This is a decent article by CNN re: the gun issue, but they still get one major thing wrong.

[Uncle Joe]

Sanders campaign manager: 'Clinton has been all over the map on guns'

Washington (CNN)Bernie Sanders struck back at Hillary Clinton on Monday after the former secretary of state repeatedly blasted his previous opposition to gun control measures, saying her own position has changed since 2008.

"People will remember that Secretary Clinton has been all over the map on guns, she's been very conservative on guns, she's been very liberal on guns. People will remember the attacks she leveled against then-Sen. Barack Obama, now President Barack Obama, back in 2008 on guns, when she was tacking to the right on this," Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told CNN's Chris Cuomo on "New Day." "So I think her argument would be much more compelling if she had a consistent record on this issue."

(snip)

Sanders has recently softened his stance, however, saying he might not vote for the legislation again if given the chance -- an announcement which came shortly after Obama said he would not campaign for anyone with an inconsistent record on gun control.

"What is happening is you're seeing the polls and and I think that Clinton campaign is getting very very nervous," Weaver said.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/11/politics/jeff-weaver-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-guns/

Bernie had already stated that he was willing to revisit the gun issue as early as Oct. 11 before President Obama made his statement not after.

2:36 pm ET
Oct 11, 2015 2016
Bernie Sanders Signals Flexibility on Gun Control

Two days ahead of the first Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) showed some flexibility in his gun control policies.

In the past he’s voted for some liability protections for gun control manufacturers. But on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday after a series of mass shootings, the candidate said he’d take another look at his position.

“Where there is a problem, is there is evidence that manufacturers, gun manufacturers, do know that they’re selling a whole lot of guns in an area that really should not be buying that many guns, that many of those guns are going to other areas, probably for criminal purposes?” he asked. “So, can we take another look at that liability issue? Yes.”

Mr. Sanders said he backs “common sense gun reform plus a revolution in mental health.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/10/11/bernie-sanders-signals-flexibility-on-gun-control/

Furthermore, President Obama followed up on Bernie's proposal in regards to mental health and the gun issue.

If Hillary has ever brought up mental health in regards to the gun issue, I can't find it.

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S 2015 EXECUTIVE ACTIONS ON GUN CONTROL


Requires inclusion of mental health information from the Social Security Administration (SSA) in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm. To this end. SSA will issue a rule to ensure that this information is reported to NICS. This rule will also include a waiver provision available to people seeking relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm because of mental health reasons. Further details will be available upon issuance of this rule.

(snip)

Removes certain legal barriers preventing states from reporting information to NICS. HHS has been directed to clarify through a rule that certain Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act covered entities are permitted to provide limited demographic and other necessary information about people with mental illness who are prohibited from possessing a firearm to the NICS.

(snip)

Improves mental health awareness through enhanced teacher training and referrals for treatment. The plan calls for the training of 5,000 additional mental health professionals nationwide. The plan also calls for coverage of mental health treatment under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/summary-president-obama-gun-proposals.aspx

Finally nothing in President Obama's proposal reverses gun manufacturers immunity or holds dealers liable for legally selling their guns in good faith should someone use them for nefarious purposes at a later point.

Bernie's proposals regarding the gun issue have more in common with President Obama's recent policies in regards to guns than Hillary does.

In 2008 Hillary ran to the right of Senator Obama and said he was too hard on gun owners, what is she going to do now since President Obama hasn't adopted her proposal to revoke gun manufacturers immunity?

Attack the President for being too far to the right?

[Thinkingabout]

1. Hillary voted against the immunity to the gun industry, Sanders voted for it.

Sanders has been very conservative on gun issues. He may have moved back some to the left but he is not doing this without seeing pressure to do so.

[Uncle Joe]

2. President Obama didn't do anything regarding gun manufacturer immunity but he did follow up on

Bernie's proposal to work on closing the "gun show" loophole.

Directs the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to require any business that engages in the sale of guns to obtain a federal license to do so and conduct background checks. This requirement applies to gun stores, sellers of guns at gun shows, and sellers of guns over the Internet. The licensing requirement applies to all sellers “engaged in the business” of selling guns, regardless of how frequent or how many sales there are. Failure to obtain a license to sell will carry criminal penalties of up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. Failure to conduct a required background check will also carry penalties.

[Uncle Joe]

3. One other question, if a manufacturer of guns sells their product legally, in good faith and

someone down the line misuses their guns to kill people, on what grounds should you be able to sue the manufacturer on?

This is a major reason as to why President Obama didn't try doing this.

[Juicy_Bellows]

6. What about a manufacturer selling weapons illegally to help perpetuate war?

Haven't seen that law enforced often.

Sanders got it right. Guns aren't illegal and the manufacturer cannot be liable for the abuse of their owners.

[Uncle Joe]

7. I agree, Juicy Bellows, unfortunately for too many people gun consciousness stops at the border.

I don't believe we will ever get an answer to the question that I posed, "on what grounds should a gun manufacturer or gun dealer that sells their guns legally and in good faith to someone that snaps or another person down the line that misuses it be sued?"

Taking away immunity from gun manufacturers makes no logical sense to me, it's just emotional salve or political play that would never pass Constitutional muster and as I stated below, I believe that's why President Obama hasn't tried to do anything in that regard.

[Juicy_Bellows]

8. I agree wholeheartedly. You won't get a cogent answer. Nt.

[cantbeserious]

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

eom

[Samantha]

4. I started doing some research this evening on the history of gun legislation in this Country

Last edited Tue Jan 12, 2016, 03:51 AM - Edit history (1)

What I learned is that here is a lot of detail expanding over a number of years that I did not know. It certainly is complex, and I hope to continue my education. Tonight I "took a class" on CSPAN's website regarding this history. One thing I learned is that there already is legislation on the books barring "persons deemed to be mentally disturbed" from buying guns. I just assumed from all of the conversation on this subject that issue had not been addressed. I guess the key problem is that the use of the word "deemed" does not necessary mean officially classified as mentally unstable; and it does not obliterate the ability of a mentally unstable person from obtaining a gun from unorthodox means.

I did see that discussed above in your thread, Uncle Joe, but I am just mentioning I had assumed this had been not addressed before. Just goes to show you how wrong I can be.

Sam

[Uncle Joe]

5. Thanks for the additional information, Samantha. I believe President Obama's proposals basically

expanded the laws regarding mental health and guns.

He did address the shortage of mental health professionals, which I thought was a positive development.

[elleng]

9. ONE major thing wrong?

Did they say ANYTHING about O'Malley's experience and plans?

As Governor of Maryland, O’Malley implemented some of the toughest measures in the nation to reduce gun violence. He put in place licensing, fingerprinting, background checks, and safety training requirements for all buyers. If a firearm was lost or stolen, owners were required to immediately notify law enforcement. And Maryland prohibited the sale of assault weapons and limited the size of magazines—all while protecting the state’s proud hunting tradition.

Governor O’Malley is calling for the nation to adopt similar, commonsense reforms—while also closing loopholes that allow prohibited individuals to easily purchase guns, prevent law enforcement from holding dealers and gun traffickers accountable when they break the law, and lead to the deaths of thousands of children every year. These proven solutions are achievable at a national scale—if, as a nation, we have the courage and conviction to do the right thing.

https://martinomalley.com/policy/preventing-and-reducing-gun-violence/

[Uncle Joe]

10. O'Malley is wrong about the immunity issue and Bernie was right.

"O'Malley will not intervene on behalf of the gun industry immunity law as president. Instead, he will argue that the immunity law is unconstitutional," according to the campaign memo.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/blog/bal-omalley-proposes-executive-action-on-gun-control-20151102-story.html

Perhaps you could answer the question I posed above, If a gun manufacturer or gun dealer legally sell their guns in good faith and at some point later in time the buyer snaps or another person misuses those firearms to kill people on what grounds should the manufacturer or dealer be sued?

[Duckhunter935]

13. notice how they never answer

Silence is deafening. They also never answer my statements about the 6 exceptions specifically pointed out in that law.

[Sancho]

15. That's the wrong question...

The question is "Why should any one product (guns in this case) get special treatment?"

For example, there may be safety features available in the future that gun manufacturers don't bother to put on guns (finger print ID on the trigger for example, auto GPS location on all guns, etc.).

If lawsuits force them to make the products safer, then they will do so. It happens all the time and has nothing to do with "misuse".

None of that speaks to the possibility that the gun manufacturers have nefarious plans (like marketing to children using gaming) or any other number of ideas that they may be sued for IF they were liable.

In the long run, the liability issue is only one part of a lot of measures that make our society the most dangerous of similar countries.

[Uncle Joe]

18. Again that's where Bernie is stronger, the major powers against reasonable gun control reforms

doesn't come from gun owners, it comes from the almighty dollars supplied by the superpacs supported by the NRA and the Koch Brothers.

https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release/2015/11/17/125618/release-gun-owners-overwhelmingly-support-background-checks-see-nra-as-out-of-touch-new-poll-finds/

RELEASE: Gun Owners Overwhelmingly Support Background Checks, See NRA as Out of Touch, New Poll Finds

Washington, D.C. — A new national Public Policy Polling survey of gun owners finds overwhelming support for background checks and a higher likelihood of supporting political candidates who move them forward. Gun owners also believe the National Rifle Association, or NRA, is out of touch with them on these issues, and many believe the organization has lost its way altogether. While the debate over gun policy starkly divides American politics, this poll shows that support for key gun violence prevention policies has remained strong for years, even among gun owners themselves.

The poll is being released in conjunction with a delegation of gun owners from around the country that is visiting Washington, D.C., to meet with Obama administration officials and members of Congress on the issue of gun violence prevention. Members of the delegation are calling on President Barack Obama and Congress to take immediate action to close the background checks loophole.

(snip)

Overwhelming support for background checks: 83 percent of gun owners nationally support criminal background checks on all sales of firearms, while only 14 percent of gun owners oppose them. There is strong bipartisan agreement on the issue, with 90 percent of Democrat and 81 percent of Republican gun owners in support of background checks. Additionally, 72 percent of NRA members support them. A 2012 Frank Luntz survey of gun owners found that 82 percent were in favor of background checks, including 74 percent of gun owners. Despite well-funded efforts by the NRA and associated groups, support among both gun owners and NRA members remains high.

Gun owners want to see action and enforcement of current law: 79 percent of gun owners nationally want to see their politicians take action on this issue and require more gun sellers to conduct criminal background checks before they sell guns, while only 19 percent do not want to see their elected leaders act on this issue. That includes 64 percent of NRA members calling for politicians to take action, compared with only 32 percent who do not want them to act.

Gun owners are more likely to support a politician who supports background checks: 66 percent say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who backs them, compared with only 19 percent who say they would be less likely to. Supporting background checks is not even a liability for Republican candidates in a primary election: 56 percent of GOP gun owners say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports them, compared with only 27 percent who say they would be less likely to.

The NRA is out of touch with gun owners on gun safety issues such as background checks: Only 29 percent of gun owners feel that the NRA represents their thinking when it comes to background checks, with 62 percent saying the NRA is out of line with them on the issue. That fits in with a broader feeling that the NRA has lost it way: 59 percent of gun owners feel that the NRA used to be an organization devoted to gun safety but that it has been overtaken by lobbyists and the interests of gun manufacturers and lost its original purpose and mission. Nearly one-third of NRA members believe the organization has lost its way.

Bernie by strongly opposing the power of Superpacs and the plutocrats in controlling Congress most directly gets to the heart of the matter in what's holding up gun reform.

[Sancho]

20. I'm a gun owner and an ex-NRA member; background checks are a joke and Bernie knows it...

Here's what you need:

People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

[Uncle Joe]

24. Meaningful gun reform of "any kind" is primarily stymied by the money spent against it and in this

Bernie is correct.

The super pacs that Bernie opposes can be fed with unlimited amounts of money by the NRA, the Koch Brothers and anyone else on the planet as there are no disclosure requirements.

The Congress knows this as well and they understand that bucking the NRA will dry up a major source of campaign dollars either directly or via supporting super pacs.

If money truly is the "root of all evil" those roots are what nourish major resistance against any kind of meaningful gun reform.

[Sancho]

25. I disagree....

I left the NRA a long time ago, because in the 70's it changed from an organization that sponsored training and safety into a political arm of the gun manufacturer. Money is involved in lobbying, but money is not the "root of evil". It is also the bad morals and ethics of some companies and people. There's nothing wrong with groups that raise money to support good goals: maybe MoveOn is an example. Of course, some repubs would disagree with the existence of MoveOn, ACORN, ACT BLUE, etc., etc.

The strategy of the gun manufacturers has worked well until recently, but now they are victims of their own success. They have sold a lot of guns - too many guns - and used their influence and money to lower the safety barrier. That has resulted in preventable deaths so the public is turning against them.

It has little to do with Democratic PACs on the national level. There is certainly some influence from ALEC, local PAC supporters, and GOP PACs, but there's nothing that any Democrat can do about those PACs now except appoint different SC judges when the opportunity arrives.

Of all the current candidates, only one was a working lawyer with a stellar legal record and the ability to appoint federal judges confidently. That would be Hillary.

[Uncle Joe]

26. Why did the NRA change in the early 70s from an

organization that sponsored training and safety into a political arm of the gun manufacturer?

[Sancho]

27. It was taken over by politicians....

http://www.alternet.org/suprising-unknown-history-nra

The Paranoid Libertarians’ Hostile Takeover
Perhaps the sportsmen of America could abide by the new law, but within the NRA’s broad membership were key factions that resented the new federal law. Thoughout the 1960s, there were a few articles in American Rifleman saying the NRA was waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to declare the Second Amendment included the right to own a gun, Joan Burbick recounts in her 2006 book, Gun Show Nation: Gun Culture and American Democracy.

But in the mid-1960s, the Black Panthers were better-known than the NRA for expressing that view of the Second Amendment. By 1968, however, Burbick notes that the NRA’s magazine’s most assertive editorials began saying the problem was fighting crime and not guns—which we hear today. The 1968 law ordered the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to enforce the new gun laws. In 1971, ATF raided a lifetime NRA member’s house who was suspected of having a large illegal arms cache and shot and killed him. That prompted “the ardent reactionary William Leob,” then editor of New Hampshire’s influential Manchester Union Leader newspaper, to call the federal agents “Treasury Gestapo,” Burbick noted, even though later evidence confirmed the weapons cache. Loeb and other white libertarians with podiums started to assert that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to guns—like the Black Panthers. But, of course, they were seeking to keep America’s white gun owners fully armed.

A split started to widen inside the NRA. Gun dealers thought they were being harassed. Rural states felt they were being unduly punished for urban America’s problems. In 1975, the NRA created a new lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, under Harlon B. Carter, a tough-minded former chief of the U.S. Border Patrol who shared the libertarian goal of expanding gun owners’ rights. Burdick writes that “by 1976, the political rhetoric had gained momentum and the bicentennial year brought out a new NRA campaign, ‘designed to enroll defenders of the right to keep and bear arms’ in numbers equal to ‘the ranks of the patriots who fought in the American Revolution.’”

[Uncle Joe]

29. I read that but I also noticed this graph which is realtively stable up until just before the 70s

which just precluded the NRA's "change of heart."

?1

The other ironic thing is while the % of Americans owning guns has declined the people buying them have greatly increased the total numbers of guns in circulation, giving increased evidence of gun manufacturer influence on the NRA's extremist ideology.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/08/graphics-americas-guns

But this article hammers it home.

In its early days, the National Rifle Association was a grassroots social club that prided itself on independence from corporate influence.

While that is still part of the organization's core function, today less than half of the NRA's revenues come from program fees and membership dues.

The bulk of the group's money now comes in the form of contributions, grants, royalty income, and advertising, much of it originating from gun industry sources.

Since 2005, the gun industry and its corporate allies have given between $20 million and $52.6 million to it through the NRA Ring of Freedom sponsor program. Donors include firearm companies like Midway USA, Springfield Armory Inc, Pierce Bullet Seal Target Systems, and Beretta USA Corporation. Other supporters from the gun industry include Cabala's, Sturm Rugar & Co, and Smith & Wesson.

(snip)

The NRA also made $20.9 million — about 10 percent of its revenue — from selling advertising to industry companies marketing products in its many publications in 2010, according to the IRS Form 990.

Additionally, some companies donate portions of sales directly to the NRA. Crimson Trace, which makes laser sights, donates 10 percent of each sale to the NRA. Taurus buys an NRA membership for everyone who buys one of their guns. Sturm Rugar gives $1 to the NRA for each gun sold, which amounts to millions. The NRA's revenues are intrinsically linked to the success of the gun business.

http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1

So money from the industry is feeding the beast and the beast along with some plutocratic entities; Koch Brothers and Alec feed the Congress but the root of the problem is the almighty dollar.

[Duckhunter935]

19. they have to as they were

Being sued for the only purpose of bankruptcy. It is called SLAAP suits, just like what the abortion providers and small aircraft makers needed protection from. You do know there are six exceptions and they can and are sued for product failures and safety issues. There have been several recalls after lawsuits against firearms manufacturers. If there was a market for those electronic safety features, they would make them. Why don't the policw put that down as a required specification? Because it is not ready and they will fail in the real world. Battery dies, an officer is defenseless. Fingerprint readers, officer has gloves, again defenseless. A firearm needs to be the least complex to be near 100% effective as possible. A failure can not be allowed to happen. Please read what the actual law is and do not rely on 30 second soundbites or talking points.

[Sancho]

21. You and I both know this isn't about SLAAP suits....

if it was, then why single out the gun industry. Just pass tort reform.

The NRA getting special treatment is the issue.

[Duckhunter935]

22. yes it was

That is why there is also laws protecting abortion providers and small aircraft makers. So you do know about the 6 exceptions, right?

[Sancho]

23. Yes...there are a bunch of summaries (I'll link one as an example)

My primary disagreement is the prevention of implementing new safety measures that manufacturers should be putting in, but have no pressure to do so...and there are all kinds of issues winding through the courts.

Maybe a new SC will take a case in the future.

Meanwhile, I don't think there should be any restrictions to the right to sue manufacturers - especially a specific industry of any kind.

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-industry-immunity-policy-summary/

[Sancho]

28. Again..if Congress wants to debate general tort reform that's fine.

I don't think that Baseball teams, gun manufacturers, or any other industry should have laws "exempting" them from taxes, liability, or prosecution.

There are LOTS of others in the world who argue the same logic that I do.

I think that plenty of lawsuits (even "losing" ones) spur companies to change their products, research their products, and market their products differently. Civil lawsuits lead to serendipitous discovery that's interesting too - and the case turns into some other court.

You know all this. We can disagree forever, but philosophically I don't think specific industries should be immune from anything - and especially when that industry is being scrutinized. Nowadays, you should not exempt anyone. If Bernie wants to propose general reform of rules for all companies that manufacture anything - that's fine.

[Duckhunter935]

30. except that is not what the lawsuits were designed

Or used for. They were specifically being used to bankrupt companies marketing a legal product.

[cantbeserious]

12. Riddle Me This - What Defines A Firearm As An Assault Weapon

Last edited Tue Jan 12, 2016, 04:53 AM - Edit history (1)

eom

[Duckhunter935]

14. more silence, lol

[cantbeserious]

17. Yes - Quite Clear - Many Positions Cannot Be Defended

eom

[beam me up scottie]

16. I agree with Bernie's gun control stance but if I was a one issue voter I would support O'Malley.

Hillary obviously can't be trusted, she pandered to gun nuts in 2008 and will flip flop again if she gets the nod.

Gun control groups should be endorsing Martin, frankly I'm surprised they're not.