Republicans Rollback More Legal Power

[Adam D]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The GOP-controlled House on Wednesday passed legislation to protect the firearm industry from lawsuits that allege links between gun marketing and street violence.

House Republicans said the industry is being attacked through frivolous suits blaming gun manufacturers and dealers for violence by criminals. The suits could end the American gun industry by making companies spend millions in court, said the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin.

"Those who are filing lawsuits against the firearm industry are doing so because they want to bankrupt the industry," he said.

The legislation, which passed the House by a 285-140 vote, "would help prevent abuse of the legal system and help curb the growing problem of frivolous lawsuits in the United States," the White House said in a statement. "At the same time, the legislation would carefully preserve the right of individuals to have their day in court with civil liability actions."

Democratic objections
Democrats, however, said the GOP legislation banning suits against gun makers and dealers probably was unconstitutional and was politically motivated.

"This body is considering this bill today because the National Rifle Association is holding their annual convention at the end of April and the majority leadership in this chamber is compelled to prove to the pro-gun special interests that they will do whatever it takes," said Rep. James McGovern, D-Massachusetts.

Republicans denied they were trying to impress the NRA and accused Democrats of being against guns.

The NRA annual meeting will be in Orlando, Fla., April 24-27. The association vehemently opposes additional gun controls or regulation of the firearms industry and contributes heavily to political candidates who share that view.

The bill has not yet been considered by the GOP-controlled Senate.

The legislation would prohibit lawsuits from being brought against gun and ammunition manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers for damages resulting from "misuse" of their product.

The bill would bar local governments from bringing cases against gun makers. Thirty-one states have passed legislation banning their cities and counties from filing similar lawsuits, supporters said.

Since 1998, at least 33 municipalities, counties and states have sued gun makers, with many alleging manufacturers allowed weapons to fall into criminals' hands because of lax distribution policies and irresponsible marketing. Many of the suits sought restitution for the costs of handgun violence and improved gun safety.

Republicans, gun manufacturers and gun advocates have argued that gun companies cannot be held responsible for the crimes of gun users.

Such suits by private individuals or groups also would be blocked by the bill, including one that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is now arguing in federal court in New York. The group contends that irresponsible marketing of handguns has "led to disproportionate numbers of injuries, deaths and other damages" among minorities.

Democrats say the gun industry does not deserve special legal protection while the medical industry and other high-profile industries still have to fight off legal attacks.

[Element4040]

I agree, guns don't kill people. It's like suing the Auto manufacturers if someone runs over you in their car. Or someone stabs you and you sue Swiss Army knife corp. etc.....

[Adam D]

While I might agree that in the status quo, at least to my knowledge, gun and ammo manufacturers might not be liable for any of the gun violence, but gun dealers who sell guns without following the law when selling guns are not only breaking the law, but are negligent in their actions, and ought to be held accountable for such. This precedent already exists in law, for example in states that require bartenders/waiters/waitresses to use judgement when serving people in regards to their alcohol consumption to reduce drunk driving. If they serve somebody too much, and that person leaves, drives, and injures somebody, then the server is held liable for the drunk driver's action. This is fundamentally grounded in the most elementary civil litigation theory.

Furthermore, to prevent gun and ammo manufacturers, as well as gun dealers from EVER being liable for their actions creates a special class which cannot ever be held accountable for their actions, no matter how negligent they may be. It's strangling the legal system, and preventing citizens from being able to exercise their rights and to seek justice. If the legislature will not protect our rights and interests, then the judicial system is the only place citizens have to go to redress their grieveances.

[Element4040]

Gun dealers and importers who do not follow the laws and are selling guns to criminals etc. should be prosecuted to the fullest by the law. It's a shame that they lump all the groups together in this legislation, cause there are huge differences between the different parties. I don't think Weapons and Ammo manufacturers should be held liable at all for someone using a gun illegally. While I do agree that exempting them from all liability is fundamentally wrong, this is the general publics problem for abusing our legal system. So I do have mixed feelings on excluding them from liability.

[Big Andy]

The whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people" mantra is a nice idealistic way of validating the view point that we shouldn't have gun control. But I think this is a somewhat flawed logic. Under this logic, you have to wait until somebody is killed, then find the person that did it, and then prosecute them for the crime. Where is the effort to PREVENT the violence in the first place. We aren't supposed to throw people in prison and call it good, we should be trying to prevent the crime from happening in the first place. And as the drug war has clearly shown, stiff sentences don't scare people away from committing a crime.

I'm not saying everybody and their mother deserves a million dollars from the gun company cuz little ghetto johnny took a cap to the head after stealing some crack, but there are plenty of crazy fuckers out there that don't have any business owning a gun, and we need strict controls to limit the number of crazy fuckers that own guns! This should be approached from all standpoints, from restrictions on the dealers, to pressuring the gun companies themselves into taking action. This kind of legislation doesn't promote that line of thinking, so I am opposing this bill.

get rid of guns completely.
Conservatives...
we support the death penalty, we support gun manufacturers, we support war.
Death is on the top of our agenda

[Guido]

In every country where Civilian Gun ownership was outlawed Crime HAS risen.

Australia. England. New Zealand.

Why is that? After the Concealed Handgun licenses were issued in Texas, there was a DROP (granted a slight one) in crime.

Originally posted by Guido
In every country where Civilian Gun ownership was outlawed Crime HAS risen.

Australia. England. New Zealand.

Why is that? After the Concealed Handgun licenses were issued in Texas, there was a DROP (granted a slight one) in crime.

Source?

PS: A slight decrease is not a "drop," in my mind.

[per1sh]

outlaw guns and the only persons possessing guns will be criminals.

and in any case:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

banning gun ownership would require 2/3 of congress to agree.

Regulate \Reg"u*late\ (-l[=a]t), v. t. [imp. & p. p. Regulated
(-l[=a]`t[e^]d); p. pr. & vb. n. Regulating.] [L.
regulatus, p. p. of regulare, fr. regula. See Regular.]
1. To adjust by rule, method, or established mode; to direct
by rule or restriction; to subject to governing principles
or laws.

*cough*

Militia \Mi*li"tia\, n. [L., military service, soldiery, fr.
miles, militis, soldier: cf. F. milice.]
1. In the widest sense, the whole military force of a nation,
including both those engaged in military service as a
business, and those competent and available for such
service; specifically, the body of citizens enrolled for
military instruction and discipline, but not subject to be
called into actual service except in emergencies.

*cough*cough*

Besides, outlaw guns and you've just significantly reduced the possibility that an average person will turn into a criminal (ie will shoot somebody). ;P

[Guido]

Originally posted by hyoomen
Source?

PS: A slight decrease is not a "drop," in my mind.

Freedom First Magazine. November 2002 I believe. As for the 'drop' rate, it was a significant number. 23% drop in violent crimes according to the article. Other crime rates were not specified in the article. That's why I qualified my statement with "a slight drop." I merely lacked the information or sources ot refer to.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by Guido
In every country where Civilian Gun ownership was outlawed Crime HAS risen.

Australia. England. New Zealand.

Why is that? After the Concealed Handgun licenses were issued in Texas, there was a DROP (granted a slight one) in crime.

I would like to see a source on this too.