Firearms manufacturers immunity bill

[-..__...]

This legislation is long over due. Hopefully, it will get passed this year without any attached amendments.


"Nation's Manufacturers, Labor Support Firearms Industry in Effort to Prevent Unjust Lawsuits Intended to Ruin Responsible Businesses

NEWTOWN, Conn., Feb. 16 /PRNewswire/ -- Legislation introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives would prevent further abuse of our nation's courts when frivolous lawsuits against law-abiding businesses seek to blame them for the criminal misuse of legally sold firearms.

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) and Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) introduced the bill, HR 800, with strong bipartisan backing from 92 co-sponsors. A Senate bill will be introduced shortly. Titled "The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act," it enjoys support from business groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Association of Wholesalers, as well as organized labor whose members' jobs are endangered by such reckless lawsuits that are brought against their employers with the intention of bankrupting them."

More...

[iverglas]

1. the NAACP doesn't seem to agree

Damn, that gun control is racist stuff.

http://www.naacp.org/news/2003/2003-07-21.html
(media release, no copyright issues)

Kweisi Mfume, President and CEO, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) today said, "A decision by a federal judge finding 'clear and convincing evidence' that gun makers are guilty of 'careless practices,' affirms the NAACP's call for the gun industry as well as government agencies to take meaningful steps to implement safer regulations."

U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein held that NAACP members "did suffer relatively more harm from the nuisance created by the defendants through illegal availability of guns in New York." But, in the 175-page decision, the judge said the harm suffered was no different from that suffered by other people in the state. Still, Judge Weinstein said the gun manufacturers are lax in the measures they take to "eliminate or even appreciably reduce the public nuisance they have created."

While the NAACP case was dismissed, Judge Weinstein sent a clear message that the state and local government must bring suit on behalf of all New Yorkers against the gun industry. In response, Mfume called upon the New York Attorney General Elliott Spitzer to use his authority to seek reforms in the gun industry. "Today's decision paves the way for the City of New York and the New York Attorney General to prevail in pending cases against the gun industry. The NAACP will also petition the government to enact legislation permitting private attorneys general to protect the public interest in curtailing negligent gun marketing and distribution," Mfume said.

That, ya see, isn't a finding that firearms manufacturers aren't negligent or that they cannot be held liable for their negligence. It's just a finding that they aren't liable to the NAACP.

Surely it's up to the courts to decide whom a defendant in a civil suit is liable to for the consequences of its negligence. I mean, that's how things work in non-authoritarian states where individuals got rights, right?

As the NAACP says:

The battle over illegal firearms continues in the U.S. Congress. Legislation passed in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 1036) and pending in the U.S. Senate (S. 659) would block lawsuits, similar to the one filed by the NAACP, along with those filed by individual victims, civic groups and governments, effectively shielding the gun industry from liability. Both bills would grant the gun industry sweeping immunity from pending, past and future lawsuits.

Mfume said: "The powerful gun industry must not be allowed to run roughshod through Congress, stripping away a citizen's basic right to due process in the court system. The NAACP urges the federal government to vigorously enforce the existing laws and legislate new, tougher reforms."

Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization. Its half-million adult and youth members throughout the United States and the world are premier advocates for civil rights in their communities, conducting voter mobilization and monitoring equal opportunity in the public and private sectors.

After all ...

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

[MyMouth]

2. Whoever has the deepest collective pockets wins

The way it is now, you sue, lose, sue, lose, sue, lose, run out of money. Then the next guy sues, loses, sues, loses, sues, loses.....

Repeat over and over. Enough organizations with enough cash drive a lawful business into the ground.

What's the track record on lawsuits vs. Firearms manufacturers? How-many-and-0 so far?

The system is broken, and is being abused.

[iverglas]

3. what's all that in aid of?

"Whoever has the deepest collective pockets wins"

The NAACP lost ... so this proves that the firearms manufacturers had deeper pockets?

I'm still not getting it.

The court found that the NAACP had made its case in negligence, but failed to show that its members were specially affected by the resulting harm.

Does this mean that no one who might be able to show that s/he IS specially affected by the resulting harm -- or no one acting on behalf of EVERYONE affected by the harm -- should be able to bring that case before a court?

[MyMouth]

4. Nope

Those with legitimate harm should bring suit, and in a perfect world, would win.

Those with no legitimate harm currently KEEP bringing suit, and are bleeding an industry dry in lawyer's fees.

[iverglas]

7. little problem with the wording

Those with legitimate harm should bring suit, ...
Those with no legitimate harm currently KEEP bringing suit, ...

I'm sure you meant to say Those with a legitimate claim to have suffered harm should bring suit ..., and Those with no legitimate claim to have suffered harm currently KEEP bringing suit, ... .

Right?

You're familiar with the concept of "courts"? And what they're for? Like, for instance, how they commonly determine the "legitimacy" of people's claims to have suffered harm?

And maybe you know how courts are able to deal with people who do things that can be characterized as abuse of process -- like using the court's process for purposes other than prosecuting legitimate claims to have suffered harm.

If the judge in the NAACP case (or any other judge in any other case you might be exercised about) had thought that the action was an abuse of process, I think he might have said so. Have any judges said that? Just asking. I don't know.

So ... the legislative branch is going to decide in advance which civil actions are abuses of process and which aren't -- which actions the judicial branch may hear and which it may not.

It's a novel concept, but it really isn't one that's particularly compatible with, oh, the division of powers under the US constitution, or the right to a trial of a civil action in the US Constitution.

But heck, nobody's right to tote guns around is in issue, so who cares?

I'll just thank dog that *I* don't live in a country where my fundamental human rights are denied like that.

'Course, neither do you, at present. I wish you luck in your people's struggle to retain and exercise their rights.

[aikoaiko]

10. Does anyone know what 'careless practices' are referred to in this quote?

Snipped from post #2.
Kweisi Mfume, President and CEO, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) today said, "A decision by a federal judge finding 'clear and convincing evidence' that gun makers are guilty of 'careless practices,'......

Or maybe someone has a link to more details.

Thanks in advance.

[oldfogey]

11. It means

they produce a product capable of being used to do harm to others. I am not sure where I read it but there is a school of thought that if you make an item that can be used to do harm you are therefore advocating and assisting in that process. These people refuse to see them as tools used by responsible citizens and law enforcement but rather the root of all crime. I've never seen one of these idiots go after a knife maker and until I do I think they should shut the hell up. Knives are every bit as dangerous, don't run out of bullets, and are a useful tool that can be misused all the same. I don't think I've gone through a single day without using mine to open something or cut rope at least once.

It can also be construed to mean that they do not research the establishments that sell their products thoroughly enough in advance but every gun shop that I've been in fears the law enough to stay honest. These idiots making the claims are grasping at straws.

[iverglas]

14. more help needed

Does anyone know what 'careless practices' are referred to in this quote?
It means they produce a product capable of being used to do harm to others.

Aha, you must have found the actual reasons for the decision referred to in the article I quoted!

I searched around a bit, and I didn't find an on-line report of what the judge wrote. Can you provide a link to what you found?

I'm afraid I do need to see the original in order to assess this characterization you have offered. Because, you see, I'd be really surprised to find a judge saying anything quite so dumb as what you have portrayed this judge as saying.

I am not sure where I read it but there is a school of thought that if you make an item that can be used to do harm you are therefore advocating and assisting in that process.

Maybe if you think a little harder you'll remember where you read about this "school of thought".

Of course, then you might want to tell us what relevance it has to what this judge said.

It can also be construed to mean that they do not research the establishments that sell their products thoroughly enough in advance ...

Ah ... do you think??

Do you think that this might be just a teeny tad closer to how it actually should be "construed" ... like, maybe it's just a teeny tad closer to what was actually said?

... but every gun shop that I've been in fears the law enough to stay honest. These idiots making the claims are grasping at straws.

Well, now that you've found your home from home at DU, allow me to introduce you.



Ah,

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/

[oldfogey]

16. I offered

what I know to be the two most popular definitions of the term as it has been applied to firearm manufacturers that I know of. Go look the law up yourself if you really want to know for sure. I am secure in the knowledge that it had to be one of the two.

I may not have provided the actual explanation but your smug attitude and insults are uncalled for. All you needed to do was ask if I had facts to back either explanation.

[iverglas]

20. "the law"?

What we're talking about here is a decision by a court - apparently a decision by a judge refusing to allow an action to go trial, from what I've gathered.

I posted excerpts from an NAACP press release about the decision, and I made an attempt to find the decision itself on line. Without the decision, I figured we didn't really know what the judge meant when he said what was quoted in that press release:

Kweisi Mfume, President and CEO, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) today said, "A decision by a federal judge finding 'clear and convincing evidence' that gun makers are guilty of 'careless practices,'...".

-- the quotation that was the subject of the question that you volunteered to answer. That would be why I didn't volunteer to answer it myself: I didn't know the answer.

You seemed to think you knew the answer. I merely hoped that you could help me out by telling me where you found it, eh? And here it seems that you were just, uh, guessing after all.

I may not have provided the actual explanation but your smug attitude and insults are uncalled for.

Far be it from me to be smug, me not even knowing the answer and all. Heck, I wasn't even the one calling somebody else "idiots".

And "insults"? Heavens to betsy, what a suggestion. I mean, I wasn't even the one calling somebody else "idiots" and all ...

[oldfogey]

21. You weren't being nice in your response

and you know it. Honestly, the issue pisses me off and I didn't care enough to read the article. I was just offering two possibilities that seemed to make sense based on the way it was used in the excerpt.

In case it wasn't clear, I was calling those who believe manufacturers of any product should be held responsible for the misuse of those products idiots. It was not directed toward you or anyone else participating in this thread. I meant you no disrespect and am sorry I didn't look it up for you before adding to the thread.

[iverglas]

23. awwww

Dear me. I wasn't nice. Shall I reproduce the introduction?

In case it wasn't clear, I was calling those who believe manufacturers of any product should be held responsible for the misuse of those products idiots.

And I suppose that your opinion of such people is relevant to something, it's just that it isn't relevant to anything at all here.

The civil action in question was not designed to hold anyone responsible for the use or misuse of anything by anyone.

It was designed to hold certain parties responsible for the alleged reasonably foreseeable consequences of their own alleged negligent or intentional wrongful acts.

Too bad you "didn't care enough to read the article", or perhaps more specifically, to read the actual judicial decision that you chose to comment on. If you did, you might not have said such weird things. Or offered such unpleasant and negative characterizations of anybody at all without any apparent foundation for them.

[oldfogey]

24. I see where you stand on the issue now

and simply choose to disagree with you. Sorry that you fell into the group I insulted. After browsing other posts I believe I see where you're coming from, and we are nothing alike. Mine are simply tools I rely upon. Dislike me and them if you wish. There is plenty of room for arrogant people like you who want to force your values upon everyone else on the internet. Far be it from me to stop you.

"The civil action in question was not designed to hold anyone responsible for the use or misuse of anything by anyone.

It was designed to hold certain parties responsible for the alleged reasonably foreseeable consequences of their own alleged negligent or intentional wrongful acts."

Yeah, they are all negligently manufacturing deadly devices. Let's ignore the fact that some of them end up being used for the right purposes.

[iverglas]

26. there they are again!

"I see where you stand on the issue now"

Please, won't someone tell me where I can buy these special spectacles??

Sorry that you fell into the group I insulted.

Aw, isn't that cute? An apology for ... well, I don't quite know what. And an allegation of something for which there is no evidence.

Somehow, although I have expressed no opinion at all on this branch of product liability law, you have discerned that I fall into the group of "those who believe manufacturers of any product should be held responsible for the misuse of those products".

I think maybe what I need is a crystal ball, so that I can play on a level field here.

There is plenty of room for arrogant people like you who want to force your values upon everyone else on the internet.

I do hope you're enjoying your stay.

[iverglas]

28. ah, edited to add ...

Yeah, they are all negligently manufacturing deadly devices.

Gosh, I guess someone said that. I mean, you seem to be agreeing with someone. Anyone I know?

Let's ignore the fact that some of them end up being used for the right purposes.

You go right ahead and ignore what you like. I probably won't join you.

Meanwhile, if someone becomes aware of someone negligently (or intentionally, or illegally) selling "deadly devices", as a result of which act harm is reasonably foreseeable and s/he in fact suffers harm, I'd rather hope s/he they won't be denied his/her right to seek damages from the tortfeasor.

Anybody come up with an explanation yet of how bills like the one in question here don't violate that Bill of Rights thingy?

[oldfogey]

30. It is fact

that most firearms used in crimes are ones that have been STOLEN. Ignore fact if you want to. The blame should be on those improperly securing such dangerous devices and those that use them to do harm.

[iverglas]

32. it is a fact

that the earth is a spheroid of some sort. What that's got to do with the price of tea in China, I have no idea.

But hey, if you want to discuss the serious problem you bring up -- that most firearms used in crimes are ones that have been STOLEN -- feel free to join me in my thread entitled "here's a problem", 'cause that's exactly the problem it's about.

It may well be that most firearms used in crimes have been stolen. (I think "most" might be stretching the point, but no matter.)

And it may well be that negligent and/or intentionally wrongful acts by firearms manufacturers and/or dealers result, very foreseeably, and readily avoidably, in firearms being in the hands of people who use them to commit crimes, however they actually get there.

The two possibilities really are not mutually exclusive.

And why you'd think that proof of one is disproof of the other, I still don't know.

[oldfogey]

33. I decided

not to join in your other thread because of the fact that you wanted to ignore all aspects of the problem -except- for stolen firearms. All I have to add is that locking them up is fine with me but making them impossible to get to in a time of need is sure to get a homeowner killed during a home invasion. Not that it matters at all, and I'm not asking for a response to this as it is off topic, but taking them away from the law abiding will prevent more from being stolen and those already gone or being illegally imported will not magically disappear.

[iverglas]

34. too bad

Your remarkable insight into the situation would have been so worth having.

All I have to add is that locking them up is fine with me but making them impossible to get to in a time of need is sure to get a homeowner killed during a home invasion.

A propos of what, who knows?

[-..__...]

35. Of course they wouldn't... they lost.

"the NAACP doesn't seem to agree"

:shrug:

These "nuisance" lawsuits have been going on for years (and there are dozens of them), and there has yet to be a favorable judgment for the litigants by any court.

California just lost big time on their "nuisance" lawsuit.

"California Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Los Angeles and San Francisco Suit Against Gun Makers

NEWTOWN, CT -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 02/11/2005 -- A San Francisco-based California appellate court yesterday unanimously upheld a superior court decision dismissing lawsuits filed by Los Angeles, San Francisco and twelve other California municipalities against members of the firearms industry. The cities had claimed the defendants' lawful and highly regulated business practices were "unfair, deceptive and fraudulent" and caused the criminal misuse of firearms in California, resulting in a "public nuisance." San Diego County superior court judge Vincent P. DiFiglia originally dismissed those claims in March 2003.

In his dismissal, Judge DiFiglia said, "Discovery has produced a mountain of data significantly, however, none of this data reflects evidence of the type of transactions complained of by plaintiffs, i.e., straw purchases, illegal sales by federally licensed dealers, gun show sales or kitchen table transactions, which can be causally attributed to these manufacturers and distributors. There is no competent evidence before the Court that any criminal acquisition can be attributed to conduct by the ."

In affirming Judge DiFiglia's decision, appellate court judge James Marchiano, writing for a unanimous Court of Appeals, 1st Appellate District, found, "The only business practice the defendants in this case have engaged in is marketing their products in a lawful manner to federally licensed dealers." Echoing the superior court's finding, the appellate court said, "In this case, there is no causal connection between any conduct of the defendants and any incident of illegal acquisition of firearms or criminal acts or accidental injury by a firearm. Defendants manufacture guns according to federal law and guidelines."

http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?release_id=80803

I have a solution/compromise... since you're usually espousing the Canadian system of government (as if there's any relevance :shrug:... I live here, you live there... different strokes for different folks).

Would a "loser pays" system be a reasonable compromise for these firearms "nuisance" lawsuits?

http://www.blakes.com/english/publications/doingbusinesscanada/html/canada-58.htm

1.3 Costs

"The Canadian court system generally uses the loser pays principle of costs following litigation. Many provinces have a system similar to Ontario whereby there are two scales of costs that can be awarded. The most common scale of costs is called partial indemnity in Ontario, which means the successful party will receive approximately 40-50% of its legal costs from the unsuccessful party. Where one partys behaviour has been particularly egregious, the court may award a higher scale of costs, called substantial indemnity, which is in the range of approximately 70-80% of the actual costs incurred. The costs of experts and other fixed costs like disbursements are generally fully reimbursed. The courts ultimately have the discretion as to whether and how much to award for costs and it is possible for the losing party to be awarded costs against the winning party depending on the circumstances and the successful party’s behaviour during the litigation."

Personally, I've always thought a "loser pays" system has merit... with
regards to firearms or anything else... although I'd rather see "substantial indemnity" placed at 100% of costs.

If a litigant "truely" belives their case has merit; then there shouldn't be a problem.

Anywho... time to wake up and smell the coffee; eh?

This bill will pass; guaranteed (hopefully without any BS amendments like a .50 cal ban).

[iverglas]

36. point of clarification

Would a "loser pays" system be a reasonable compromise for these firearms "nuisance" lawsuits?

Are you saying that US courts do *not* award costs against unsuccessful plaintiffs? If so, well, I learn something every day.

Here, the costs awarded generally do not cover the full costs. They are determined according to a "tariff", which assigns certain values to lawyers' time, and allows certain amounts of lawyers' time for each step in a proceeding. Those are called "solicitor and client" costs.

As the commentary you quoted notes, higher costs can also be awarded -- on what's called a "party and party" basis -- in cases of egregiously improper behaviour by a party (unsuccessful plaintiff or unsuccessful defendant). There are various permutations, as that commentary notes.

There's also another option. Costs can be awarded against a party's lawyer directly, if the lawyer behaved improperly -- for instance, by bringing a completely groundless action, or by failing to advise a client of a reasonable settlement offer.


I have a solution/compromise... since you're usually espousing the Canadian system of government (as if there's any relevance :shrug:... I live here, you live there... different strokes for different folks).

And yet ... and yet ... you seem to have learned something useful, and to have found an option that you weren't aware of for solving a problem that needs a fair and balanced solution.

Had I had any idea that your courts did not routinely award costs, I'd have brought this to your attention earlier. I suppose you would have complained that such-like furrin foolishness was irrelevant ...

Your California case, by the way, is of course interesting, but not, I think, relevant to the NAACP case, in which the judge seems to have found, contrary to what the California judge found in that case, that the defendants *did* engage in the practices alleged by the plaintiffs.

[iverglas]

37. I put my key in the transmission again ...

As I was working away a while after writing this post, I serendipitously encountered a party's request for solicitor-and-client costs. Those, of course, not party-and-party costs, are what is awarded to punish improper behaviour: closer to what the other party pays his/her own solicitor.

I once spent 6 months at a whole lower pay grade because at the job interview I mixed up the meanings of a legal term in English and the "same" term in French (we call them faux amis, false equivalents) ... even though the fact that I knew there was a difference was essentially evidence that I knew what it was, and nobody else did anyhow ...

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[hollowdweller]

8. Helping to pass this could really help the Democrats in the South and

rural areas.

I would like to see the fine print on this to make sure it is not sheltering the companies from being sued if they make guns that blow up and stuff too, but if it is specifically worded to prevent people from suing a gun manufacturer because they got shot I think it is a good thing, or at least not a BAD thing and certainly might help the Dems image in some swing areas.

[Billy Ruffian]

9. I concur with both points

If this bill is to prevent a 'product liability' suit when some goblin misuses a properly functioning firearm, that's a good thing.

If a firearms manufacturer or distributor fails to follow the law in selling firearms, the federal gov't should still be able to bring charges (and I haven't heard that this has been the problem, or that protecting mfgs from this is the intent of the suit.)

[oldfogey]

12. The problem is

places like NYC imposing such BS laws that will hold manufacturers responsible for every crime and imposing such ludicrous fines when for all they know these guns were legally sold and then stolen before being used, putting the blame on the previous owner for not securing the weapon but still allowing the state to sue the manufacturer.

[iverglas]

13. what have I missed?

places like NYC imposing such BS laws that will hold manufacturers responsible for every crime and imposing such ludicrous fines when for all they know these guns were legally sold and then stolen before being used, putting the blame on the previous owner for not securing the weapon but still allowing the state to sue the manufacturer.

When did all that happen??

I hate to be so behind the times. Please point me to these laws that hold manufacturers responsible for every crime! And the rest of it, of course. I'm always curious.

[oldfogey]

15. I believe NYC Mayor Bloomberg put it through

although I am not sure it became law. Obviously this only relates to crimes where firearms were used. I will try to find a link.

It allows victims to go after the manufacturers. Not exactly what I had heard but here are some of the first links google brought up:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327415/posts
http://www.kimdutoit.com/forum/threadsny.php?id=6552_0_44_0_C
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/38437.htm
http://www.infowars.com/articles/2nd_amendment/bloomberg_signs_4_gun_bills.htm
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/news/nl/read_comments.asp?nl=1415972250165&tmpD=1%2F25%2F2005

I found this comment from the last link to be of particular interest:
"Lawrence Keane
General Counsel
National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc." ...

"Is New York prepared to hold knife makers, automobile makers, fertilizer makers, tool makers, etc., responsible for the misuse of their products?" ...

[iverglas]

17. may I say ... res ipsa loquitur?

to quote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327415/posts
http://www.kimdutoit.com/forum/threadsny.php?id=6552_0_...
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/38437.htm
http://www.infowars.com/articles/2nd_amendment/bloomber...
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/news/nl/read_comments.as...

Yes, those are the places that I'll be going for my information. Fer sher, eh?

[oldfogey]

18. That's what google brought up.

The only link I omitted was one to the Bloomberg Network because it failed to load in my browser. The rest were all of the ones listed on the first page of the search. Don't believe me, run a google search for "Bloomberg, firearms, manufacturer," and see what you get. They simply prove he signed a piece of legislation and gave details about it. I never asked you to agree with the views of the people who run those sites. Is it just that you do not like firearm owners?

[iverglas]

19. uh huh

And if I wanted to know the truth about, oh, the Patriot Act, I'd just do a google search ...

Oh look -- number 3 on google's hit parade!

http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/
The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism ...

I wonder whether freerepublic is on that list somewhere ...

I don't think I asked you to google for me. I asked you when "NYC <imposed> such BS laws that will hold manufacturers responsible for every crime", i.e. when what you said happened happened.

You're the one who made the assertion. I really don't have to do any research to prove or disprove it. I'll just say it's a ludicrous and appallingly, um, incorrect assertion, and we'll be even.

I never asked you to agree with the views of the people who run those sites.

Nothing to do with their views, honeybunch. Everything to do with their dishonesty. Like I said ... if I wanted to know about the Patriot Act, I just wouldn't be asking the Bush Administration to tell me.

Is it just that you do not like firearm owners?

Yes please sir! That must be it!

I must be asking you to enlighten me on the "laws" of New York City because I don't like firearms owners. I mean, what other possible explanation for my question could there be?!

[oldfogey]

22. I don't see how the Patriot Act

has anything to do with something Bloomberg signed into law for NYC. One of those links had to have had a date in them. If not specifically for the legislation, they at least gave you an idea of when if you even viewed them. www.lifeandliberty.gov never came up in my search.

"Please point me to these laws that hold manufacturers responsible for every crime! And the rest of it, of course. I'm always curious."
^^^
You asked for more than a date and I pointed you toward numerous sources hosting articles about it.

My last question was more in reference to your attitude toward me. Don't pretend it isn't there because I already felt you looking down your nose as you viewed my posts. Does it make you feel better about yourself to insult others from behind a keyboard?

[iverglas]

25. damn, neither do I!

I don't see how the Patriot Act
has anything to do with something Bloomberg signed into law for NYC.

I wonder why you would think anyone did - ??

Please point me to these laws that hold manufacturers responsible for every crime! And the rest of it, of course. I'm always curious.
You asked for more than a date and I pointed you toward numerous sources hosting articles about it.

You're the one who asserted that there are "laws", "passed" by NYC, that "hold manufacturers responsible for every crime ... when for all they know these guns were legally sold and then stolen before being used".

What aren't you getting?

You made a claim. It's a ludicrous and patently incorrect claim. It is ludicrous and patently incorrect to say that NYC "passed" "laws" that HOLD MANUFACTURERS RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY CRIME, or that do so WHEN FOR ALL THEY KNOW THESE GUNS WERE LEGALLY SOLD AND THEN STOLEN BEFORE BEING USED.

I don't get to go read "articles" written by dishonest fools in a search for evidence to support your claim. I don't wish to read articles about this subject written by dishonest fools any more than I wish to read characterizations of the Patriot Act written by the Bush Administration. And I do not imagine that all google results from a search for anything at all are worth reading. It's called an "analogy". Getting it?

You get to provide the evidence on which your claim is based.

Or retract it.

Or let it sit there looking like a great big old ludicrous and patently false claim that you don't feel any obligation to either substantiate or retract.

Three options, any of which you are at liberty to exercise. So far, you seem to be going with #3.


Does it make you feel better about yourself to insult others from behind a keyboard?

Have you stopped beating your dog?

(I'm sure you will want to know that this is the classic, and eminently appropriate, response to a question that is loaded with a false premise. I've yet to see you cut and paste an "insult" proffered by moi.)

Enjoying your stay so far?

[oldfogey]

27. I proved a law went into effect.

I may have had the details wrong but I admitted to it. You think they made up the law just because you disagree with the source?

[iverglas]

29. once more, slowly

Who knows; maybe you really don't get it.

I proved a law went into effect.
I may have had the details wrong but I admitted to it.

What I have been seeking is substantiation for the claim that NYC "passed" "laws" that hold manufacturers responsible for every crime ... when for all they know these guns were legally sold and then stolen before being used.

If you've "admitted" that those "details" were wrong, I seem to have missed the admission. All I've seen is the problem being compounded by further mischaracterizations.

It's those devilish details -- the way that you have CHARACTERIZED the CONTENT of the law -- that we're talking about.

I could prove that my Parliament passed a law making it illegal to steal ... and I would NOT have proved that the law provides for thieves' hands to be cut off.

And sigh ... no ... I'm not "comparing" firearms to hands, or NYC to Canada, or stealing to owning firearms ...

I'm saying that proof of "X" is not proof of "Y". So never mind proving that NYC "passed laws". Prove that the "laws" in question say what you said they say.

Clearer? I can only hope.

[oldfogey]

31. If you are trying to get me to break COC

and tell you what I really think of you at this point it is not going to happen. You want it, here it is:

I repeated what I had heard. It proved to be wrong upon investigation of the issue. I apologize for adding before researching it for myself. I felt it was implied that this was limited to firearm related crimes.

Happy now?

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

39. bookmark it, everybody

Y'all will be wanting to quote this one soon, I'm sure.

Better actually copy the content quick while you can, I'd say.

"Illegalize them"
Posted by LiberalBulletDodger
Guns should be illegal, they kill animals, and I guess people too.
We shouldn't kill animals, animals aren't trained to kill us.

Veritably immortal words, doncha think?

[MrSandman]

40. Only when someone asserts...

"No one is talking about confiscation."

Y'all will be wanting to quote this one soon, I'm sure.

Immortal, though? Naah.

[iverglas]

41. uh oh

Methinks I am a prophet.

[MrSandman]

42. Could be....

I didn't bookmark it, but if it turns up in a search:shrug:

[iverglas]

44. once upon a time

in a pretty little town in Norway



there lived a little girl and her troll.



(edit: oops. That's Bjarni. I think he's a boy.)

Now, the troll wasn't content living under
the little girl's porch, and had bigger
adventures in mind. But it knew that it
would inspire fear and loathing in the
hearts and minds of the public if it went
wandering about undisguised, so it went for
a walk in the countryside, and sat down to
have a think.

And as it gazed off at the peaceful landscape,
it realized that the obvious solution was right
there in front of its rather large nose:



Why, if it were dressed as a sheep, it could go
anywhere and do what it liked, and no one would
fear it, and even the meanest people would only
point at it and go "oh, it's just a dumb sheep".

So it, uh, borrowed one of those sheep's woolly
coats, and tried it on for size:



Well, it wouldn't fool all of the people all of
the time, but it seemed adequate.

Now, in the olden days, it would have had to go
down to the docks and mingle with some other
sheep, and get itself loaded onto a big boat
heading west, so that it could join the debate
about firearms control in the new world, where
entirely too much of the stuff seemed to be
happening for a troll's taste.

But now, thanks to the miracle of



it didn't even have to leave the little girl's porch.
(Norway having one of the highest internet penetration
rates in the world, if not the highest, there was of
course a high-speed connection there already.)

So forth it went into the ether, bleating loudly,
in its best sheep imitation, about how guns needed
to be illegalized everywhere.

And lo! There it encountered real wolves, themselves
often wrapped up in someone else's garments:



who, thinking that at long last a genuine sheep
had landed among them, leapt upon it and began
ripping at its flesh.



But lo! again. The troll inside the sheep's skin,
well, it really was just a dumb troll, with very
gnarly and tasteless flesh indeed, and it would
have failed miserably to provide the sustenance
the wolves needed. But in fact, the people in the
vicinity spotted it for what it was immediately,
and chased it off, not wanting the wolves to get
the notion that there were actual sheep in the
vicinity and going into a frenzy of bloodlust,
in the interest of all involved, wolves included.

But when the nights are long and cold and sheep
are few and far between, the wolves still gather
together and gaze at the moon (wolves being not
really good at geography, and being unsure where
exactly to find Norway), and tell each other tales
of the fat juicy stupid sheep they once ran down.



I mean, the old wolves know that it really wasn't
a sheep, and it really wasn't very fat and juicy
at all ... but they need to keep the young wolves
wired for the hunt, and keep the people afraid
that one day a wolf really will catch one of those
sheep and eat it for breakfast.

And the people, well, they just shake their heads
and wonder how gullible wolves can be ... or can
imagine people are.



The End.

[MrSandman]

46. Okay....

I guess

:wtf:

[Rann]

43. well

This may sound sick to some.

But I bought about 200k of primers for reloading and a press thinking this is the area in where people would go to ban.

[slackmaster]

45. Heaven forbid we'd have to use the US Army Improvised Munitions method

Kitchen match tips can be used to reload used primers. They would be corrosive because of the clorate and not as reliable as factory ones but would have a loooooong shelf life.

:evilgrin: