NRA Bill

[ls317]

Washington -- Over the heartfelt objections of California's two members, the Senate is poised to give the National Rifle Association a big victory by granting gun manufacturers and dealers immunity from lawsuits arising from criminals' use of their weapons.



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNG69DUK3E1.DTL

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. How sweet. I wonder how many Dems will kiss the NRA's ass.

Our EX-rep (D) went out of her way to grovel to the NRA. She was kind of surpised to discover the votes she was supposed to pick up from the "moderates" didn't outweigh the number of progressives who sat on their hands.

[MrBenchley]

7. The people who think this is a good idea

hate gays, Jews, blacks and uppity women even more than they love them guns.

They're not voting Democratic unless Lester Maddox and the Dixiecrats make a comeback....

[Jack_DeLeon]

12. personally I've got no problem with jews, blacks or women...

its them uppity whites that are coming for my guns that I've got a problem with.

[MrBenchley]

13. So who are you going to shoot first, Jack?

[Jack_DeLeon]

14. I dont yet have plans to shoot anyone...

because no one has yet posed any real threat to the life and liberty of myself or my loved ones.

If and when that happens I'll keep you updated.

[MrBenchley]

16. So until then you're just going to pimp for Republicans...

Good going there.

[Jack_DeLeon]

19. lovely slander...

I love it when some white guy who is for making guns inaccessable to minorities and those less well off financially calls me a Republican.

BTW incase you are ignorant on the matter, no matter what laws you advocate passing, the rich and/or those well connected will always have access to weapons.

The only people laws hurt are those without resources.

[MrBenchley]

24. Jack, Bill Frist IS a Republican--that's FACT, not slander

"I love it when some white guy who is for making guns inaccessable to minorities"
A) You don't know if I'm white or not.
B) How the fuck does keeping the gun industry from getting sued make "guns inaccessable to minorities"?


"the rich and/or those well connected will always have access to weapons."
So will criminals and psychos, thanks to folks like Bill Frist. Lovely company you keep.

[Jack_DeLeon]

39. Claiming that I pimp for the Republican is slander on me.

or libel if you prefer. :eyes:

A) You don't know if I'm white or not.
I saw a picture of you linked on the main page or maybe it was a thread a while back. If the caption was correct you appeared to be pigmently challenged (if you dont like being called white).

B) How the fuck does keeping the gun industry from getting sued make "guns inaccessable to minorities"?

Well most gun laws if intended or not have the effect of making it harder for those less well off to afford guns or acquire guns. In specific on this issue if gun companies are sued and lose alot of money they are going to have to pass that cost onto the consumer by driving up prices. If gun companies are actually sued out of business and they no longer produce guns then the supply is limited and the law of demand will drive the prices up.

Just like the law that stopped new machine guns from being sold to civillians, rich people have no problem affording the several thousand dollars to buy a registered legal machine gun. However the poor either have to do without which the vast majority do, or they have to become criminals and buy an illegal weapon which is in thier cost range.

This is what would happened to handguns and rifles if gun manufacturers were put out of business by lawsuits.

So will criminals and psychos, thanks to folks like Bill Frist. Lovely company you keep.

Alot of times criminals and psychos and the rich are all the same. No law will stop them from acquiring the weapons they want. Why should I or anyone else be stopped from having those weapons.

[MrBenchley]

42. Jack,.. you're pimping for Frist's odious "Get Away With Murder" bill

That's not slander but fact. If you don't like the stench, perhaps you ought not to climb in the cesspool.

"Alot of times criminals and psychos and the rich are all the same. No law will stop them from acquiring the weapons they want. Why should I or anyone else be stopped from having those weapons."
Gee,what a childish argument. Mommy, mommy, I want what Billy's got!

Why not move to Somalia? Everybody's got guns there, and there's none of those pesky gun control laws you're so agitated about.

Hell, for that matter, why not get a nuke? You wouldn't want to be threatened by Paris Hilton and not have more firepower than her.

[Jack_DeLeon]

46. yep I want what Billy's got...

Gee,what a childish argument. Mommy, mommy, I want what Billy's got!

Yep wanting equality is such a childish argument.

Why not move to Somalia? Everybody's got guns there, and there's none of those pesky gun control laws you're so agitated about.

Yep, next time I see some Black gun owners I'll make sure to let them know that they should just move back to Africa because you said so.

Why dont you move back to England, and its not even because you're white, but because they have the strict gun laws and the low crime rates that you love.

How are things working out for you in Jersey, I presume that you live there because its your avatar, strict gun regulation, how is the crime rate up there?

I'll just stay in Texas, it was where I was born and raised and has decent enough gun laws, thank you sir.

[MrBenchley]

48. Yeah, but in your case...

You're not wanting equality...you want a playtoy for a cheesy hobby.

"next time I see some Black gun owners"
Be sure and tell them Bill Frist has their best interests at heart. I bet they'll laugh their asses off.

[Jack_DeLeon]

50. Bill Frist doesnt have thier interests at heart, but Democrats sure should

Democrats should have everyone's civil rights at heart, and its pretty fucking sad when some Democrats think that the right to self defense and the right to keep and bear arms arent civil rights.

Nice admission about the hobby, I thought your kind only believed that guns are only used to murder people.

[MrBenchley]

53. Bullshit...

Why the hell should anyone pander to a selfish bunch of wheeholes who put their hobby above the good of the country...especially, if, as you claim, the Republicans don't either?

"its pretty fucking sad when some Democrats think that the right to self defense and the right to keep and bear arms arent civil rights."
No, it's disgraceful and pathetic that some people pretend swaggering around with a popgun is a civil right. And it's noticeable what sort of specimens on the public stage (AshKKKroft and David Duke spring to mind) peddle that rubbish.

And let's not forget that every real civil rights group around ended pu on the NRA's enemies list...along with just aout every other decent group of Americans.

[iverglas]

78. damn those rich people and their BMWs

Just like the law that stopped new machine guns from being sold to civillians, rich people have no problem affording the several thousand dollars to buy a registered legal machine gun.

If the gummint dint charge all them taxes on gasoline, we could all be driving BMWs too. I got just as much right to drive a BMW as those rich people do.

However the poor either have to do without which the vast majority do, or they have to become criminals and buy an illegal weapon which is in thier cost range. This is what would happened to handguns and rifles if gun manufacturers were put out of business by lawsuits.

Yeah. And when those taxes gits too high and I can't afford to drive my car anymore, I won't have no choice but to walk or carjack some rich person's SUV with a full tank o' gasoline. Or wait til somebody else does it and buy it cheap.

Fuckin eh.

I can't see a damned reason why I should do without, so I guess we should be expecting rather a sharp rise in car-jackings.

[slackmaster]

84. What an utterly asinine thing to say

A truly bigoted remark.

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. Good.

Manufacturers shouldn't be held liable for use of their legal products in illegal activities.

They should be held liable for faulty manufacturing, misleading advertising, dangerous mistakes, etc.

But NOT be held liable for people using their products for criminal activities.

As much as I love corporate regulation, and wish we had more, I think the gun companies need some protection from bullshit lawsuits that cost the companies shitloads of money to defend, and the state shitloads of resources and wasted time that could be spent on legitimate corporate hounding.

[DonP]

4. I second that motion

"Manufacturers shouldn't be held liable for use of their legal products in illegal activities."

"They should be held liable for faulty manufacturing, misleading advertising, dangerous mistakes, but NOT be held liable for people using their products for criminal activities."

Why is it so hard for people to understand this issue?

If you substitute almost any other product word for "guns", like Ford, Chevy, Refrigerator etc., it just makes sense.

They will still be fully liable for faulty manufacturing, design or illegal sales.

If anyone wants to debate the issue, please have some "facts" that come from somewhere other than the VPC, HCI, MMM press releases.

[MrBenchley]

32. People DO understand this issue...

"If you substitute almost any other product word for "guns", like Ford, Chevy, Refrigerator etc., it just makes sense."
I've got a Chevy--hand over the cash in the register or I'll use the cruise control!

By the way, remember the "kid died in the refrigerator" stories that used to be so common? Wonder why that doesn't happen so much any more?

It was because refrigerator manufacturers recognized their responsibility in the problem and started building refrigerators without locking latches. They also spent money on a campaign to advice appliance buyers to remove the doors when discarding old ones.

They didn't--
--Deny that there was a problem
--Try to get the GOP to give them special immunity from lawsuits...
--Market their products based on their escape proof features...

No such effort exists for the gun industry. They have behaved with cavalier and open disregard for public safety.

[OrlandoGator]

35. In your refrigerator example, there was a design flaw, not a crime.

The refrigerator wasn't being used in premeditated criminal activity. It was a design flaw and they were held liable.

If there's a design flaw in a firearm and people get hurt, they too will be held liable. This bill protects the manufacturers from liability when their products are used illegally.

[MrBenchley]

37. True so far as that goes...but the analogy was silly to start with

What the fuck possible crime is anyone going to commit with a refrigerator? Premeditated coldcuts?

[MrBenchley]

5. Let the corporations run free...like rabid hyenas.

"I think the gun companies need some protection from bullshit lawsuits"
Like which ones?

How about this one?

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20050728/1050688.asp

If this law goes through, the victim's family can't sue the guy who made a gun aimed at the criminal market and boasts in his ads how much fun it is to "knock 'em down and keep 'em down".

They can't sue the guy who sold some thug 87 of them without asking any questions (or a background check).

And they can't sue the guy who ran a tupperware party for criminals and crazies so that guns COULD be sold without background checks.

Because the gun killed their loved one, as it was designed to do.

What a fucking disgrace. How does a defender of this bill look himself in the mirror without puking?

[Silverhair]

34. Please prove that a gun is "aimed" at the criminal market.

Can't, can you?

[MrBenchley]

40. Sure thing....

Beemiller, for example, made no effort to cut off dealers who were detected selling guns to criminals. The scumbag in this case was caught selling crime guns by three different states and the manufacturer didn't do anything--even when his dealer sold a gun used at Columbine.

And if he's ignoring even the gun dealer who got caught in such a high profile case, what do you suppose the rest of his customer base is like?

His guns are marketed with slogans like "Knock 'em down and keep 'em down" specifically referring to human beings.

Kahr Arms, owned by convicted tax cheat Sun Myung Moon, had convicted criminals working in its factory and had made no effort at plant security, perhaps deliberately. A lawsuit of the sort that the NRA wants to ban here discovered that hundreds of handguns "disappeared" at the factory sometime between the manufacturing and the shipping.

[Silverhair]

52. That is not proof. NT

[MrBenchley]

55. You asked for it, you got it...

It sure as shit seems like more than enough proof to me...and it would be more than enough in front of a judge.

[alarimer]

54. No industry needs to be protected from lawsuits of any kind

this is simply pandering to lobbyists for greedy corporations. If a lawsuit has no merit, it will be tossed out. But protecting corporations only increases the possibility of abuse: now that they are free from liability, they can do whatever the fuck they want. They make gobs of money; they can afford to defend themselves.

[Rabrrrrrr]

62. I disagree with you on this

I think it makes sense to say to the American people, "Look, sue a company, sue other people, sue whoever the fuck you want for whatever you want, it's the American way, but you can't sue a company who is making perfectly legal items just because some asshole used one of their products to commit a crime".

Whether it be the toaster thrown in the bathtub, the lead pipe, the rope for lynching, the car used in a getaway, a computer used for identity theft, yada yada yada.

That particular brand of lawsuit is so obviously wrong that this is one instance in which I have to side with the corporations, because it is the side of sanity.

Which is pretty weird, considering I'm otherwise almost always on the side of nailing corporations to the regulatory and punitive tree (though I wouldn't sue the nail makers).

[MrBenchley]

64. Americans should be able to get their day in court

when manufacturers make no effort to be sure that their products have been distributed and marketed in a responsible fashion.

"That particular brand of lawsuit is so obviously wrong"
No it is not. And if it were wrong, the gun industry wouldn't be scrambling to get this particular immunity. In fact, courts recognize this type of lawsuit as valid.

[ManiacJoe]

91. Only by the individual judges who are

as wrong as you are.

[iverglas]

79. yeah, eh ...

Which is pretty weird, considering I'm otherwise almost always on the side of nailing corporations to the regulatory and punitive tree

Sometimes it's called "cognitive dissonance", sometimes it's just called "sez you".

[marions ghost]

71. the bottom line

:applause:

[SlipperySlope]

3. About time

The industry has had to wait for this protection for far too long.

Get it passed, stop the lawsuits, and MOVE ON.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Silverhair]

8. This bill will also protect other manufactures.

If a gun maker is ever successfully sued for a product that he made and sold in accordance with existing law, and which was misused by someone after it passed from the makers control, then very quickly you would see that case used as a precedent for similar cases on other products. Cars, knives, chain saws, pepper sprays, etc.

[MrBenchley]

9. So people injured through a corporation's negligence or dishonesty

SHOULDN'T have the right to sue?

And let's not forget some of the "innocent ethical" folks this lawsuit is designed to protect--

--Smith & Wesson, whose chairman was a convicted stickup artist (when the press found out he was demoted to the Board) and which is unde rinvestigation by the SEC for Arthur Amdersen-like shenanigans

--Glock, owned by a guy with ties to the Austrian neoNazi movement...

--Kahr Arms, owned by convicted tax cheat Sun Myung Moon...

[Silverhair]

30. You are badly misstating the situation.

If you are damaged by a corp negligence, yes, you can sue.

If you are damaged by some guy that bought a product in accordance with all laws, and then misused that product to hurt you, then you can't sue the company. You can sue the guy that misused the product.

The rest of your post is largely irrelevant. It refers to things that you don't like about someone's politics. We may not like it, but if a person wants to have ties to a Neonazi movement - THAT IS THEIR RIGHT. If you remove their right to be a NeoNazi, you will eventually lose your own right to be a Democrat.

[MrBenchley]

36. No, I am not....

"then you can't sue the company."
Says who? Not liability laws in America. And the lawsuits against the gun industry have been challenged in court for validity...and guess what? They're VALID.

And if the gun industry didn't know it WAS liable THEY WOULDN'T BE TRYING TO GET SPECIAL IMMUNITY.

"We may not like it, but if a person wants to have ties to a Neonazi movement - THAT IS THEIR RIGHT.
Gee, I didn't even say he couldn't be a neoNazi...and for that matter, swastikas are common at gun shows.

All I did was show what a scummy thug that person is. So why should somebody like that get a special immunity from existing law that ordinary decent people do?

[Dave Reynolds]

10. Manufacturers yes,

dealers not completely. If they run all the required checks and paperwork, fine. If not, smoke 'em.

Someone used a car in a robbery, and ran over a pedestrian, killing the pedestrian.

Let's sue the automaker, right?.

Makes no sense to me, and I doubt any anti-gun folks here can make a non-emotional counter.

[MrBenchley]

15. Gee, that's easy to counter...

We don't have auto manufacturers winking at unlicensed drivers...or doing all they can to repeal public safety laws about driving...or emphasizing the fun of running people over after bank robberies in their advertising....

In the case above of the basketball player, the manufacturer Beemiller uses phrase like "knock 'em down and keep 'em down with this heavy hitter". It continued to sell to the dealer who sold the gun even though he was banned from selling in California, sold more than 600 guns to criminals in New York, and sold one of the guns used at Columbine.

"Under pressure from powerful gun lobbies, the federal government aims its war on gun violence at street criminals like Bostic - not the dealers who supply them, The News found.
"Absolutely nobody is looking at the dealers," said Gerald A. Nunziato, a former supervisor with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. "It's a lot easier to prosecute some black guy who is selling guns on the street corner - he isn't protected by the National Rifle Association." "

http://ww2.americansforgunsafety.com/breaking_news.asp?id=336

[Jack_DeLeon]

18. so?

We don't have auto manufacturers winking at unlicensed drivers

Its not illegal to possess a car without a license.

or doing all they can to repeal public safety laws about driving...

Are you implying that it is wrong to work to change laws? You "public safety laws" in regards to driving usually have little to do with public safety and lots to do with generating revenue for the locals.

or emphasizing the fun of running people over after bank robberies in their advertising....

No, but they usually emphisize how fast thier vehicles are and whatnot. I havent see any gun advertisements that support murder.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Jack_DeLeon]

41. Jack Jack Attack

"Its not illegal to possess a car without a license."
How are you going to get it home from the dealership, Jack?

Not everyone buys a car from a dealership, just not like everyone buys a gun from a dealer.

I can buy a car from a private individual, hell I could have him ship it to me or drive it to me, or fuck I could even break the law and drive it without a license. In almost all situations having or not having a liscense for something does not effect the legality of owning said something.

"I havent see any gun advertisements that support murder."
"Knock 'em down and keep em down" says Beemiller. Wow, Sgt. Schultz was eagle-eyed compared to you...

Well it certainly doesnt say what is being knocked down or kept down. That being said one could assume they are talking about human beings, althought its possible they are also talking about animals. However it is not advocating murder. Killing can be perfectly legal.

[MrBenchley]

44. You're getting sillier and sillier....

"I can buy a car from a private individual"
Your next door neighbor? That's the only way I can see avoiding roads in between.

"fuck I could even break the law and drive it without a license."
Why not? Your argument couldn't get much more silly. Why not put it on your back and carry it, Jack? Shrink it to the size of a dime, put it in your pocket, and then enlarge it when you get home.

"Well it certainly doesnt say what is being knocked down or kept down."
Actually, it says "bowling pins and bad guys," Sgt. Schultz. Of course it's up to the psycho waving the gun around to determine if he's plugging a bad guy or not.

"Killing can be perfectly legal."
Yeah, that's what we need in this country...more killing!!

[Jack_DeLeon]

47. Derrr

Your next door neighbor? That's the only way I can see avoiding roads in between.

I clearly stated you could also have it delivered. You do realize you can hire people to drive a car somewhere for you.

Yeah, that's what we need in this country...more killing!!

Actually the world would probably be better off with some more, there are already too damn many people in the world. I dont see why people try so hard to give up freedom to save "just one life," it isnt worth it.

[MrBenchley]

49. Sillier and sillier...

"Actually the world would probably be better off with some more, there are already too damn many people in the world. I dont see why people try so hard to give up freedom to save "just one life,""
Well, THAT sure says it all.

[Dave Reynolds]

20. Any counters from a non-agenda source?

I sure as hell won't source the NRA for pro-gun arguments for that same reason, they have an agenda.

So, any neutral sources?

[MrBenchley]

21. The Buffalo Evening News has an agenda?

Did you fail to click on the link?

[Jack_DeLeon]

22. it could...

how many threads have you seen about how the media has been working for Bush and whatnot.

Everybody has an agenda of one sort or another.

[MrBenchley]

26. Sure it could....

"Delivering the news to readers" is an agenda, Jack.

[ManiacJoe]

90. Former.

"Absolutely nobody is looking at the dealers," said Gerald A. Nunziato, a former supervisor with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. "It's a lot easier to prosecute some black guy who is selling guns on the street corner - he isn't protected by the National Rifle Association."

Sounds like someone who needs to be fired for not doing his job. Anyone know why he is no longer a supervisor?

[Jack_DeLeon]

11. Sounds good to me...

[cynatnite]

17. I despise the NRA

I loathe everything about that organization...and we own a gun in this household.

I just find the organization that thinks it's holding up everyone's constitutional right to own a gun reprehensible.

[MrBenchley]

27. Good for you...

This bill is a disgrace.

[Fescue4u]

25. Excellent News

One of the few good things that Congress has done lately.

[Vinca]

28. What's next . . . pizza joints?

How about blanket legislation to protect them from being sued over hot mozzarella? Or lawsuit protection for Wendy's after the chili with finger affair? While I understand what they want to accomplish with this legislation (besides sucking up to the NRA), I don't think any entity should have immunity from being sued. If a frivolous suit is filed, a court should have enough common sense to throw it out. Will someone please wake me up when they get to the important stuff? Like the 45 million without health insurance.

[MrBenchley]

29. Hey, look, it's NRA Bill!

[OrlandoGator]

31. Protect the manufacturers and hold the dealers liable.

If the manufacturers are legally transferring the weapons to dealers, how does the liability trace back to the manufacturer?

Should you be able to sue the foundry that produced the steel for the gun, too?

[MrBenchley]

38. Why the fuck should we?

"If the manufacturers are legally transferring the weapons to dealers, how does the liability trace back to the manufacturer?"
In the case of the kid who got shot referenced above, the manufacturer kept on selling guns to the homhole of a dealer--even though he got caught selling crime guns in three different states including one of the guns used in Columbine.

A manufacturer who ignores wrongdoing by his dealer is also liable. That's the law...and the NRA knows it, too.

[SouthernDem2004]

43. Why are you attacking everyone with a different opinion and being rude?

Try civil discourse. People may listen to you then.

[MrBenchley]

45. Which people--the ones supporting Bill Frist's brainstorm?

[Rabrrrrrr]

51. Because that's all that...

well, that's all you will ever get.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

69. I didn't miss anything...

There's a difference between doing so legally and doing so irresponisbly.

"manufacturers who knowingly distribute to criminal dealers should be protected."
And yet that's EXACTLY what Frist's odious bill does...it protects them. Since the only existing restraint on them now is liability law.

"Man, you're high-strung."
No, just aware of what a pantload most of the arguments against this bill are. Look up and down the thread and you'll find the arguments for it mix denial of fact, chest-thumping bombast, and outright falsehoods.

And remember, the cherry on the top is that it's being pushed in the Senate by some of the scumiest specimens in public life...and at the expense of the Defense Appropriations Bill.

Tell us, which is more important...armor for the troops the GOP put in harm's way, or a "Get Away With Murder" pass for Sun Myung Moon, Dick "Bushmaster" Dyke, and neoNazi Gaston Glock?

[spanone]

33. America has become so corrupt it's hard to fathom.

[BiggJawn]

57. The day GM or Ford loses a suit over supplying the car used in a DWI...

Is the day I'll support open season on gun makers.

How about the nexrt time they have a "study" that says coffee's bad for you, we sue Starbux out of existence?

"Oh Noooo! I *LIKE* Starbucks! It's GOOOOOOOD Coffee!"

Unlike the tobacco industry or Taser Int., I can't recall anyone in the firearms industry trying to claim that their product is not lethal if used to shoot people.

Oh, before you wrap your "I hope you don't have any kids at home" shit-man around me, in the interest of disclosure, I live alone, in a rural area where we can't count on the police to be our hired gun, like folks in some gated communities can, and it's nobody's fucking business how many firearms, if ANY, I own....

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[OrlandoGator]

67. You're really rude.

I don't understand why you take it as a personal insult when people have different opinions from you.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

81. no no no -- that's not your problem!

I don't understand why you take it as a personal insult when people have different opinions from you.

So, since we're evidently in some sort of group therapy group here, I want my turn to work on your problem.

I don't understand why you respond to someone's opinion by psychoanalyzing him when you can't beat his point.

I mean, that could be interesting, it's true. In the hands of a wit, a wag, a worldly observer of life, it could be an entertainment.

But in your hands ... it's not.

What's that you were saying?

Bo. Ring.

[cynatnite]

58. Why don't they ban lawsuits against manufacturers of ladders?

How about banning any lawsuit against any corporation?

That way they don't have to take any responsibility when they fuck up.

[MrBenchley]

60. Mistah Frist, he dumb

Not only are the Republicans pushing this disgraceful bill for the gun lobby the scum of the earth, they're shit-stupid as well...

Here's cat-killer Bill: "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."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-28-GOP-guns_x.htm

[cynatnite]

61. But outsourcing EVERYTHING else is okay

I'm glad he cleared that up. I almost couldn't go to sleep tonight because of those poor corporate gun manufacturers having to close up shop to make cheaper guns. :eyes:

[MrBenchley]

63. You got it...

And of course it would be a shame if a fine manufacturer like Fabbrica D'Armi Pietro Beretta S.p.A. had to go overseas to someplace like, say, Italy, because they might be subject to the same US law as every other company here....

[marions ghost]

72. good job arguing your case MrBenchley

there is no reason for gun manufacturers to have special protectionist laws that do not apply to other industries.

[MrBenchley]

73. Thank you...

and look how some "freedom loving liberal gun owners" are happy to piss away the basic right of every American to justice and to have our day in court, all for the sake of their crappy little hobby...

[ManiacJoe]

92. Thankfully, we now have

legislation that helps level the playing field so that the gun manufacturers are held to the same standards as all other product manufacturers.

[mosin]

74. S.397 is an excellent bill

I strongly support S.397. The frivolous anti-gun lawsuits filed all over the country, including by the city of Cincinnati, are absurd and are almost always dismissed in the end, but still cost the firearms industry and their insurance companies millions to defend.

Unless a manufacturer makes a defective product or a dealer is negligent in selling or securing firearms, then they should not be legally responsible for damages. S.397 will not protect dealers who violate laws against straw purchases or other federal, state, or local laws. It will not protect manufacturers who make defective firearms.

mosin <-- NRA Life Member for nearly 30 years

[OrlandoGator]

75. Today Bill Frist announced his support for stem cell funding.

So given the logic presented in this thread, does that mean that everyone who supports federal stem cell research funding is a despicable criminal-enabling scumbag...because they happen to side with Bill Frist on an issue?

Just curious to see if this "guilt by association" litmus test stands up when it comes to other issues.

[OrlandoGator]

93. Hmm, didn't think so.

n/t

[Subliminal]

76. Great news

I'm going for a beer.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[Wild Bill]

80. It passed 65-31 with one amendment.

It passed 65-31. It did include an amendment requiring child gun locks to be sold with handguns when sold from an FFL.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050729/ap_on_go_co/senate_guns

[davepc]

82. Heres how the vote broke down.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219#position

YEA - 65
Baucus (D-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)

NAY - 31
Chafee (R-RI)
DeWine (R-OH)


Not Voting - 4
Feinstein (D-CA)
(and 3 Republicans)

[mosin]

85. DeWine sucks

That's what I hate about DeWine. He's consistently wrong on everything, regardless of the issue. He's the worst thing of all: an anti-gun Republican.

I applaud Sen. Reid and the other Democrats who supported the bill. The NRA's official statement even includes a paragraph thanking the Democrats:

The NRA needed 60 votes to ensure passage of this bill. This would not have been possible without support from Senators from the both sides of the aisle. We thank Minority Leader Harry Reid for supporting this legislation and the members in his caucus who voted for this proposed law.

I also heard Wayne Lapierre on local talk radio in Cincinnati today thanking Sen. Reid for his assistance in getting the bill through the Senate.

[MrSandman]

86. Rockefeller and Byrd both got....this time...nt

[slackmaster]

83. IIRC "Mandatory trigger locks" was a plank in the 2000 DNC platform

Looks like there's a big win here for someone, though that language was removed from the platform for 2004.

Celebrations, anyone?

[aikoaiko]

87. anyone able to provide the text for the new law?

[MrSandman]

89. yeah...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.397:

[MrSandman]

88. The Rights of the individual are affirmed...

Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.397: