House Passes Bill to Protect Gun Industry From Lawsuits

[Caminetto]

As a person who owns and uses a variety of firearms, I don?t really have a problem with the law. I do ask you to consider the fact that gun manufacturers had known for many years which dealers they sell to who have put an ungodly amount of weapons in the hands of criminals or those who have eventually committed a crime. They have taken no action to curb these sales since they have made nice profits from these dealers, who in turn have made nice profits by turning a blind eye to suspect and seedy buyers.
Whistleblowers within the gun industry have stated that they were not even allowed to mention in corporate meetings, the ATF website where anyone could easily check which manufactures sold to which dealers that had excessive sales to felons and other criminals, in essence putting weapons in the hands of these bastards. In fact, the gun industry eventually put pressure on the Bush administration to take that feature off the ATF website due to fears of having to take some legal responsibility.
Gun manufacturers and dealers should in some way be held accountable for irresponsible marketing and distribution practices, just as anyone else would be, especially with lethal weapons, and particularly when their practices may cause guns to fall into the hands of criminals, juveniles, or mentally ill people.
They want to take ?0- responsibility here, which is also bullsh*t.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Caminetto
As a person who owns and uses a variety of firearms, I don?t really have a problem with the law. I do ask you to consider the fact that gun manufacturers had known for many years which dealers they sell to who have put an ungodly amount of weapons in the hands of criminals or those who have eventually committed a crime. They have taken no action to curb these sales since they have made nice profits from these dealers, who in turn have made nice profits by turning a blind eye to suspect and seedy buyers.
Whistleblowers within the gun industry have stated that they were not even allowed to mention in corporate meetings, the ATF website where anyone could easily check which manufactures sold to which dealers that had excessive sales to felons and other criminals, in essence putting weapons in the hands of these bastards. In fact, the gun industry eventually put pressure on the Bush administration to take that feature off the ATF website due to fears of having to take some legal responsibility.
Gun manufacturers and dealers should in some way be held accountable for irresponsible marketing and distribution practices, just as anyone else would be, especially with lethal weapons, and particularly when their practices may cause guns to fall into the hands of criminals, juveniles, or mentally ill people.
They want to take ?0- responsibility here, which is also bullsh*t.

The dealers are ultimately responsible for what gets sold to whom. It is the ATF's job to make sure the FFL holders are in compliance with the law so I see this as more of an enforcement issue.

 

[TheSlamma]

Good law.

The only time they should ever be able to be touched is if for instance a gun blew up in a buyers hand due to a defect QA was careless to fix or something of that nature.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: smack Down
I don't think they should be protected. Let them make their case in front of a judge and jury like the reset of use instead of making the case with bribes to law makers.

:thumbsup:

 

[her209]

If a troubled teenager used a first-person shooter to practice his rampage, should the families of the slained students be allowed to sue the company who created the game?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Sorry you feel offended, Train.

But Americans are woeful undereducated compared to most developed nations. Americans are fatter than most developed nations (although other countries are taking the battle to the biggest bottom seriously). And more to the point, Americans probably own a surplus of firearms . . . particularly handguns.

Just in case you weren't aware . . . lobbies exist b/c companies/industries believe they have the right to extract every penny of profit, subsidy, and protection possible. So despite the fact the gun industry has little to fear from lawsuits . . . they prefer to reduce their risk to zero. I guess the reason there's 1700 licensed gun manufacturers and 750 licensed importers is low margins and oppressive frivolous lawsuits.

You almost have to admire such singleminded focus on profit at all costs.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: her209
If a troubled teenager used a first-person shooter to practice his rampage, should the families of the slained students be allowed to sue the company who created the game?

Of course not . . . that's just plain silly. If a gun dealer (licensed or otherwise) realizes a customer comes in every 8 days to buy a gun to avoid disclosure rules about multiple gun purchases when a week . . . should future victims be allowed to sue the dealer?

Personally, I just don't believe handguns, 50 caliber weapons, or armor-piercing munitions have a place in a civilized society. Just an opinion . . . nothing more. As a person that grew up in a household with multiple shotguns and rifles, I appreciate not only the utility but the "sport" in ownership and use.

But it's foolhardy to believe an abundance of handguns, large caliber weapons, or specialized munitions is a good idea. It's downright reckless not to acknowledge the risk in encouraging the manufacture and purchase of such items.

For the sake a full disclosure, I did take out a pine cone with a .30-06 when I was 10yo. Since every seed is sacred :music: I said one Apostles; Creed, an Our Father, and three Hail Marys.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: her209
If a troubled teenager used a first-person shooter to practice his rampage, should the families of the slained students be allowed to sue the company who created the game?

No. Not unless they designed it for "a troubled teen to practice" a homicidal rampage.

Problem with assigning blame to a third party who did'nt commit the crime or tort is there is no stopping point. You could sue anyone for anything forever.

Too fat? McDonalds forced them with slick ads to eat too much.

Depressed? Those Mercedes Benz ads with the pretty woman fill you with feelings of inadequacy since you don't have one.

And on an on forever.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: her209
If a troubled teenager used a first-person shooter to practice his rampage, should the families of the slained students be allowed to sue the company who created the game?

Of course not . . . that's just plain silly. If a gun dealer (licensed or otherwise) realizes a customer comes in every 8 days to buy a gun to avoid disclosure rules about multiple gun purchases when a week . . . should future victims be allowed to sue the dealer?

Personally, I just don't believe handguns, 50 caliber weapons, or armor-piercing munitions have a place in a civilized society. Just an opinion . . . nothing more. As a person that grew up in a household with multiple shotguns and rifles, I appreciate not only the utility but the "sport" in ownership and use.

But it's foolhardy to believe an abundance of handguns, large caliber weapons, or specialized munitions is a good idea. It's downright reckless not to acknowledge the risk in encouraging the manufacture and purchase of such items.

For the sake a full disclosure, I did take out a pine cone with a .30-06 when I was 10yo. Since every seed is sacred :music: I said one Apostles; Creed, an Our Father, and three Hail Marys.

AP ammunition has already been banned from domestic sale and importation.

I don't recall a single instance where a weapon chambered in .50 BMG has ever been used in the comission of a crime in the US. These weapons are very expensive and require much skill and practice to use effectively. The army/police, long distance target shooters, and the odd collector are the only people that own them.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Sorry you feel offended, Train.

But Americans are woeful undereducated compared to most developed nations. Americans are fatter than most developed nations (although other countries are taking the battle to the biggest bottom seriously). And more to the point, Americans probably own a surplus of firearms . . . particularly handguns.

Just in case you weren't aware . . . lobbies exist b/c companies/industries believe they have the right to extract every penny of profit, subsidy, and protection possible. So despite the fact the gun industry has little to fear from lawsuits . . . they prefer to reduce their risk to zero. I guess the reason there's 1700 licensed gun manufacturers and 750 licensed importers is low margins and oppressive frivolous lawsuits.

You almost have to admire such singleminded focus on profit at all costs.

No, I admire thier freedom to do whatever they want within the law. And thats all.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Sure, but it's nice when you can literally write the law.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Sure, but it's nice when you can literally write the law.

I tend to think you don't have a problem with special interests... just the ones you don't like.

 

[2cpuminimum]

Yet another step in removing all accountability from corporations.

Now we need a flat tax on guns to cover the cost to society of all gun crime, since the industry can no longer be held responsible for individual incidents.

Of course, when they extend this law to include biological warfare agents (like the T virus that reanimates corpses into flesh eating zombies) then I will leave the city and become a gun nut myself.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Good law. The Feds are responsible for making and enforcing the firearms laws. The manufacturers have no police authority or responsibility.

Bringing up the issue of AP rounds is as frivolous today as it was years ago. Several years ago, the media got into a huff over AP rounds sold by KTW; labeled them "cop killer bullets". disregarding the fact that: hardly anyone had ever heard of them, no cop had ever been shot at with one, let alone killed, no criminal had been apprehended that even had them in his weapon or on his person, etc.. Even the reporters were absolutely ignorant (to the point of stupidity) in discussing the attributes of the rounds. According to many of them, the Teflon coating on them allowed them to penetrate body armor. The coating was really there to keep from shooting the rifiling out of your barrel because the actual bullits were of such hard material. The whole deal was a joke. And anybody who really wants AP rounds can make them in a very modest home workshop. Banning them had much more of the effect of making people kow they existed than saving any lives imho.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Sure, but it's nice when you can literally write the law.

I tend to think you don't have a problem with special interests... just the ones you don't like.

I hope you don't get paid to think for a living.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: smack Down
I don't think they should be protected. Let them make their case in front of a judge and jury like the reset of use instead of making the case with bribes to law makers.

:thumbsup:

Unfortunately, the problem with that is that many, many people see lawsuits as "get rich quick" schemes and file frivolous lawsuits with hopes of getting an underserved settlement from a company that crunched the numbers and calculated that settling was financially adventageous over fighting in court.

They have made their cases in court, "in front of a judge and jury like the rest of us," multiple times. The problem is, that does nothing to slow the swarm of parasites that still wish to "get a piece" of someone else's money.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

USA Today

"Without this legislation, it is probable the American manufacturers of legal firearms will be faced with a real prospect of going out of business," Frist said.

"These frivolous suits threaten a domestic industry that is critical to our national defense, jeopardize hundreds of thousands of jobs and put at risk that law-abiding citizens have access to guns for recreational use," he said.

Lie, lie, half truth, and lie.

Reed cited recent Securities and Exchange Commission statements by gunmakers Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger & Co. indicating that litigation posed little threat to their bottom lines.

I guess Frist was too busy managing his blind trust to bother reading something pertinent to legislation.

The House passed such a bill in 2003. The Senate tried to pass one the following year, but the NRA withdrew its support for the effort when Democrats attached amendments that called for an extension of an expired ban on so-called assault weapons, among other things.

Special interest calling the shots . . . you gotta love representative democracy . . . if you can buy it.

And linking the bill to the war in Iraq, Frist said that Beretta, the manufacturer of pistols to U.S. forces in Iraq, warned that it may go bankrupt if the lawsuits are not stopped.

"These frivolous suits threaten a domestic industry that is critical to our national defense," Frist said. "Given the profusion of litigation, the Department of Defense faces the very real prospect of outsourcing sidearms for our soldiers to foreign manufacturers."

I'm sure a made in China pistol would be just as good for violating someone's human rights. Regardless, Frist tells another great big whopper since the US government has multiple handgun suppliers.

defense industry daily

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Sure, but it's nice when you can literally write the law.

I tend to think you don't have a problem with special interests... just the ones you don't like.

I tend to agree.

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I hope you don't get paid to think for a living.

And the reply proves it.

We all know you're a pissy hypocrite, Doc. If this was a legislated protection of some industry or special interest agenda that you support, you'd be slobbering all over yourself to defend it. But no, this is your big pet peeve, so you go off on wide-ranging insults against Americans in general. :roll:<^>


edit: Hey, Doc, we get it. You're a mystic. You think inanimate things like guns and corporations are capable of committing evil on their own. "Get the gun. Shoot, shoot, shoot."

 

[Helenihi]

So its "bought" when it goes a way you don't like, but if the Brady Campaign had their way, that'd be okay. Got it.

Did the NRA buy off all the democrats who voted for this as well?

Do you know the first thing about the assault weapons bill? Probably not, since you were ignorant enough to say that it could only be shot down by people who had been bought, when in fact its probably the most pointless, in effective, piece of scaremongering legislation we've ever seen.


And great job quoting a guy talking about a financial statement from one of the most profitable gun makers without any actual context. Now what about the dozens of smaller manufacturers who would be bankrupted by one lawsuit. And how about the actual financial statement that's drawn from. There haven't been any actual big lawsuits, yet, so of course they haven't affected their bottom line as of yet.

They obviously are worried about the lawsuits as seen by the settlement in the D.C. sniper case. They paid a couple hundred thousand dollars to settle an obviously BS case because they were worried the sniper issue was too emotional and might cause a jury to award some ridiculous amount of money and bankrupt them.

 

[Vic]

It was a special interest betrayal. The trial lawyers had paid their bribes so that this bill wouldn't go through and they could make a killing on the lawsuits, but the NRA and gun lobbies came back over the top with even bigger bribes. That's what Doc is all upset about. Had the trial lawyers special interest lobby won, he would have been tickled pink.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Too bad the liberals wanted to make a little money by forcing through a trigger lock amendment and started us down the road so that bullets that can actually stop a murderer could be outlawed.

I assume that liberal lawyers everywhere will help us sue trigger lock manufacturers when a criminal doesn't give the law abiding citizen time to remove the trigger lock and proceeds to rape and kill the home owner.

Will we be able to sue the Government for disarming us and then failiing to provide us the protection they stripped us of?

One thing I can be assured of is that the home invader will serve no time, will get money from the State and free legal representation so they can sue me for violating their rights to invade our home and rape my Wife. There will be nothing I can do as I will be locked up in jail for 20+ years with all our assets frozen by the government.

While I would feel sorry for any liberal who is murdered because they were not allowed to adequately defend themselves I at least know they died for their cause.

 

[skygod99]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: her209
If a troubled teenager used a first-person shooter to practice his rampage, should the families of the slained students be allowed to sue the company who created the game?

Of course not . . . that's just plain silly. If a gun dealer (licensed or otherwise) realizes a customer comes in every 8 days to buy a gun to avoid disclosure rules about multiple gun purchases when a week . . . should future victims be allowed to sue the dealer?

Personally, I just don't believe handguns, 50 caliber weapons, or armor-piercing munitions have a place in a civilized society. Just an opinion . . . nothing more. As a person that grew up in a household with multiple shotguns and rifles, I appreciate not only the utility but the "sport" in ownership and use.

But it's foolhardy to believe an abundance of handguns, large caliber weapons, or specialized munitions is a good idea. It's downright reckless not to acknowledge the risk in encouraging the manufacture and purchase of such items.

For the sake a full disclosure, I did take out a pine cone with a .30-06 when I was 10yo. Since every seed is sacred :music: I said one Apostles; Creed, an Our Father, and three Hail Marys.

AP ammunition has already been banned from domestic sale and importation.

I don't recall a single instance where a weapon chambered in .50 BMG has ever been used in the comission of a crime in the US. These weapons are very expensive and require much skill and practice to use effectively. The army/police, long distance target shooters, and the odd collector are the only people that own them.

:thumbsup: Good point!

I was about to say the same thing, its funny to see how people think they know what they are talking about, when in fact they very little.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Sure, but it's nice when you can literally write the law.

Like.... The 2nd Ammendment?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
USA Today

"Without this legislation, it is probable the American manufacturers of legal firearms will be faced with a real prospect of going out of business," Frist said.

"These frivolous suits threaten a domestic industry that is critical to our national defense, jeopardize hundreds of thousands of jobs and put at risk that law-abiding citizens have access to guns for recreational use," he said.

Lie, lie, half truth, and lie.

Reed cited recent Securities and Exchange Commission statements by gunmakers Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger & Co. indicating that litigation posed little threat to their bottom lines.

I guess Frist was too busy managing his blind trust to bother reading something pertinent to legislation.

The House passed such a bill in 2003. The Senate tried to pass one the following year, but the NRA withdrew its support for the effort when Democrats attached amendments that called for an extension of an expired ban on so-called assault weapons, among other things.

Special interest calling the shots . . . you gotta love representative democracy . . . if you can buy it.

And linking the bill to the war in Iraq, Frist said that Beretta, the manufacturer of pistols to U.S. forces in Iraq, warned that it may go bankrupt if the lawsuits are not stopped.

"These frivolous suits threaten a domestic industry that is critical to our national defense," Frist said. "Given the profusion of litigation, the Department of Defense faces the very real prospect of outsourcing sidearms for our soldiers to foreign manufacturers."

I'm sure a made in China pistol would be just as good for violating someone's human rights. Regardless, Frist tells another great big whopper since the US government has multiple handgun suppliers.

defense industry daily

You officially don't know what the hell you are talking about.

The vast majority of weapons for the US military are produced domestically by companies owned/licensed by the design owners (HK,FN, Beretta, etc...).

The Beretta M9 is produced domestically by the Beretta U.S.A company as the standard sidearm for the military. Special forces groups and police agencies have elected to select different pistols for a variety of reasons, but the M9 contracts dwarf their aquisitions in size and cost.

Also from your link:

FN Manufacturing LLC in Columbia, SC received a $52.1 million firm-fixed-price contract for M240B Machine Guns.

FN Manufacturing, LLC in Columbia, SC received a potential $9.8 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract, to provide a maximum quantity 1,100 (ea) MK46 MOD 0 Light Machine Guns (LMG) and auxiliary support equipment (fluted barrels and bolt assemblies).

Beretta U.S.A. Corp. in Accokeek, MD received a sole-source $6.5 million firm-fixed-price contract from the U.S. military for M9 pistols. Work will be performed in Accokeek, MD and is expected to be complete by June 17, 2006

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Too bad the liberals wanted to make a little money by forcing through a trigger lock amendment and started us down the road so that bullets that can actually stop a murderer could be outlawed.

I assume that liberal lawyers everywhere will help us sue trigger lock manufacturers when a criminal doesn't give the law abiding citizen time to remove the trigger lock and proceeds to rape and kill the home owner.

Will we be able to sue the Government for disarming us and then failiing to provide us the protection they stripped us of?

One thing I can be assured of is that the home invader will serve no time, will get money from the State and free legal representation so they can sue me for violating their rights to invade our home and rape my Wife. There will be nothing I can do as I will be locked up in jail for 20+ years with all our assets frozen by the government.

While I would feel sorry for any liberal who is murdered because they were not allowed to adequately defend themselves I at least know they died for their cause.

Bill o'reilly for children did wonders for you... now thats some edumacation!