

[zazen]

29. Smirnoff should reimburse for liver failure? Molson is responsible for drunk driver fatalities?

Are alcohol producers responsible if someone dies from misuse of their perfectly well developed product?

There is no moderate use of tobacco without health complications, and they engaged in false advertising. That's how they were successfully sued. This is different.

If alcohol producers don't engage in false advertising and sell to individuals or bars or grocery stores, are they responsible if the product is sold to underage persons? If an alcoholic father kills his family in a drunken rage?

If gun manufacturers don't engage in false advertising and send their products to retailers consistent with laws allowing semi-automatic weapons to be sold to individuals (which I think is madness), then it's not the manufacturers fault.

I agree with Bernie. Blaming manufacturers gets legislators and the NRA off the hook.

[Thinkingabout]

31. I am seeing Sanders having a difficult time admitting he is wrong, at least Hillary said she

regretted her vote on the IWR. If he can not admit his vote is wrong then it will be put on the table.

[Ed Suspicious]

36. He isn't wrong. He's open minded enough to revisit, but it was a good vote.

[Thinkingabout]

37. Okay,well he has made his choice, now he will be judged for his decision.

[tammywammy]

42. I agree

I don't think he was wrong on this. And I don't think repealing it is a solution either.

[uponit7771]

46. But then he can't claim he's so different... which all paying attention know he's not so

... different, he just picked different vises

[hollowdweller]

32. I don't understand this issue.

I've never read the bill.

If the lawsuit gives gun companies immunity from making defective products then it's wrong.

If it prevented suits from people who were shot by guns then I agree with it.

[Thinkingabout]

50. The gun industry is the only industry with this immunity. At the

Same time frame he voted not to give the food industry immunity like McD when people was suing about obesty, if one got the immunity they they should be equal. It is wrong to give the gun industry the immunity.

[Gothmog]

33. Sanders was wrong on this vote

President Obama is correct to make this part of the common sense gun reform platform

[pipoman]

58. What is "the common sense gun reform platform"?

[ram2008]

39. Why would he apologize for a vote that isn't wrong?

This is the most bizarre line of attack I've seen.

Should a baseball bat company if someone used the bat to harm someone? Should Toyota be sued if someone crashes their car into someone else?

Seems like a horribly written, unnecessary bill that would also set bad precedent and bog up the courts.

[Bernin4U]

40. Show me another "product" with Constituional protections

Then we can talk about the possibility of arguments that may be considered apples-to-apples.

[uponit7771]

47. Making a dangerous weapon more dangerous isn't constitutionally protected

[Roy Ellefson]

48. well

well, because it wasn't wrong.

[Cha]

62. And. Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly endorsed Hillary.