The part where the gun industry ought to be subject to the same...

[RoeBear]

...liability as every other industry.

Could someone explain the above to me? Does the gun industry have some special exemptions from liability?

[maxomai_vs_rove]

1. Not sure

I know the NRA, SAF, GOA, etc. were pushing hard for a federal law exempting gun manufacturers from liability for their products.

Most of the reason for this is that the gun industry has had to defend themselves against a near-constant barrage of lawsuits. These suits (most of which have been stricken down by the courts) claim that gun manufacturers and distributors marketed their wares to criminal elements and should therefore be held liable for their criminal behavior.

Frankly, I think these lawsuits are hogwash. However, I still disagree with liability protection, for one simple reason: some of manufacturers make bad guns. This was particularly true for the "ring of fire" gun manufacturers (Lorcin, Jennings, Phoenix, etc.) whose guns were dangerously unreliable even in the hands of people who otherwise know what they're doing.

A firearm that works has to discharge when you pull the trigger and never at any other time. That's the basic criterion. Guns whose safeties don't work, guns that discharge when dropped, guns that fall apart or explode, have no place in anyone's hands and no place in the marketplace. If someone is injured or killed because a gun's design just plain doesn't work, then hell yes they deserve to get sued.

For what it's worth, most gun manufacturers, particularly those getting sued, manufacture high-quality firearms. Glock, Colt, Baretta, SIG Sauer, Smith and Wesson, H&K, Springfield, and Ruger all manufacture guns that you can count on to operate correctly. Just don't try handling any of them unless you've at least had a safety class and are willing to put the time in at the range.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

2. Funny thing

is that those 'ring of fire' guns were some of the first guns to pass California's stringent 'safe' guns testing.

And the legislation is not to expempt gun manufacturers from liability claimsn (and it does not contain that exemption), it is to protect them from frivolous lawsuits based on the criminal use of products originally sold legally.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

3. They are probably referring to the CSPC

Firearms are exempt from being controlled/regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

They are not exempt from any liability, it is just that when the CPSC was created some people saw that the anti-gun-nuts might use the 'product safety' strawman in order to defacto ban firearms. So the lawmakers specifically exempted firearms from ever being under its power.

But when people say 'every other product is regulated by the government for safety' they are wrong, the CPSC does not regulate EVERY product, there are literally millions of products that are not regulated. They are, as anti-gun-nuts typically do, misrepresenting the facts in order to spread their anti-gun propaganda.

The bradys use the 'teddy bear' strawman alot.

[slackmaster]

9. Here's what the CPSC has to say about this matter

"We have jurisdiction over more than 15,000 kinds of consumer products used in and around the home, in sports, recreation and schools. But we don't have jurisdiction over some categories of products. They include automobiles and other on-road vehicles, tires, boats, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, food, drugs, cosmetics, pesticides, and medical devices. Our web site has links to the sites of the federal agencies that do." - See http://www.cpsc.gov/about/faq.html#jur

And if you follow the link to federal agencies that do have jurisdiction over things you are taken to http://www.cpsc.gov/federal.html which under "firearms" has a link to http://www.atf.treas.gov/ , which is the federal agency that DOES have regulatory authority over firearms.

[MrBenchley]

12. And ATF's jursidiction

is strictly limited, thanks to the corrupt GOP.

[Romulus]

21. "regulate guns"

From the horse's mouth: http://www.regulateguns.org/fact_sheets/ten_common.asp

*snip*

Under the bill, the Department could restrict the availability of specific firearms, classes of firearms and firearm products to prevent unreasonable risk of injury to the general public.

That means banning handguns, as spelled out in the flagship manifesto http://www.banhandgunsnow.org, and at least one state AG's policy goal http://www.oag.state.md.us/Press/guns.pdf

*snip*

"To specifically reduce homicides, Justice could: set minimum size standards for all handguns so that they are less able to be concealed by criminals; require the incorporation of simple safety devices, such as “magazine disconnects,” which prevent a gun from firing once the magazine is removed; restrict the availability of certain types of guns and ammunition most commonly used in homicides like “junk guns” and “pocket rockets;” further restrict the availability of new “sporterized” assault weapons; more stringently regulate large-capacity ammunition magazines; restrict the availability—or prevent the introduction onto the civilian market—of firearms that pose a serious threat to public safety, such as .50 sniper rifles;ban specific models or classes of firearms which are determined to present an “unreasonable risk” to public safety"

Same.

Also:

http://www.regulateguns.org/fact_sheets/health_safety.asp
The agency could also restrict access to specific firearms proven to be disproportionately associated with homicide, suicide or involved in unintentional injuries.

That means handguns.

People should just say what they mean.

* * *
Edited to add these gems:

"How the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act Would Reduce Domestic Violence-Related Gun Homicides in America":http://www.regulateguns.org/fact_sheets/domestic_homicide.asp

According to the Violence Policy Center study, A Deadly Myth: Women, Handguns and Self-Defense, in 2000, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill an intimate acquaintance in self-defense, 443 woman were murdered by an intimate acquaintance with a handgun.

Unlike virtually all other consumer products-from children's toys to jumbo jets-guns are not regulated for health and safety . . . That means the gun industry can manufacture just about any type of gun it chooses no matter how dangerous to the general public-including 1.3 million handguns alone in 1999.

*snip*

However, having a gun around for any reason increases the risk that a family member-as opposed to a criminal-will be killed.

Rememer that balancing test about restricting "classes of products that pose an unreasonable risk of injury"? :think:

[MrBenchley]

29. Yadda yadda yadda

"People should just say what they mean."
So you think that gun manufacturers ought to be exempt from all liability for their ractions?

[MrBenchley]

4. The part of what?

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1503

Currently guns are immune from safety regulations, and in many states, GOP-dominated legislatures have prohibited municipalities from suing the gun industry.

[RoeBear]

5. Question

"Currently guns are immune from safety regulations"

Does that mean an individual can't sue a gun manufacturer if a defective gun he buys injures him?

[MrBenchley]

8. It means that

defective and unsafe guns are not subject to recalls...and that if you're one of hundreds of people injured, you'll have to hope your lawyer can somehow find that out...

[demsrule4life]

16. No recalls?

http://www.smith-wesson.com/CatalogManual/sw1911recall.htm

[MrBenchley]

18. You still peddling that hooey, dems?

This is a recall the way voluntary pollution controls are pollution controls...

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

33. Might as well lauch a personal attack, dems

you sure as hell haven't got anything else

[demsrule4life]

38. Was not ment to be an attack

You did very well last weekend, actually debated not shouted, why I was wondering

[MrBenchley]

39. Yeah, surrrrrrrrrrrrre......

[RoeBear]

6. The part of what? What?

Was my thread title confusing?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RoeBear]

13. So sorry about the confusing question...

...I was quoting you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=7331#8584

Read post #36

[MrBenchley]

14. Gee, roe

that's why they warn against "out of context"

So are you going to take a crack at explaining why making the gun industry subject to the same liability as every other industry is somehow "anti-RKBA?"

[RoeBear]

15. Because someday an unelected beaurocrat...

...hidden in some dark room in Washington DC would take it upon himself to decide all guns are too dangerous for us to own.

[MrBenchley]

17. Horseshit and hysteria

It's the RKBA crowd's stock in trade...

So I take it you cannot answer why making the gun industry subject to the same liability as every other industry is somehow "anti-RKBA?"

[RoeBear]

23. Maybe it's the proof...

...that the second amendment protects gun ownership differently than say any other consumer product.

[MrBenchley]

25. Hahahahahahaha!

So I guess you're admitting you have no answer...

[RoeBear]

27. It must be the corrupt gun industry...

...throwing their weight around. :tinfoilhat:


(edited to add a cute little smilie)

[MrBenchley]

28. You mean you thought there was another explanation?

Hahahahahahahaha....

[RoeBear]

30. They must be a sneaky bunch...

...of bastards. They managed to get a Democratic house and senate to exclude guns from the CSPC in 1972 when the CSPC was formed.

History and organization

Q. When was CPSC created?
A. CPSC was created in 1972 by Congress under the Consumer Product Safety Act and began operating in 1973.
http://www.cpsc.gov/about/faq.html

[MrBenchley]

31. Gee, roe....

You just figuring that out?

"The NRA, for example, can take credit for enacting legislation specifically exempting domestically manufactured guns from any consumer safety standards. When Congress created the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in 1972, it exempted firearms. All other consumer products, except tobacco, are regulated for safety. But, thanks to the gun lobby, guns are not. When asked why the bill to Incorporate guns under the CPSC had failed In Congress, Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) a staunch supporter of common sense gun laws, said, "The NRA’s position is consistent. They’re opposed to any legislation that has the word ‘gun’ anywhere in it." When asked what would happen if the NRA dropped its opposition to the bill, Metzenbaum replied, "We would pass the bill overnight." "

http://www.potomac-inc.org/enffable.html

"Past efforts to regulate guns for health and safety were defeated by America's pro-gun lobby. When the CPSC was created in 1972, the gun lobby pressured Congress to specifically exempt guns and ammunition from its jurisdiction."

http://www.regulateguns.org/advocate/talking_points.asp

"Guns, however, were excluded from the range of products that the CPSC could regulate. A proposed amendment to the bill that created the CPSC, which would have included firearms within the bill's coverage, was defeated following argument that giving the CPSC jurisdiction over guns "could result in taking guns away from our sportsmen and law abiding citizens. If the Consumer Commission saw fit it could impair the personal security of all of our citizens by limiting the right they now enjoy to possess firearms to make them secure in their homes." "

http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2827/information_show.htm?doc_id=154494

[RoeBear]

34. One of your links...

... doesn't want to have the CSPC having oversight over guns either.
http://www.regulateguns.org/fact_sheets/ten_common.asp

"Wouldn’t the Consumer Product Safety Commission be better than the Department of Justice at regulating guns?
No. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has no experience with guns or the firearms industry. The CPSC already counts 15,000 consumer products within its jurisdiction. Regulating the gun industry would force CPSC to divert its meager resources away from other products, a significant proportion of which are children’s products. Also, the CPSC has weaker regulatory authority than The Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act would grant the Department of Justice. And, every major national consumer organization including Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, and U.S. PIRG opposes giving CPSC jurisdiction over guns because of the potential drain on resources and the danger that the NRA would slash CPSC’s budget even further."

And why not?

"How would this legislation reduce crimes involving guns?
The Department of Justice currently compiles tracing information about guns used in crime. However, the Department has no authority to restrict the availability of those guns most prone to criminal use—guns such as the TEC-DC9 used in the Columbine massacre. This legislation would give the Department of Justice the necessary powers to do just that. Under the bill, the Department could restrict the availability of specific firearms, classes of firearms and firearm products to prevent unreasonable risk of injury to the general public. The bill would also allow emergency action to protect the public from “imminently hazardous” firearm products. Rather than being limited to just monitoring firearm use in crime, the Department could finally do something to diminish it. This legislation would also provide the Department of Justice with the authority to tighten existing restrictions on certain firearms—-such as the assault weapons ban—-without the need for Congressional action."

They could care less about safety they just want to ban guns that they don't like. That's a deal breaker and it will cost Democrats elections.

[MrBenchley]

35. But that same link wants guns regulated

"it will cost Democrats elections"
Voters don't want assault rifles on the street...and they DO want gun safety regulated.

[RoeBear]

36. They could care less about the safety of a gun...

...they just want a backdoor way to ban guns. And they ain't getting in my backdoor. O8)

[MrBenchley]

37. Yeah, ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght....

Guard your "backdoor" (snicker)

[MrBenchley]

19. If only every "beaurocrat"

had a desk lamp and a window, then RKBA "enthusiasts" might get a good night's sleep....

[RoeBear]

24. Yep...

...give'em a window and that's all it will take to make me happy. :D

(You know Benchley I'm kind of surprised that you are continuing to post to a thread that has such an incoherent headline. :P )

[MrBenchley]

26. Gee, roe,

a large part of the fun I have with RKBA enthusiasts and their hooey is chasing them through the murky labyrinth of what passes for their "logic."

[jody]

10. Many anti-gun people mean the following bill when talking about the issue

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

[MrBenchley]

11. A shameful bit of ugliness

from the GOP...

[Romulus]

20. oops

oops, wrong place for this

See post #21

[MrBenchley]

22. Want to go up to General Discussion

and ask if the gun industrry should enjoy a special exemption?