S 397, Gun Industry Protection Bill Passes House 283-144

[Silverhair]

No Link. I just watched it on C-SPAN.

This bill provides protection to the gun industry from the series of frivolous lawsuits that have been brought against it.

A few years ago, the Brady Campaign came up with the tactic of attempting to run the gun makers out of business by drowning them in lawsuits. Although the suits were going to be loser individually, the goal was not to win any particular lawsuit, but to make defending against the volume of them prohibitive to the gun industry.
Many of the plaintiffs in the suits were cities with anti-gun local governments.

This is the same bill earlier passed by the Senate, so it now goes to the POTUS for signature. W has said he will sign it.

It goes into effect immediately and does not grandfather existing suits. They get thrown out too.

Gun makers can still be sued for actual defective products, genuine negligence, etc. But that can't be sued for the criminal actions of people over whom they have no control.

[saigon68]

1. About time

[uniden]

2. gun makers shoudl be held responsible.........

if the guns don't work correctly :)

[RebelOne]

79. Did you read the last paragraph?

"Gun makers can still be sued for actual defective products, genuine negligence, etc. But that can't be sued for the criminal actions of people over whom they have no control."

[-..__...]

3. This is welcome news.

This legislation should have been passed years ago.

:bounce:

Unfortunately, the Brady Campaign has already vowed to challenge the legislation in court, so the fight isn't over just yet.

[Township75]

4. WOOHOO!

Maybe politicians can focus on what motivates people to turn to crime using firearms, such as the war on drugs and poverty, rather than looking for a scapegoat.

I am very happy to see a good portion of Dems sign onto this.

[maxsolomon]

72. politicians should focus on human nature?

guns are easy to get, easy to own, easy to use. drugs & poverty don't make, say, men shoot their wives or girlfriends.

but yes, i agree, it would be nice to see politicians focus on the WOD & poverty. but you & i will not live to see it. and i don't care if you were born 2 days ago.

"its WAAAY too late for gun control in america" - steve earle

[bluestateguy]

5. I'm not taking a stance on this bill until I know more about this bill

I would agree with you, but I would add one thing: I would allow a gan maker to be sued if it can be shown that they were marketing their product to criminals (i.e. hey our guns can punch right through that pesky police armor).

[Mithras61]

6. Link to the bill on thomas.loc.gov...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:4:./temp/~c109kaxhVX::

S. 397

A BILL

To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.

[-..__...]

17. One of the best parts of the legislation...

"SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms."

I have no idea if that section will have any legal bearing or significance in future 2nd amendment court cases, but it's still nice to know that it's part of this bill.

[Xithras]

43. WOW! Yes, that will definitely affect future court fights.

Many of the court fights and uncertainty over the Second Amendment center around the definition of "Well Trained Militia", and whether or not that applies to civilians. If this becomes full law it will act as a de-facto definition that it does indeed extend to all Americans, irregardless of service status. The courts will have to abide by this definition unless they can find grounds to declare it unconstitutional. Since the court itself hasn't been able to resolve this issue after nearly a century of effort, it's unlikely that they'll be overturning it anytime soon.

This has serious implications for all of the cities and towns that regulate firearms ownership for their residents.

[Silverhair]

46. Yes, it does, doesn't it? NT

[gulfcoastliberal]

55. If it can't be infringed, I want my Tommy Guns and TOW missiles!

It's only fair!

[-..__...]

56. Which model Thompson are you interested in?

M1A1

These models were actually not that expensive until a few years ago. Then "Saving Pvt. Ryan" came out and the prices skyrocketed.

M1928

Or

M1921

The M1921 is the original "Chicago typewriter"... "the gun that made 20s roar". Just needs a 50 round drum mag and violin case and you're ready to rock'n'roll.

As for the TOW missiles?

Maybe this guy can hook you up?

[gulfcoastliberal]

58. Wow - pricey. I'd rather get a sear that lets my VEPR go full auto.

But then a tiny pice of machined metal sear costs thousands, too. Crazy.

[-..__...]

61. You know you can achieve the same thing...

with a nail file, paper clip and duct tape?

Just ask McGyver or the VPC/Brady Campaign/MMM.

:smoke:

[gulfcoastliberal]

59. How to buy a machine gun:

Machine Guns-- Legalities of Ownership
It is a common misconception that machine guns cannot be owned by law-abiding citizens. This comes from the creation of a variety of confusing laws that have made purchasing a full-auto gun more difficult than purchasing a "normal" gun. But, you can comply with the law and own a machine gun.

First a little history: In May of 1986, certain laws went into effect that made it illegal for 'civilians' to own fully automatic firearms that were manufactured AFTER THAT DATE. Most fully automatic weapons manufactured and registered BEFORE MAY, 1986, MAY BE OWNED BY AND SOLD TO INDIVIDUALS. The full-auto guns that may be owned by individuals are called 'transferable'. Some states DO NOT allow machine gun ownership at all, no matter when the gun was made, but most states do.

To purchase a transferable machine gun, you must meet certain requirements (generally the same as when you purchase another gun), fill out special paperwork (called a 'form 4'), and pay a $200, one-time, transfer tax. Every time a machine gun is transferred, the $200 tax must be paid-- usually by the purchaser. The steps to take to purchase a transferable machine gun are:

1. Find a dealer locally who can assist you in all phases of the transfer. This should go beyond helping you fill out the paperwork: they should help you locate the gun if it isn't in stock and allow you to shoot the gun while your paperwork is being processed by the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms). It will usually take 4-6 weeks for the dealer to get the gun from another dealer if they don't already have it in stock (due to BATF paperwork delays).
2. Get your fingerprints (either by a police dept. or by a qualified fingerprinter, two imprints are needed) and two passport sized pictures taken. These will be used to perform a comprehensive criminal background check on you.
3. Have your local dealer help you fill out an "Application for Tax Paid Transfer And Registration Of Firearm" for, known as a "form 4".
4. You must have the signature of the Chief Law Enforcement (CLEO) officer that has jurisdiction over the municipality in which you live on the form 4. This could be the City Chief or the County Sheriff, for example. This is usually not a problem-- in machine gun friendly states. The form 4, CLEO signature, 2 fingerprint cards, 2 pictures, and a $200 check (your one-time transfer tax) must all be mailed to the BATF and an approved tax stamp returned before you may take possession of the gun. This may take anywhere from 2 to 5 months.

Although it may seem complicated, we are happy to help you through every step in the process. We have transferable guns in stock, and if we don't have it, we can tap into a network of dealers in other states to find it for you. Let us help you get the full-auto gun that you've always wanted-- they are worth it!

[gulfcoastliberal]

60. PS - That 1986 law - thank the gipper for that!

NT

[-..__...]

62. "Hey Chief". "I have a great connection for Hellfire missiles".

"Would it be a problem if you signed off on the paper work for me"?

If that doesn't work, just 'incorporate'.

;-) :evilgrin:

[Silverhair]

8. That is a function of the cartridge, not the gun.

A gun is nothing more than a tube for launching the bullet and a mechanism for putting the next cartridge in the tube.

A cartridge will have the same energy when fired from a same length barrel of any gun that chambers that cartridge.

Marketing to criminals is a subjective determination. You may believe that there is no proper civilian use for a certain characteristic while I may have a legal use for exactly that characteristic.

And ALL rifle hunting calibers, (Except the .22) will go through protective vest. The 30.30 cartridge, which is over 110 year olds as a cartridge, will punch through it like it isn't there. The 30.06, a 99 year old cartridge is the MOST popular hunting cartridge in America, and it will zip right on through a vest.

[Wcross]

24. Most any hunting rifle will defeat a vest. n/t

[shanti]

80. yes, what i want to know

is what ELSE was snuck into this bill! they always do this and it's usually not good.

[alarimer]

7. Stupid fucking bill

No industry should be protected like this. NONE. Pander to the fucking gun nuts. The gun industry dump firearms in places with lax gun laws, knowing fully that they make their way illegally to states with tought laws. Gun manufacturers should be put out of business for doing that.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. At least Bernie Sanders voted the right way on this bill

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll534.xml

[slackmaster]

51. The bill has nothing to do with illegal interstate traffic in guns

You really ought to read it before finalizing your opinion.

[toopers]

87. Your right!

Also, I should be able to sue the auto manufacturers when some drunk idiot rams their car head on into mine. The Automakers are unloading cars into areas with relaxed liquor laws knowing that the cars will eventually end up in the hands of a drunk in a jurisdiction that has strict drinking laws. OH PLEASE! Think, and Read, before you speak!

[SlipperySlope]

9. This is great new; LONG overdue

I'm glad to see this useless administration did one thing worthwhile before being sent to PYITA prison.

[MindPilot]

10. This is not the business of the lawmakers!

If a lawsuit has no merit, it is the court who should decide that, not the good ole boyz in DC.

Laws like these continue to remove the ability of judges to decide merit on a case-by-case basis and thus undermine the entire judicial system.

[Silverhair]

11. The anti-gunners were abusing the system.

They were filing many suits in an effort to make the gun industry face such high legal charges from defending against all those suits that the gun industry would have to shut down.

That is why the bill was needed.

[MrBenchley]

66. Bullshit....

The gun industry wanted the bill because they did not want the truth about the way guns are sold and marketed in this country coming out.

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. It still costs companies money to defend these lawsuits

Perhaps the court's time can be used for more productive work.

[Debau2005]

14. Congress gives gun industry a lawsuit shield

<snip>
"Congress gave the gun lobby its top legislative priority Thursday, passing a bill that would protect the firearms industry from massive lawsuits brought by crime victims. The White House says President Bush will sign it into law."
<snip>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9762564/

I don't have an issue with people defending their homes and family. I do have a problem with no one being held accountable when some spouse uses their gun to get revenge on their significant other and children.

I don't know what this country is coming too.

[Silverhair]

20. Some one IS held accountable - the actual murderer.

Why should you hold the gun manufacturer accountable if the sale was completely LEGAL?

Would you hold Ford accountable if someone deliberately uses a Ford to kill someone?

[depakid]

15. Another special exception

for another powerful interest group.

Can't anyone here see beyond the tips of their noses?

Or is it just that no one cares about the civil justice system....

If someone can give me a RATIONAL reason why gun makers or fast food purveyors should be treated differently than any other business, I'm all ears....

[-..__...]

18. Here's why.

http://www.gunlawsuits.org/docket/docket.php

The Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations only have themselves to blame for this legislation.

If they had taken a different course of action and focused on one or two
cases that might have had some merit, then the immunity bill would never have been proposed, much less passed.

The Bradys/VPC/MMM took a reckless and irresponsible course of action by throwing as much shit as they could, hoping at least something would stick.

In the end, their overzealousness, paranoia and ignorance came back to haunt them.

[depakid]

19. I think I asked for a rational reason

so I'll ask again- why should the gun industry be treated any differently than any other business?

If a lawyer files a frivolous action, he or she will be lose money (at the least) and may well be sanctioned by the court- and if it happens often enough, they'll be disciplined by the bar.

[Silverhair]

22. It is mostly cities that are suing.

Some cities have completely anti-gun governments, and have cooperated with the Brady Campaign in the effort to kill the gun industry with legal fees. Because they are governments, they are immune to the type of court sanctions that you discuss.

The money for the suits is from tax revenue.

[-..__...]

25. It's not that I think the gun industry should be given special treatment.

I would support the same sort of legislation for any industry or business that was subject to the same onslaught of frivolous lawsuits filed with the intention of bankrupting or putting that industry out of business.

As another example, the "Cheeseburger Bill" was also passed, and I think rightly so. Blame Burger King or McDonald's for ones obesity and take them to court for it? I don't think so.

I blame a lot of this partly on greed (hey, Micky D's can afford it), and partly on lack of personal accountability (like maybe the person should stop stuffing their face with french fries and Big Macs).

I'm no fan of corporations or big business, but even I don't think they should be open to lawsuits simply because someone is looking to make a fast buck or air a petty or baseless grievance.

The protection granted to the firearms and fast food industry could very well be the tip of the iceberg and other industries will seek similar protections.

[PaulaFarrell]

21. And yet

Big corporations like McDonalds regularly use the same tactic, indiscriminate suing (see the McLibel trial) to attack individuals - many of whom have no resources at all to defend themselves. Yet I don't see Congress rushing to their defense.

[Silverhair]

23. Link Please. NT

[depakid]

28. Here ya go

http://www.mcspotlight.org/

and that's just one of probably hundreds.

[Silverhair]

35. That is not exactly an impartial site.

I would like to see an impartial site.

In any case, my concern is not over McD, but over the ability of the American gun industry to continue be be able to provide me with a gun suitable to my needs. I shall be the one to decide my needs - within reason.

I am please to see the effort to cripple the gun industry with lawsuits has been stopped.

I will say this regarding McD. Why aren't people taking responsibility upon themselves for how much food they shove in their mouths? That eating like a pig makes one fat is not exactly cutting edge medical science.

[PaulaFarrell]

39. Here's another for you

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2951486.stm

of course, very few of these make it into the paper

[Silverhair]

42. Looks like McD is overreacting, in this case.

I usually get my burgers at Burger King. McD doesn't put tomatoes in their burgers, and I like tomatoes. I also prefer the taste of flame broiled to grilled.

Based on just this article, I would think that McD doesn't have a case.

If you say: "Their food tastes like cardboard." that isn't libel. It isn't intended to taken literally, but is a statement of strong distaste.

If you say, "All McDs are roach infested.", then you may indeed be sued for libel as that would appear to be an actual assertion of a specific health condition.

Any body, even corporations, has the right to defend their reputation against untruthful objective statements, but not against subjective statements.

[-..__...]

27. Just more proof that the legal system is out of control and needs fixing.

What solutions are there? Keep in mind that just about every congress person is either a lawyer (or had been one), or has ties/connections/friends/family/etc to the legal community in one way or another.

What about a loser pays system?

A cap on judgment awards?

Give judges more latitude in deciding the validity of a grievance?

Place a cap on the percentage of a judgment that the lawyers can receive (especially on class action lawsuits)?

[depakid]

29. That's a bogus assertion

Show me some evidence to back up your talking points.

Just becuase you hear something repeated over and over doesn't make it true.

[-..__...]

31. "Bogus assertion"?

You mean what I posted about congresspersons and their ties to the legal community?

No, I can't say with %100 certainty "that most" have ties or a vested interest in preserving the legal system as it is in order to placate the lawyers.

If anything I believe it's far more likely than unlikely.

But anyhow... if there are other alternatives to giving one industry more legal protection than other industries, I'd like see them proposed.

[PaulaFarrell]

34. Punitive damages should go into a state fund

to finance expanded legal aid. That way people wouldn't sue on the off chance they'd strike it rich, but judgments could be set at a high enough level that they would have an actual punitive effect. I think that would work pretty well. And pooper people would get a better shake at defending themselves.

[sandnsea]

36. People giving up their civil rights

And don't even know it. Privatize everything and remove all civil liability. And the people did it to themselves. Just have to stand back and watch the train wreck I guess. *sigh*

[Silverhair]

40. All civil liability HAS NOT BEEN REMOVED.

Perhaps you should read the bill. If the gun maker is actually negligent THEY CAN STILL BE SUED.

What the bill stops is the silly stuff that some cities and organizations have been suing over in an attempt to shut down the gun industry by making it legally expensive to operate.

The NAACP recently sued ALL the gun makers claiming that guns disproportionately hurt blacks. Several cities have sued claiming that guns were a public nuisance. All of those have had to be defended against. That kind of silliness is what has been stopped.

So if you are injured by a defectively made gun, you can sue. If the maker/distributor/dealer violates the law and you are injured as a result of that violation - you can sue.

But if a criminal uses a gun to harm you, you can't sue S&W just because they made the gun.

Would you sue Ford if someone deliberately hit you with a Ford car?

[sandnsea]

48. It's just one step

I'm talking about the cumulative move in that direction. It's all around, from medical caps to class action reform to land use. Corporate freedom is more important than the Bill of Rights. You'll soon find out your 2nd Amendment never meant squat, it was your right to petition the government and trial by jury that kept you free. Live and learn I guess. Luckily laws can be reversed.

[Silverhair]

49. You will have a hard time reversing it.

It passed by almost 2-1 in both the Senate and the House. About 1/3 of Democrats also voted for it.

[PunkPop]

16. Then they should countersue.

There are protections against frivolous lawsuits. Use them. A few big counterjudgements and I'm sure the "anti-gunners" would start to reconsider their strategy.

I would also like to see proof that this is happening. This so-called conspiracy of the "anti-gunners".

[Silverhair]

26. The anit-gunners were very public about it awhen they started.

However, they quickly learned to be quiet about their ultimate goal, and present the issue as "seeking justice". The only sites that now keep records of the early statements are RKBA sits that you probably would not accept.

Doesn't it appear odd to you that many of the frivilious suits are brought by city gov'ts and name as defendents ALL the gun makers? Obviously they have lawyers that can tell them that the suit will not win, but they push them anyway. Purpose - cost the gun makers money in legal fees.

[PunkPop]

30. I read the link to the Brady site above

Looks like they just want gunmakers to manufacture a safer product. Seems reasonable to me.

I guess the problem is that if guns become safer that takes away from their aura and makes them less marketable. People love the power that a gun represents. If it's safe, that's no fun.

So you've got an industry that relies on the excitement of a dangerous product to make it's profit against cities that are trying to cope with the effects of that dangerous product. Seems like a courtroom would be a good place to start on some kind of mediation process. Now that Congress has passed this bill, the gun manufacturers are free give the finger to anyone who opposes them.

Also, since when can you not sue cities? Dallas gets sued all the time. Seems like I'm always hearing of judgements where the city has to pay for this or that.

[Silverhair]

32. Not true about safety.

The Brady Campaign calls says the things it wants will make them safer, but the reverse is true. Their true aim is the elimination of guns in the hands of civilians, like in Australia and the UK.

To address the so called safety issue further, I would need to know exactly which safety features you are talking about.

[PunkPop]

37. Guns should be harder to use for anybody other than the person

who bought it and registered it legally. They are inherently dangerous and manufacturers should have a responsibility to make it harder for them to be used illegally.

[Silverhair]

38. That technology does not exist.

A gun is also a piece of emergency equipment. When it is needed for self-defense, it is needed with EXTREME urgency. Any extra machinery, or locks, means something else that can malfunction or not be worked correctly under extreme stress.

So called, "smart guns" don't exist, nor would anyone familiar with firearms be willing to buy one if they were made. I would hate to have to grab a pistol in a moment of extreme need, and discover the batteries have run down. Or have a burglar in the house while I am fumbling in the dark with the key (or trying to dial a combination) for a trigger lock.

A gun must first be extremely reliable and simple of operation for it be of use in an emergency.

[PunkPop]

41. Or in the commission of a crime

which is where they're usually used.

I keep a big stick under my bed. Can't get any more reliable and simple than that. And when my kids find it they're not in any danger of killing one another.

[Silverhair]

44. I keep a SIG 220 in .45, loaded with alternating rounds

of Glazers and HydraShocks. Kids are grown and gone.

Pistol is NOT my first line of defense. First is locks, then alarms, then the bedroom is locked. We will be well awake and ready before anybody can get to us. And while we are waiting, we will call 911 and hope they get there first.

[MindPilot]

69. Man, you must live in a really bad neighborhood n/t

[Silverhair]

45. No. The criminal has time to plan. He has the initiave.

He has the time to remove the locks and make the gun ready IN ADVANCE of the crime. If he can't undo the locks, then he gets a different gun. He goes into the crime already PREPARED. The defender has to react after they are aware of the danger, and usually will not have to time to work a complicated locking system, or hunt for a key, or test the batteries.

The Dept of Justice, UNDER THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, estimated over 1.5 MILLION defensive uses of guns per year in the USA. In the overwhelming majority of the cases, (Like about 98%) the criminal has fled as soon as he has discovered that his intended victim is armed.

All the people I have known who have told me about a personal gun use have not fired any shots, but in each case the crook ran. One did a backwards dive back out the window (Home burglary) he had just entered through. My wife and I have each had a defensive use, and in each case - no shots were fired.

[TX-RAT]

76. Might i suggest 2 sticks.

Most likely your going to get one of them stuck up your ass. But what the heck, if it makes you feel better. By the way, people were killing each other with sticks, long before guns were invented.

[PunkPop]

78. Suggest whatever you want.

I really don't give a shit. Not being a paranoid gun nut, one stick is quite enough thank you.

As far as getting it stuck up my ass, I'm not even sure what that means. Guns are harder to stick up your ass so they make better weapons?

And people were killing each other with sticks ACCIDENTALLY before guns were invented? Is that what you're saying? Surely you realize that was my point right? Because if you don't, you're being dishonest or you have a comprehension problem.

[Runcible Spoon]

68. It REALLY scares me...

that some people own guns out of pure paranoia :scared: that's how people get KILLED unnecesarily(and not just burglars, either!)

[davepc]

88. I own a fire extinguisher and smoke detectors

Am I paranoid my house is going to burn down?

[CHestonsucks]

47. And of course

the Australians and British are so much worse off since they have no unfettered access to assault rifles, stolen handguns, high-velocity ammunition, etc.

I don't hear them complaining.

[Romulus]

50. the Aussies and UK folks are "saturated" in illegal firearms

That were not affected by their respective citizen disarmament schemes . . .

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article310182.ece

Up to 4m guns in UK and police are losing the battle

'IoS' investigation: Another week, another horrific shooting. The culture of illegal firearms is running out of control

By Sophie Goodchild and Paul Lashmar
Published: 04 September 2005

*snip*
David Raynes a former senior Customs investigator, believes there is now an ample underground supply of guns. "Guns can be had for £100 or so," he said. "I suspect the market is saturated in both Britain and Ireland. The real UK arms smuggling issue now is probably military explosives and detonators, to be used in future acts of terrorism."

*end*

http://www.smh.com.au/news/0105/01/...national10.html
(c.2001)

Smugglers fly in 10,000 pistols a year: Tingle

By Robert Wainwright and Mark Robinson

*snip*

Criminal gangs are arming themselves with Chinese-made handguns smuggled into Australia in their thousands each year, the NSW Shooters Party MP, Mr John Tingle, said yesterday.

He said there was anecdotal evidence of an explosion in the black-market gun trade, with up to 10,000 illegal guns being shipped annually, mainly aboard light aircraft landing at remote airstrips in northern Australia . . .Mr Tingle's comments are supported by Cabramatta police, who reported there was evidence of "the same people engaged in both illegal drug supply and firearms trafficking".

*end*

[MrBenchley]

54. Yes, it's the phony English bloodbath again....

The entire UK has less gun crime in a year than a medium sized citylike Birmingham, Ala in the US. Which doesn't stop the trigger-happy from trying with monotonous regularity to pretend that Britain and Australia hgave some sort of gun problem.

[NickB79]

77. England and Australia DO have a gun problem, just not a shooting problem

4 million illegal guns in England alone, at only 100 lbs apiece, is a pretty big problem, wouldn't you say? The difference is that they don't USE their illegal guns nearly as often as criminals in the US do. It seems like in the UK guns are used as an ornament, while in the US they're used as a tool.

[MrBenchley]

91. Rubbish,,,,

"It seems like in the UK guns are used as an ornament, while in the US they're used as a tool."
Seems more like in the UK people are willing to pass necessary elgislation, whereas in the US the GOP is just a tool for the gun lobby.

[NickB79]

95. What does that response have to do with my point?

Are you disputing that there are millions of illegal guns being shipped into the UK after the legislation passed? The article quotes police that say guns are available on the street for 100 lbs each, and that there are 4 million of them. Like I said, they do have an illegal gun problem, their criminals just don't use them like ours do.

[MrBenchley]

99. Really, what more needed to be said?

You mean the article that begins..."The criminal possession and use of firearms, a hallmark of urban America"?

"Another week, another horrific shooting."
BFD...not an hour goes by in THIS country without a horrific shooting, thanks to the corrupt gun industry, the GOP, and the trigger happy gumps who pimp for their policies.

[MrBenchley]

53. You might also notice that manufacturers of other consumer products

distributed irresponsibly are laible to lawsuits...AND SHOULD BE.

[Jack_DeLeon]

33. Good job...

[MrBenchley]

52. What a disgracefully crappy bill....

"protection to the gun industry from the series of frivolous lawsuits..."
By wacky funsters such as New York City, Chicago and Gary, Indiana. Not to metnion the light hearted folks whose family members have got maimed or killed because a corrupt indistry behaves irresponsibly.

"Many of the plaintiffs in the suits were cities with anti-gun local governments."
How tragic for gun nuts that they live in a country with blue states.

[hollowdweller]

57. Where can I find a list of who voted how on this bill?

[Laelth]

63. In principle ...

I am opposed to any legislation that seeks to limit the access of people to the Courts. The right to file a lawsuit when we have been injured is our right. It makes me nervous when Congress tries to take away our rights.

There are sanctions available to the Courts when attorneys file frivolous lawsuits. Those are serious sanctions, and they should be enforced. A Congressional decree that limits the right of the people to seek justice through the Courts is a bad solution.

-Laelth

P.S. I hear Canada's not much colder than the Midwest. In fact, Vancouver is warmer, on average.

P.P.S. Did I mistakenly land in FreeRepublic? I could have sworn I was logged into DU.

[MrBenchley]

67. Worth noting the gun industry IS your actual scum of the earth

Just so we can be clear who we are defending here...

The Reverend Sun Myung Moon owns several gun factories from which guns have gone missing...

Gaston Glock is a sugar daddy to the Austrian neoNazi movement...

The former chairman of Smith & wesson had actually been convicted and served time for armed robbery (he's since been demoted to just another board member)...

Richard Dyke, who evadsed the assualt weapon ban and continued to sell assault weapons (including the one used by the Beltway Sniper) is a big bucks supporter of pResident Shrimp and the GOP.

[yppahemnkm]

82. Proof?

Do you have proof to any of these accusations?

[MrBenchley]

89. Of course I do....

Do you really want to pretend Sun Myung Moon doesn't own gun factories?

http://www.freedomofmind.com/stevehassan/presskit/articles/farragher.htm

Do you want to pretend Gaston Glock isn't a neoNazi sugar daddy?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/austria/article/0,2763,430281,00.html

How about that stick-up artist at Smith & Wesson?

http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/27/news/smith_wesson/

[Conservativesux]

105. This was one reason many people voted for * IMO. Killing people is the

only thing guns are good for and people like * are very good at it.

[MarsThe Cat]

64. if a legal product is used illegally-

the manufacturer shouldn't be held responsible- the person who uses it illegally should...
but the lawyers only look at the depth of the pockets.

[MrBenchley]

65. If a legal product is distributed and marketed irresponsibly

the manufacturer should be held responsible.

Nice of the GOP to screw the average American out of his day in court, eh?

[MarsThe Cat]

70. in case you can't tell-

i support the legislation.

i don't hold the gun industry responsible for gun deaths- it's the society's fault, not theirs.

as far as "...distributed and marketed irresponsibly" -again, unless it is done illegally, it's not an issue...should carmakers be held liable for auto accidents/deaths because of the irresponsible ways that they market cars?

[MrBenchley]

90. In case you can't tell, I think the bill was a piece of shit

"as far as "...distributed and marketed irresponsibly" -again, unless it is done illegally, it's not an issue..."
Sez you. Of course, God forbid that the people who make fetish objects for trigger happy loonies be expected to behanve ethically in any way,

"should carmakers be held liable for auto accidents/deaths because of the irresponsible ways that they market cars?"
Again, if you had car makers advertising how much fun it was to run over pedestrians, or bringing out phony studies to "prove" that running down pedestrians reduces crime, or making no effort to ensure their dealers acted responsibly, you sure as shit could and ought to be able to sue.

But then you're talking about an amazingly corrupt industry that publishes a gun magazine for kids.

[MarsThe Cat]

101. that's your...per-og-ative.

but-
thankfully, the bill stands as law.

[MrBenchley]

102. For now....

Of course, some wonder how a bill that prohibits Aemricans from exercising their right to sue others can be constitutional. Wonder how long it will stand?

[MarsThe Cat]

103. why not try and sue a gunmaker, and find out...?

i mean, if the law really concerns you, that is.

[MrBenchley]

109. Sounds good to me....

We'll see what happens.

[skipos]

71. To the people complaining about inapporpriate gun marketing:

can you show me some examples of guns being inappropriately marketed? I ask because I don't think I have ever heard a radio ad, seen a print or TV ad for a gun in my life. I am not saying inappropriate marketing doesn't exist, I would just like to see some examples.

[slackmaster]

73. Here's a perfect example of inappropriate marketing

Not for a gun, but for some aftermarket handgun sights:

[yppahemnkm]

74. This is a joke, right.

This is not real. Its a joke.

[slackmaster]

75. Affirmative

Unfortunately the original Birdman Weapon Systems site appears to be down. It was a masterpiece of satire.

[-..__...]

94. Saved for posterity.

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.birdman.org

[Zynx]

81. Birdman is a joke site.

[-..__...]

93. Hoax?

Hoax angers city officials

Bogus flier promotes night sights as accessories for Glock handguns

By Will Jones, Times-Dispatch Staff Writer, 18 June 2001

For a few hours, Birdman Weapons Systems and the HoMeBoY Nyte-Sytes were prime targets in Richmond.

"They're advocating destruction on our streets, and they're targeting our people," Councilman G. Manoli Loupassi said. "That's about as bad as it gets."

Police Capt. Walter Allmon expressed similar outrage. He said a flier promoting the HoMeBoY is disturbing because it's designed to appeal to young black men, who often are the victims of gun violence in Richmond and elsewhere.

Allmon, who leads Richmond's detective division, brought the flier to the city's Public Safety Committee about three weeks ago and said it had been distributed that weekend at a gun show in Henrico County.

The flier, actually a printout from a Web site, urges would-be buyers to "be the first in the hood to have the HoMeBoY brand Night Sights installed on your New-Model Glock!"

:rofl:

http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/glock-gag.html">More...

[MrBenchley]

92. Wow!

Don't you think you ought to pick up something like American Handgunner or Soldier of Fortune and find out?



Otherwise one finds oneself in the absurd position of pretending that Bill Frist and Tom Delay pushed this bill due to their devotion to high moral principle.

[NickB79]

97. Gun safety training is inappropriate to you?

The first and third photo you posted are about safe ammunition reloading and safe gun handling. The third one is about a popular cowboy re-enactment tournament that is held in many states in the West and Midwest where junior shooters must be supervised by adults.

What is inappropriate about promoting more safety by those who already use firearms?

[MrBenchley]

98. Nothing is ever too scummy for gun nuts, is it?

[superconnected]

83. so gun owners can't sue if a child gets a hold of the gun

and there was no safty on it and he just happens to point it at his sister and kill her. (which has happened many times).

Gee, other products that are dangerous to kids - pillows that catch fire etc., they be sued over. Come to think of it most products that can hurt someone have a warning label on them and signs that say keep out of reach of children. Do guns have those?

[yppahemnkm]

84. Nope

But the parents could be arrested for not keeping their guns properly protected from their children.

[NickB79]

85. If the gun were defective, then yes they can sue

Any defect in the construction of the firearm is still legal grounds for a lawsuit against a manufacturer. This bill does NOT allow them to manufacture defective equipment. As far as I know, virtually all firearms sold today have at least some form of a safety on them. However, if a parent with small children in the house leaves a loaded gun where a child could gain access to it, and that child kills another person, that has been and probably always will be a hard sell to a jury that the gun manufacturer is responsible. Many, many people have tried to sue on these grounds before this law passed, and most lost in court. Only when there were legitimate defects or poorly designed firearms used were the suits successful.

And yes, guns have numerous warning labels on the box and in the owners manual to keep them out of reach of children. Heck, even my target pellet rifle that's too weak to kill a squirrel past 50 ft says it shouldn't be used by anyone under 16 without adult supervision.

[IA_Seth]

86. Right

I don't believe there any guns on the market do not have some sort of "safety" included in their design. Whether the safety is the hammer itself, the shift type, or a double trigger type like those found on Glock handguns...they all have some sort of safety.

And yeah, if a pillow catches fire, beyond reason, they would be sued for the defect. If a gun is defective, they could be sued. Knives don't have warning labels, probably because it is inherent in what they are that they are dangerous if used incorrectly or in the hands of children...just like guns.

[Freddie Stubbs]

100. Perhaps people who actually need warning labels to realize the danger

of guns should't be passing on their genetic material in the first place.

[currents]

107. Guns without safeties are better guns

Ever heard of a Glock?

[IChing]

96. U.S. Gun Manufacturers Win Right to Sue Shooting Victims

A controversial law passed yesterday by the Republican-dominated U.S. House of Representatives will give gun manufacturers the right to sue both perpetrators and victims of shootings for "defamatory product misuse". This new measure follows on the heels of a new "blank slate" law passed in 2005 .......link
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2174048&mesg_id=2174048

[Darranar]

104. And minimum wage increases fail.

Nice to see our national priorities demonstrated so blatantly.

[Sgent]

106. How to fix the problem....

This would have never happend in a correctly operating civil justice system.

I, as well as many as indicated above, have no confidence in the system to protect wronged parties from spurious lawsuits.

That being said, any movement to strenghthen sanctions for filing frivious suits or the naming of univolved defendents is opposed as limiting access to courts. In many states, there are few to no sanctions ever enforced against attorney's -- I think TX has had one 50k fine in the last 5 years, and MS has had none. This is not due to a lack of such suits.

Either fine the lawyers, increase the cost to the litigants (essentially the same), sanction/disbar the attorney's, or pass this type of law which restricts access.

In my opinion, any suit which is dismissed on summary judgement should have a rebuttable presumption that the plantiff has reimburse defense costs.

[Danmel]

108. How can they ban already filed suits?

It goes into effect immediately and does not grandfather existing suits. They get thrown out too.

Wouldn't that violate ex post facto laws?

[slackmaster]

110. Sounds like ex post facto to me

Any suit already filed should be allowed to proceed.

BTW Bush hasn't signed the bill yet, so suits can still be filed.