Quantcast

Good news for the 2nd Amendment!

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
:thumb:


Congress OKs Gun Industry Lawsuit Shield
LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 58 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Congress gave the gun lobby its top legislative priority Thursday, passing a bill protecting the firearms industry from massive crime-victim lawsuits.

President Bush said he will sign it.

"Our laws should punish criminals who use guns to commit crimes, not law-abiding manufacturers of lawful products," Bush said in a statement.

The House voted 283-144 to send the bill to the president after supporters, led by the National Rifle Association, proclaimed it vital to protect the industry from being bankrupted by huge jury awards. Opponents, waging a tough battle against growing public support for the legislation, called it proof of the gun lobby's power over the Republican-controlled Congress.

"This legislation will make the unregulated gun industry the most pampered industry in America," said Kristen Rand, director of the Violence Policy Center.

Under the measure, a half-dozen pending lawsuits by local governments against the industry would be dismissed. Anti-gun groups say some lawsuits filed by individuals could be thrown out, too.

The Senate passed the bill in July.

The bill's passage was the NRA's top legislative priority and would give Bush and his Republican allies on Capitol Hill a rare victory at a time when some top GOP leaders are under indictment or investigation.

"Lawsuits seeking to hold the firearms industry responsible for the criminal and unlawful use of its products are brazen attempts to accomplish through litigation what has not been achieved by legislation and the democratic process,"
House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., told his colleagues.

Former House Majority Leader
Tom DeLay, R-Texas, did not vote. He is in Texas in connection with his indictment in an alleged scheme to violate state election law.

Propelled by GOP election gains and the incidents of lawlessness associated with the passing of Hurricane Katrina, support for the bill has grown since a similar measure passed the House last year and was killed in the Senate.

Horrific images of people without the protection of public safety in New Orleans made a particular impression on viewers who had never before felt unsafe, according to the gun lobby.

"Americans saw a complete collapse of the government's ability to protect them," said Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president.

"That burnt in, those pictures of people standing there defending their lives and defending their property and their family," he added, "where the one source of comfort was a firearm."

With support from four new Republicans this session of Congress, the bill passed the Senate for the first time in July. House passage never was in doubt because it had 257 co-sponsors, far more than the 218 needed to pass.

The bill's authors say it still would allow civil suits against individual parties who have been found guilty of criminal wrongdoing by the courts.

Opponents say the strength of the bill's support is testament to the influence of the gun lobby. If the bill had been law when the relatives of six victims of convicted Washington-area snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo sued the gun dealer from which they obtained their rifle, the dealer would not have agreed to pay the families and victims $2.5 million.

"It is shameful that Republicans in Congress are pushing legislation that guarantees their gun-dealing cronies receive special treatment and are above the law," said Rep. Robert Wexler (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla.

Bush has said he supports the bill, which would prohibit lawsuits against the firearms industry for damages resulting from the unlawful use of a firearm or ammunition. Gun makers and dealers still would be subject to product liability, negligence or breach of contract suits, the bill's authors say.

Democrats and Republicans alike court the NRA at election time, and the bill has garnered bipartisan support. But the firearms industry still gave 88 percent of its campaign contributions, or $1.2 million, to Republicans in the 2004 election cycle.

Gun control advocates, meanwhile, gave 98 percent of their contributions, or $93,700, to Democrats that cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,640
4
SF, CA
Yup, on this one I actually side with the mfgs and NRA. You can't sue for a legal item that is operating as intended and expected. If there were a series of guns with faulty safeties or from-the-factory hair triggers, that would be a different story...

However, they ARE an extremely pampered industry. Compare seat-belt and airbag laws to gun regulations. Automakers are virtually required to include any new proven safety technology. Gun makers are extremely insulated from the same requirements thanks to the NRA.
 

Echo

crooked smile
Jul 10, 2002
11,818
1
Slacking at work
Without knowing the specifics of the bill it's hard to form an opinion.

So if a gun dealer sells a gun to a criminal without completing the required background checks, then that criminal kills someone with the gun, is the gun dealer protected from a lawsuit?
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
Echo said:
Without knowing the specifics of the bill it's hard to form an opinion.

So if a gun dealer sells a gun to a criminal without completing the required background checks, then that criminal kills someone with the gun, is the gun dealer protected from a lawsuit?

No but, if a gun dealer sells a gun to a criminal without completing the required background checks, then that criminal kills someone with the gun, the gun manufacturer is protected from a lawsuit from the victim.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,672
0
Feeling the lag
ohio said:
Yup, on this one I actually side with the mfgs and NRA. You can't sue for a legal item that is operating as intended and expected. If there were a series of guns with faulty safeties or from-the-factory hair triggers, that would be a different story...

However, they ARE an extremely pampered industry. Compare seat-belt and airbag laws to gun regulations. Automakers are virtually required to include any new proven safety technology. Gun makers are extremely insulated from the same requirements thanks to the NRA.
This made me wonder if people still try and sue auto manufacturers for producing cars 'too powerul to control'.

The priniciple of the bill is sound - if the product is legal to make and to sell then the manufacturer should not be liable for its usage. Obviously faulty/shoddy produce should still be their problem. It should also apply to all manufacturers, not just guns.
 

MTB_Rob_NC

What do I have to do to get you in this car TODAY?
Nov 15, 2002
3,430
0
Charlotte, NC
It should be interesting, not only for the gun manufacturers, but if other large manufacturing groups (say the auto industry) will be able to springboard themselves into similar situations. Either with similar legislation or case law supported by this legislation.
 

MTB_Rob_NC

What do I have to do to get you in this car TODAY?
Nov 15, 2002
3,430
0
Charlotte, NC
valve bouncer said:
What about tobacco companies being liable. Smoking is legal right?
The above bill and the following discussion is addressing items that are made and then sold but NOT used for their intended purpose, but the manufacturer is still being held liable.

In the Tobacco industry using the product for its intended purpose is what causes harm.


That being said if you push both examples you could get into a very grey area.


Interesting isn't it? :thumb:
 

valve bouncer

Master Dildoist
Feb 11, 2002
7,791
35
Japan
Mtb_Rob_FL said:
The above bill and the following discussion is addressing items that are made and then sold but NOT used for their intended purpose, but the manufacturer is still being held liable.

In the Tobacco industry using the product for its intended purpose is what causes harm.


That being said if you push both examples you could get into a very grey area.


Interesting isn't it? :thumb:
Very interesting, one could argue that when a gun is used to kill someone then it IS being used for its intended purpose. Like you said very grey area.
I was being somewhat disingenuous by using the example of tobacco companies as I understand most of the lawsuits against them have come from the fact that they tried to hide or minimise the harmful effects of smoking. In this instance I support the lawsuits but I think it does highlight the difficulties in sustaining the "it's a legal product" arguement as a position against lawsuits in general.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,640
4
SF, CA
valve bouncer said:
What about tobacco companies being liable. Smoking is legal right?
Tobacco companies were sued for two reasons:
1) They deceived the public, and withheld information about the addictivity and harmful effects of tobacco
2) They illegally targetted youths

If gun companies start to claim that guns are not deadly weapons, figured out an addictive ingredient to implant in guns, and started printing ads in with cartoons about how guns are fun and cool and will make you fit in, THEN they would be asking for similar lawsuits.
 

bigdrop05

Monkey
Mar 26, 2005
427
0
Great news --Can i get a whoot whoot for BUSH !

Now we are back where we were before this stupid tactic of going after the manufacturers. = Time to get on the defensive again for the anti-gunners next STUPID tactic...Stupid jerk-off anti gunners.... :mumble:


The END.
 

valve bouncer

Master Dildoist
Feb 11, 2002
7,791
35
Japan
ohio said:
Tobacco companies were sued for two reasons:
1) They deceived the public, and withheld information about the addictivity and harmful effects of tobacco
2) They illegally targetted youths

If gun companies start to claim that guns are not deadly weapons, figured out an addictive ingredient to implant in guns, and started printing ads in with cartoons about how guns are fun and cool and will make you fit in, THEN they would be asking for similar lawsuits.
You did see my post above right?