Senate Republicans on Tuesday moved the National Rifle Association’s top priority ahead of a $491 billion defense bill, setting up a vote on legislation to shield firearms manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits over gun crimes.
Completion of the defense bill, which the Senate had been debating for a week, will now be delayed until fall. Democrats were incensed.
“What’s happening on this gun liability bill is really despicable,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. “To put that ahead of the defense bill, I think, is the most distorted priorities I can possibly conceive of.”
On a 66-32 test vote, sponsors of the gun bill showed they have more than enough support to prevent opponents from defeating it with a filibuster.
Supporters said it was high time the measure received consideration in an environment of lawsuits that would devastate the gun industry. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., complained that gun control advocates are abusing the courts “to steer public policy through litigation.”
With strong support from the White House, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., used a technical maneuver to halt debate on the defense bill and move to the contentious gun legislation sponsored by Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho.
“The president believes that the manufacturer of a legal product should not be held liable for the criminal misuse of that product by others,” said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. “We look at it from a standpoint of stopping lawsuit abuse.”
The bill could eat up much of the Senate schedule before lawmakers leave at week’s end for a monthlong vacation. The House passed a similar bill last year but has taken no action on it this year.
Congress was on the verge of passing the bill a year ago when the NRA abruptly asked Craig, a member of the association’s board of directors, to withdraw it after gun opponents amended it to extend an expiring ban on assault weapons. A pickup of four GOP Senate seats in last November’s election emboldened gun rights supporters to try again, confident they can block Democratic attempts to attach an assault weapons ban.
The bill would prohibit lawsuits against the firearms industry for damages resulting form the unlawful use of a firearm or ammunition. Craig said such lawsuits are “predatory and aimed at bankrupting the firearms industry,” unfairly blaming dealers and manufacturers for the crimes of gun users.
Gun makers and dealers still would be subject to product liability or breach of contract suits under the bill, Craig said.
Gun opponents say the bill effectively exempts gun manufacturers from liability. They also say dealers sometimes allow the weapons to get into the hands of people the law says shouldn’t have them.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the gun industry gave 88 percent of its campaign contributions, or $1.2 million, to Republicans in the 2004 election cycle. Gun control advocates funneled 98 percent of their contributions, or $93,700, to Democrats.
Source
Source
The Democratic position on the Gun issue is absolutely absurd, if I choke you by sticking a blow pop down your thoat, is your family going to sue Charms?
Its always someone elses fault when it comes to Democratic criminal justice, the abusive parent, the acohol, the gun, the knife it doesn’t matter how inanimate the object, it wasn’t the preson who used its fault. If you took the leg off a manniquin and beat some one to death with it, its the stores fault for having manniquins. If you spill coffee on yourself its McDonalds fault for not telling you coffee is hot. Stupidity is a get out of jail free card in the Dems criminal justice ideal.
DI: Completion of the defense bill, which the Senate had been debating for a week, will now be delayed until fall. Democrats were incensed.
This sounds really disingenuous, seeing as how Democrats voted against a final vote on the Defense bill, and for cloture in a test vote on the Gun Bill. To me the heading and first paragraph are obviously biased, based on the content of the story you commented with.
Frist didn’t delay it, limit of the debate wasn’t voted on by 60 senators, Congress delayed it.
Micheal:
Both sides use the the “it’s someone elses fault” The entire argument against gay marriage is that it encourages homosexuality by making it socially acceptable. Not to mention the out cry over a boob during the superbowl, I am sure that millions of children became deviants because of that.
Maybe both parties need to spend less time worrying about the children and worry about the adults who are raising them.
Regarding the gun issue the worst thing that ever happened to the democratic party was the million mom marchers, as I have argued before now you republicans have them only they are called security moms. The security moms and their nuetered husbands are happy to be at war until Junior turns 18 and then watch out.
Blow pops are made for people to eat. Guns are made to kill or provoke one to think they might get killed. The comparison goes over well at NRA rallies, but it’s like comparing ‘apples and oatmeal cookies’.
Any industry operating in a free market has to adhere to the laws that govern that market. The popular thing to do is dumb down the issue by pretending guns are as ordinary a product as lollipops or potatos, and if that fails, insist that whoever is calling for responsibility on the part of manufactureres to be against the second ammendment.
For the sake of an extra buck, gun companies distribute their products to people who are known to violate the law in how they sell them. These pieces end up in the hands of drug dealers – ‘burners’ – they’re used in a murder, then tossed down a storm drain. The supply of these weapons to these people is the problem.
And any plaintiff suing a gun company has to prove the company was negligent.
So what the GOP is really advocating for right here is for gun manufacturer to be granted the priviledge to be negligent without ever having to suffer for it.
If guns, then why not drugs too? Why hold Merck accountable for Vioxx? How about letting all industry go unregulated, just let anyone make money anyway they can – and as far as the public is concerned…it’s survival of the lucky?
DI:Blow pops are made for people to eat. Guns are made to kill or provoke one to think they might get killed. The comparison goes over well at NRA rallies, but it’s like comparing ‘apples and oatmeal cookies’.
I thought you might notice the sarcasm in that analogy. Guess you think the mannaquin on was crazy too. It points to the absurdity of the idea…Guns aren’t made to kill, any more than blow pops are, the intentions of the person using them is what changes there use. I can pick up a gun and shoot cans of a tree stump, maybe go hunting for rabbits that doesn’t give the guns intentions. Those are my intentions. Just like you don’t say blow pops are intended to put in your ear, you don’t say guns are intended to kill people. Some peoples intentions might cause them to put a blow pop in the ear, but its not Charms fault, some people may intend to use guns to kill people but its not the Guns fault. This is where the position causes clarity issues.
DI: For the sake of an extra buck, gun companies distribute their products to people who are known to violate the law in how they sell them. These pieces end up in the hands of drug dealers – ‘burners’ – they’re used in a murder, then tossed down a storm drain. The supply of these weapons to these people is the problem.
Where is your proof that they “distribute their products to people who are known to violate the law in how they sell them”?
Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp
“Indeed, the Court emphasized, the plaintiffs hadn’t presented any evidence showing to what degree their risk of injury had been enhanced by the presence of negligently marketed and distributed guns, as opposed to the risk presented by all guns in society.”
Why is it the Gun manufactor’s responsibility to verify the way Licensed gun dealers sale their weapons? It should be the person directly responsible, not the person 10 steps ahead in the line. Government should punish those who were responsible for putting the gun in the wrong hand, not the person who made the gun.
DI: So what the GOP is really advocating for right here is for gun manufacturer to be granted the priviledge to be negligent without ever having to suffer for it.
Negligence has nothing to do with it, there are enough guns stolen each year, to account for all the murders that take place. The person responsible is the person who pulls the trigger, and at most the preson who directly supplied him with the gun, if they didn’t properly check the person out. So the argument of the left boils down to a wish for all guns to be removed from society or basically to be “against the second ammendment.”
DI:If guns, then why not drugs too? Why hold Merck accountable for Vioxx? How about letting all industry go unregulated, just let anyone make money anyway they can – and as far as the public is concerned…it’s survival of the lucky?
Well, I don’t think merck should be held accountable if someone forces a pill down your throat, but other than that, if you are diliberately taking a pill, the effects of which should be known, it is kinda like you using a gun, on yourself. You know what a gun is going to be doing if you shoot yourself with it, and you should know what Vioxx is going to do if you take it. Lets just put a warning label on guns, like we do with medicine…Surgeon Generals Warning: Shooting a gun at someone, or yourself will cause, bowel movements, uncontrollable blatter, yeast inffection, hemroids, and in most cases serious injury and/or death. Because people are morons right…
Are you serious? Why do all the troops in Iraq have guns then? So they can shoot at cans? There is absolutely no philosophical basis for your comparison there Michael. Intent of the person who uses it has nothing to do with why people sue gun manufacturers. They sue them because there’s a documented and proven example of negligence on the part of the gun manufacturer that led to the gun being sold illegally.
Because…I can use Vodka to water my flowers, but it’s still made to get you drunk.
Do you have a link to the opinion from that case? The snippet doesn’t have anything to do with the debate we’re having. The statement was that the plaintiffs hadn’t proven that the illegal gun could have killed them any easier than the legally bought one. An illegally purchased gun that shoots the same bullets as a legally bought one, can kill just the same. It doesn’t prove anything in terms of what the GOP is pushing for here.
Can a liquor manufacturer sell booze to a distributor who’s not lisensed? How about if the distributor was found to have been selling the booze to minors – is the manufacturere justified in doing business with that distributor again?
??? – Merck knowingly put the drug on the market with false testing statistics – so how is it the patient’s fault? It’s just like what I said, survival of the fittest. That’s the stuff of Middle Eastern societies, not American society.
“What’s happening on this gun liability bill is really despicable,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. “To put that ahead of the defense bill, I think, is the most distorted priorities I can possibly conceive of.”
Quoting the nutjobs, that’s priceless. She hates war so much she complaining about not being able to finance it. Wait, that doesn’t make sense, oh yeah, she’s a liberal, nuff said.
Are you serious? Why do all the troops in Iraq have guns then?
So then gun manuafacturers are laible for the people shot by troops in Iraq? Only people can shoot other people, guns don’t wake up one day and and think, hey, I’mm gonna shoot that guy.
By this logic Car makers are laible for drunk driving and hit and run. Defribulators electorcute people, should medical comapnies be held responsible for Doctors actions in saving lives? Hell, there is some nimrod named the Chopper who runs the Dodge dealreship, should Dodge be held liable for the sales practices of this loser?
Tools can’t form intent, only people.
Are car manufacturers supporting crime?
Look – the comparison is ridiculous. Of course personal responsibility remains in tact, but just like every other industry that makes money off of the American public, gun manufacturers can be held accountable if negligent.
How many more school shootings do we need exactally before this is taken seriously? Guns ending up in the wrong hands…it’s a problem. And if the manufacturer can be found to have been negligent, they need to pay.
Ask cops what they think about this ammendment. Or are they only valuable when there’s a chance for a photo op?
The gun manufacturers have NEVER lost a negligence case, NO accuser has been able to show that a marketing technique or ploy by a manufacturer, as a cause of a crime, out weighs the simple existence of guns in society. The argument is settled in the court of law, and it is rediculus to allow the same law suit to come before judges over and over, Congress will make it settled law.
DI:Can a liquor manufacturer sell booze to a distributor who’s not lisensed? How about if the distributor was found to have been selling the booze to minors – is the manufacturere justified in doing business with that distributor again?
If a distributor is found to sale booze to minors, then they should loose their license. Is that not how that works? A gun dealer who is found to not uphold the background checks, waiting period, and so on…should loose his liscense…thats where the break down occurs, thats where the problem should be fixed. As long as a manufacturer is selling to liscensed dealers, they should incur no punishment for the dealers actions…the dealer should be punished, and have his liscense removed…thus preventing manufacturers from selling to him.
Michael – I’d expect you to back this claim up with a link to prove it. If this is true, it’s definitely sourced somewhere.
Each lawsuit is different. Different people, different manufacturer, different distributor.
Very true – the lawsuits question the manufacturer’s distribution practices, command and control procedures, etc – the third party they use to distribute – as they argue it – should take all the blame. But we’re not talking about an ordinary product here – – – and product liability, according to some 30 law schools across the nation that were questioned on this bill, agreed that the proposed legislation was completely contrary to established law today.
So why the gun industry? That’s the question. Lobbyists and $$, is the answer. And if this is passed, the already ridiculously flawed system in place to sell these weapons will get even worse.
That will be the outcome Michael – more guns will end up in the streets of Baltimore, not less.
You can do your own damned research…these are a few cases, i’ve inspected some, and am fairly sure they all come to the same conclusion.
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/cases_short.html
Armijo v. Ex Cam, Inc., 656 F.Supp 771 (D.N.M. 1987)
Armijo v. Ex Cam, Inc. 843 F.2d 406 (10th Cir. 1988)
Bennet v. Cincinnati Checker Cab Co., Inc. 353 F.Supp. 1206 (E.D. Ky. 1973)
Bolduc v. Colt’s Mfg. Co., Inc., 968 F.Supp. 16 (D.Mass. 1997)
Braun v. Soldier of Fortune, Inc., 968 F.2d 1110 (11th Cir 1992)
Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 976 F.Supp. 729 (W.D.Tenn 1997)
B-West Imports, Inc., v. U.S., 75 F.3d 633 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
Casanova Guns, Inc., v. Connally, 454 F.2d 1320 (7th Cir. 1972)
Century Arms, Inc., v. Kennedy, 323 F. Supp. 1002 (D. Vt. 1971)
Decker v. Gibson Products Company of Albany, Inc., 505 F.Supp. 34 (M.D.Ga. 1980)
DeRosa v. Remington Arms Co., Inc., 509 F.Supp. 762 (E.D.N.Y. 1981)
Doty v. Magnum Research, Inc., 994 F.Supp. 894 (N.D.Ohio 1997)
Eimann v. Soldier of Fortune, Inc., 880 F.2d 830 (5th Cir. 1989)
Fin & Feather Sport Shop, Inc., v. U.S., 481 F.Supp. 800 (D.Neb. 1979)
First Commercial Trust Co. v. Colt’s Manufacturing Co., Inc., 77 F.3d 1081 (8th Cir. 1996)
Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc., v. Van de Camp, 965 F.2d 723 (9th Cir. 1992)
Gilbert Equipment Co., Inc., v. Higgins, 709 F. Supp. 1071 (D. Ala. 1989)
Gun South, Inc., v. Brady, 877 F.2d 858 (11th Cir. 1989)
HC Gun & Knife Shows, Inc. v. City of Houston, – F.3d – (5th Cir. 2000)
Interport, Inc. v. Magaw, 923 F.Supp. 242 (D.D.C. 1996)
The International Islamic Community of Masjid Baytulkhaliq, Inc., v. U.S., 981 F.Supp. 352 (D.V.I. 1997)
Jersey Arms Works, Inc. v. Secertary of Treasury, No. 83 1130 (D.N.J. July 25, 1983)
Matter of Search Warrant for K-Sports, Inc., 163 F.R.D. 594 (C.D.Cal. 1995)
Knight v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 889 F.Supp. 1532 (S.D. Ga. 1995)
Martin v. Harrington and Richardson, Inc., 743 F.2d 1200 (7th Cir. 1984)
McCarthy v. Sturm, Ruger and Co., Inc., 916 F.Supp. 366 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)
Mitchell Arms Inc., v. U.S., 7 F.3d 212 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
Modern Muzzleloading, Inc. v. Magaw, 1997 WL 785623 (D.D.C. 1997)
Modern Muzzleloading, Inc. v. Magaw, 18 F.Supp.2d 29 (D.D.C. 1998)
In re Monument Gun Shop, Inc., Case No. 99-1497 (D.Colo. August 11, 2000)
Navegar, Inc., v. U.S., 914 F.Supp. 632 (D.D.C. 1996)
Navegar, Inc. v. U.S., 103 F.3d 994 (D.C.Cir. 1997)
Navegar, Inc., v. U.S. – F.Supp.2d – (D.D.C. 1998)
Norwood v. Soldier of Fortune Magazine, Inc., 651 F.Supp 1397 (W.D.Ark 1987)
Raines v. Colt Industries, Inc., 757 F.Supp. 819 (E.D.Mich 1991)
Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc. – F.3d – (4th Cir. 1997)
Richmond Boro Gun Club, Inc., v. City of New York, 896 F.Supp. 276 (E.D.N.Y. 1995)
Rodriguez v. Glock, Inc., 28 F.Supp.2d 1064 (N.D.Ill. 1998)
R.P.B. Industries, Inc., v. Secretary of Treasury, Case No. C 82-1149 A (N.D.Ga. July 21, 1982)
RSM, Inc. dba Valley Gun of Baltimore, et al., v. Bradley A. Buckles – F.Supp.2d – (D.Md. 2000)
RSM, Inc. dba Valley Gun of Baltimore, et al., v. Bradley A. Buckles, Appeal
In re St. Augustine Gun Works, Inc., 75 B.R. 495 (M.D.Fla 1987)
Service Arms Company, Inc., v. U.S., 76 F.R.D. 109 (W.D.Okla. 1977)
Service Arms Company, Inc., v. U.S., 463 F.Supp. 21 (W.D.Okla. 1978)
Shipman v. Jennings Firearms, Inc., 791 F.2d 1532 (11th Cir. 1986)
Springfield Armory, Inc. v. City of Columbus, 29 F.3d 250 (6th Cir. 1994)
Stein’s, Inc., v. Blumenthal, 649 F.2d 463 (7th Cir. 1980)
S.W. Daniel, Inc., v. U.S., 831 F.2d 253 (11th Cir. 1987)
T.T. Salvage Auction Co., Inc., v. Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, 859 F.Supp. 977 (E.D.N.C. 1994)
Motion from 5/31/90 in U.S. v. Billistics, Inc., No. N.90.25(EBB)
U.S. v. Billistics, Inc., No. N.90.25(EBB) (D.Conn. June 5, 1990)
Motion from 6/18/90 in U.S. v. Billistics, Inc., No. N.90.25(EBB)
U.S. v. Billistics, Inc., No. N.90.25(EBB) (D.Conn. June 19, 1990)
Motion from 12/19/91 in U.S. v. Billistics, Inc., No. N.90.25(EBB)
U.S. v. Billistics, Inc., No. N.90.25(EBB) (D.Conn. December 23, 1991)
Wasylow v. Glock, Inc., 975 F.Supp. 370 (D.Mass. 1996)
Wellborn v. Cobray Firearms Inc., 1998 WL 80236 (10th Cir. 1998)
Wellborn v. Cobray Firearms Inc., No. 98-8106 (10th Cir. 11/04/1999)
Whitfield v. Heckler & Koch, Inc., – Cal.App.4th – (2nd Dist. 2000)
Michael – assuming you hadn’t read every single case concerning liability of the gun companies – you must have come about the conclusion that not a single lawsuit had ever been successful. If it was something you’d read, a reference could be found. If it’s something you heard on the radio, something from right-wing radio…
Chances are it’s not true at all.
I’m questioning the validity of your statement.
I posted a list of all the cases I know of, everyone I’ve read sided with the manufacturers. There’s a link, if there is one that has been the oposite of my statement it should be easy to find. So go right for it…
The statement is accurate, I dare you to prove it invalid. But I know how little you care about the empirical nature of the issue.
What it comes down to is there is no reasonable argument that proves manufacturers are liable for the use of their products when their products work as designed.
Guns are designed to fire a projectile at a high velocity. Ammunition is designed to incapacitate or kill when fire from a gun. The 2nd Ammendment gives most Americans the right to possess a firearm for what ever reason.
The law forbids the use of firearms to commit crimes and only the perpetrator can form criminal intent. Negligence by parents or guardians is another issue but not an issue for gun manufacturers.
There is no legal or moral obligation for gun manufacturers to act as law enforcement agents to protect the public. We also need to shield technology companies from predatory practices such as those engaged in by media content and entertainment companies, but that is a story for another time.