Conyers: Another embarrassing day on the floor today..

[hiley]

HOUSE GOP PASSES GUN IMMUNITY BILL THAT WILL ENDANGER INNOCENT LIVES
by Congressman John Conyers, Jr.




Bill Goes on to Bush for Signature

Another embarrassing day on the floor today as the House passed the Senate version of the gun immunity bill, which now goes on to Bush for signature. The bill prohibits civil liability for the firearms industry and gun dealers arising from the “criminal or unlawful misuse” of their products by the injured party or others. At a time when more than 30,000 gun deaths occur each year, this bill represents nothing more than an unwarranted and unjust special interest giveaway to the powerful gun lobby.

The bill is so broad it would even shield gun dealers and distributors from liability when they knowingly transfer firearms to suspected or known terrorists or gang members. The ease with which these individuals are obtaining dangerous firearms is growing at an alarming rate. According to a recent GAO report, over the course of a nine-month span last year, a total of fifty-six firearm purchase attempts were made by individuals designated as known or suspected terrorists by the federal government. In forty-seven of those cases, state and federal authorities were forced to permit such transactions to proceed because officials were unable to find any disqualifying information (such as a prior felony conviction or court-determined ‘mental defect’) in the individual applicant’s background. The Republican-controlled House wouldn’t even offer Democrats the chance to amend the bill to deal with this problem.

For anyone who wonders whether politics makes a difference, today was the day. Until today, never before has a class of persons harmed by the dangerous conduct of others been wholly deprived of the right to legal recourse. But now, the gun liability has won, and innocent Americans will be forced to pay the price – often in their lives.

http://www.conyersblog.us/default.htm

Conyers DU Group
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=340

[ClassWarrior]

1. F. Jim Sensenbrenner supports irresponsible, negligent corporate behavior.

Bryan Kennedy for Wisconsin's 5th!!

http://www.bk2006.org

NGU.

[Erika]

2. The NRA won big time.

The American people lost big time. Nazism marches on by the GOP noecons.

[ClassWarrior]

4. NRA nothing. They're just a puppet for the GUN CORPORATIONS.

Corporatism won big time. That's 21st century fascism.

NGU.

[Selatius]

6. You saw the big picture, apparently

You hit the nail on the head.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

3. I was about to post a disagreement

when I saw the bit about, "the bill is so broad it would even shield gun dealers and distributors from liability when they knowingly transfer firearms to suspected or known terrorists or gang members."

Up until then, I actually agreed with the law -- I don't think a manufacturer can be held liable if someone uses their product in an illegal way, unless the manufacturer knows or should know of the planned illegal use.

[ClassWarrior]

5. Okay, given your premise that all manufacturers should be treated...

...equally - what, then, justifies the fact that THESE manufacturers receive unprecedented and overwhelming PROTECTION from liability. I mean, we're way BEYOND being fair here to overprotecting an industry that manufactures a product designed to destroy life. I just don't get it...

NGU.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

7. All manufacturers should be treated equally

And a gun manufacturer that makes a defective gun that, say, explodes when the trigger is pulled should be sued to oblivion.

I would normally say cigarette manufacturers should not be sued either, but for the fact of the evidence showing they deliberately doctored their product to make it more addictive.

Now, guns of course can be used to take human life, but so can hammers. So, for that matter, can downy feather pillows. The point is the arbitrary taking of human life is not the primary or even the intended purpose of most firearms, except in the context of lawful self defense (I will admit that some guns do pretty much have the death of human beings as their only rational purpose, and I support an outright ban on such weapons, but for the time being they remain legal). So if a gun manufacturer makes, say, a hunting rifle or a skeet shotgun, perfectly so it is not inherently unsafe, I don't believe the manufacturer can be held liable if someone unforeseeably uses such a firearm to commit a crime.

[ClassWarrior]

8. You still didn't answer why that industry is OVERPROTECTED.

There are more safety regulations and limitations for a pair of bunny slippers than for an inherently dangerous product - not to mention the fact that, as you so astutely pointed out, many are manufactured with the only rational purpose being murder.

NGU.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

9. You know, I can't . . .

I was actually trying to confine my comments solely to the legislation at issue, so the only answer I have to your overprotection comments would be the ones I expect you've thought of yourself, namely, an overbearing NRA and a gross misinterpretation of the Second Amendment.

On edit -- what does "NGU" mean? Haven't seen that one before.

[ClassWarrior]

10. Never Give Up...

...my personal motto since 11/03/04.

NGU.