What's this? A conservative GOP Senator doing the right thing?

[Armstead]

I happened to turn onto CSpan a few minutes ago and saw somethiong surprising. I'm frankly not up on this issue, so if there are ulterior motives going on, I'd be interested to know.

Sen. Mike Dewine (R-Ohio) is speaking out against a proposed bill that would limit the ability of victims of gun violence or injury to sue gun manufacturers.

He is arguing against it bother because of the specifics, he says it is being rushed through and -- most important -- he said it would set a dangerpous precident for people to be able to sue other industries in the future.

Usually Dewine has been an obedient Republican conservative, so this seems incongruous. He is, in effect, standing up against the right-wing, GOP corporate assault on the legal system and their efforts to take away citizens rights to sue.

I'm wondering if he is showing some backbone and integrity, or if this is one of those shell-games Republicans seem so fond of. Anyone know?

[Robbien]

1. The Assault Weapons Ban is being planned to be attached

to this bill. There is no way that Dewine can win in Ohio if he votes for the AWB.

He is just making sure of his seat.

[Armstead]

7. Who is planning to do that?

Is it the Democrats as a "poison pill" to blok it, or are there trade-offs going on?

[Robbien]

11. After checking, it seems that

Senators John W. Warner (R-VA), Mike DeWine (R-OH), and Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) are joining Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) in supporting the reauthorization of the federal assault weapons ban.

The public reason is that the ban is reported to be the reason crime is down.

DeWine just stated on the floor that the reason he voted against the gun liability bill is that the bill is retroactive and will invalidate the suits already in the court system. I am surprised that he is one of the ones who is supporting the AWB. This is going to be a tough sell in Ohio.

[Luvpurp]

2. Gun makers can assure their own immunity from suits

They don't need a law. If gun makers would simply take reasonable steps to ensure that guns did not end up in the hands of criminals then they wouldn't be liable, but of course greed rears its ugly head. So they circumvent laws by flooding guns into markets that have no restrictions knowing full well that they will end up in the hands of criminals.

This is very dangerous legislation IMO.

[pnb]

3. What kind of immunity would that assure?

If the gun makers have money, people will go after them. Its not up to a gun maker to assure that guns are used in a legal manner once they are sold...only that the gun works properly.

What's next? Someone suing Ford if I kill someone while driving one drunk?

[Luvpurp]

5. Ford isn't making a death machine

The utility of a gun is its use for killing or the threat of killing. You cannot make the same argument about automobiles. If Ford was marketing their product in such a way that they could get their autos into the hands of persons who are not entitled to drive, i think your argument for their liability in your scenario goes up. Gun makers are in trouble right now because they are flooding markets with guns knowing full well that this is how they can get the criminal market.

Just for the record I am not anti-gun, but the gun makers are hardly blameless in these lawsuits.

[Maurkov]

9. killing tool

The utility of a gun is its use for killing or the threat of killing.

That's one utility. Target shooting is another. There are also circumstances where it is legal to kill or threaten killing. The gun is a tool, and it's ridiculous to blame the maker of a tool that has legitimate uses for the illegitimate uses of that tool.

If you don't like how guns are marketed, work towards legislation that limits the ways they can be, a la cigarettes and alcohol. Using civil suits to punish legal but unpopular behavior is an abuse of the system.

Guns get into the criminal market because they are stolen, or they are purchased from other criminals. What does "flooding the market" have to do with anything? Selling a gun for $50 is no less moral than selling one for $250.

[pnb]

10. Flooding markets?!?

Selling a lot of an item is a reason to be sued now? Well, in NY there is a problem with black market cigarretes. Should those stores who sell the most cartons to people above the age of 18 be liable as well?

Also, Fords and guns are both legal items. Selling to a legal buyer is the SAME thing, regardless of the possible uses of the items.

BTW, gun manufacturers and sellers can still be held responsible for selling directly to a person in an illegal manner.

[Armstead]

6. It's a bigger principle

Once one industry is shielded, it sets a precident for immunizing otehr industries from challenges.

[Maurkov]

8. I don't understand any part of your post.

If gun makers would simply take reasonable steps to ensure that guns did not end up in the hands of criminals then they wouldn't be liable

Short of not selling any guns, how can gun makers ensure that their products do not end up in the hands of criminals? Can you give me an example of a reasonable step that would ensure this?

they circumvent laws by flooding guns into markets that have no restrictions

A manufacturer sells as much of its product as it can at the most advantageous price, while obeying all applicable laws. How is what happens after that the responsibility of the company?

knowing full well that they will end up in the hands of criminals

Dell sells computers, knowing that some will end up in the hands of black-hat crackers. Sylvania sells grow lights, even though some are used by pot growers. Craftsman sells bolt cutters, even though some end up in the hands of bicycle thieves. Guns, just like these other tools, have legitimate uses. That they have illegal uses as well is immaterial.

Immunity shouldn't be necessary, but it is. The judicial system is failing the gun manufacturers because cases should get thrown out the same way cases against Dell, Sylvania, or Craftsman would get thrown out. Because it's guns, people are reacting irrationally.

[CBHagman]

4. I suspect he's sincere.

DeWine has been known to show a degree of independence.

Besides, it's entirely possible for liberals, conservatives, and moderates to unite on an issue. Look at Gov. Bob Riley (R-AL) and his quest for a progressive state tax code, or the Republican-Democratic-independent coalitions on the media ownership issue.

[FatSlob]

12. DeWine is anti-gun

Why else would he vote against cloture? He supports an AWB renewal, and is against the frivolous lawsuit against gun-makers bill.

He is taking a lot of heat, and hurting in Ohio. He is definitely risking his Senate seat. When he comes up for re-election, hopefully he'll be replaced by somebody like the 22 Democrats who voted for Cloture.

He is anti-gun, therefore he is against the freedom of self-defense.

I hate DeWine.

[Robbien]

13. There is a rumor that the NRA made a secret deal

to agree to the AWB to get the gun liability bill. This package bill will also have the closure of the Gun Show Loophole attached to it.

[ldoolin]

14. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) are against it too

Because they are right-wing libertarians who don't like the idea of slapping a government restriction on a person's right to file lawsuits. They're also very pro-gun.

I don't know if that's where DeWine is coming from here, but it might be.