Gun Legislation to go before Senate today

[Kennedy 0]

S. 659, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms bill, is set to go to the senate floor today.

This bill outlaws liability lawsuits against gun manufactures for criminal misuse of their nondefective products. [means you won't be able to sue the gun maker for getting shot by a criminal]

Anti-gun senators are expected to add amendments:

Extension and expansion of the 1994 assault weapons ban [which is going to "sunset" in 200 days]

Gun show "loophole" bill, which would effectively kill all gunshows across the country

Magazine capacity restrictions

Saturday Night Special bans [the last one I remember would have banned 75% of all handguns, regardless of cost or manufacturing quality]

and more.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mnischalke 0]

I emailed both of my Senators yesterday.

One's gonna do the right thing, for sure. The other is cuddling up to McCain and the rest of the gun banners on the so-called gunshow "loophole."

We shall see.

If you haven't written to your Senator, now'd be a really good time to do so.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[Kennedy 0]

Oh, you mean the gun show loophole that provides less than 2% of firearms used in crimes?

You mean the bill that wants to turn your living room into a federally regulated space when you show your friend a firearm he might be interested in?

You McCain, the Republican, who hasn't voted republican or conservative in how long?

Yes people, the gun show loophole closer is really and attempt to close gunshows, not some loophole.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mnischalke 0]

A friend of mine spent some time in Hanoi with McCain. I guess they got as close as two POWs could get within the space of a few years. He thinks the dude has lost his friggin mind.

Hell, two years ago, McCain went back to Hanoi for a "family vacation" and made buddies with his former captors.

The dude is a whackjob.

On the gunshow issue, the gunshows I went to 10 years ago (before all this talk about a "loophole") are run very differently than they are today. From my experience, every federal firearms license holder runs checks on buyers, just like in a store. The remaining sales I have seen take place are just simple person-to-person sales, which could easily happen in a living room as in a fire hall. The issue (if there ever was one) has been fixed by the people at the shows, but nobody wants to admit it. It's all about new laws, and "hey, look what I did to make you 'safer.'"

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[Kennedy 0]

An FYI

S 659 has been renumbered.

It is now known as Senate Bill 1805.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

On the gunshow issue... From my experience, every federal firearms license holder runs checks on buyers, just like in a store. The remaining sales I have seen take place are just simple person-to-person sales, which could easily happen in a living room as in a fire hall.

Correct! Licensed gun dealers at gun shows are required to perform background checks just like they do in their own gun stores.

But you won't hear this from the news media. They portray gun shows as places where anyone can buy anything, without any background checks.

The other part of gun shows is private individuals selling guns, from collections, or just to trade for something else they want.

So what the so-called "gun show loophole" talk is really all about is banning private gun sales. They don't want you to be able to sell a gun to your buddy, or swap with a hunting partner for something different.

[tinfoil 0]

Quote

This bill outlaws liability lawsuits against gun manufactures for criminal misuse of their nondefective products. [means you won't be able to sue the gun maker for getting shot by a criminal]

Couldn't this also prevent lawsuits against manufactures that make say a cheap weapons with large capacity that end up being used to take out a small portion of a former employer?

I know that sounds very harsh, but I couldn't find another way to put it. Please don't flame me for it.

“- - Sumo is the greatest of sports. It has power, grace, speed and cluture. And most importantly, two fat bastards smacking the shit out of each other. ”

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

S. 659, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms bill, is set to go to the senate floor today.

Comment from "The Hill", supporting passage:
Clicky

The White House urges passage:
Clicky

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Couldn't this also prevent lawsuits against manufactures that make say a cheap weapons with large capacity that end up being used to take out a small portion of a former employer?

I know that sounds very harsh, but I couldn't find another way to put it. Please don't flame me for it.

Basically, that is the whole point! How exactly is it the manufacturer's fault if their product is misused? A criminal action breaks the chain of liability [except for negligent entrustment, which is not covered by the bill]. The manufacturer is not responsible for the acts of a criminal. 38 States have this legislation and the House of Reps passed it by a huge margin.

How would you define "cheap weapon?" It might be how I define affordable.

What do you mean by high capacity? Magazines are limited by other laws. What is "high capacity?" In most cases, I would call that full capacity.

No flames, just want to start a dialogue. [wow, I never thought I'd say that]

ps - there's a misspelling in your sigline

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Couldn't this also prevent lawsuits against manufactures that make say a cheap weapons with large capacity that end up being used to take out a small portion of a former employer?

It makes the gun makers immune from lawsuits attempting to hold them responsible for the actions of criminals who misuse their product.

They are still liable if they sell a gun in violation of the law, or a gun that operates in an unsafe manner.

If someone shoots up their former employer's office, it is the criminal who is responsible for the crime, not the company that made the gun.

It is irrelevant how much the gun cost. A crime committed with a cheap gun is no more heinous than a crime committed with an expensive gun.

It is also irrelevant how many bullets the gun holds. There is already a law in effect limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds.

[mnischalke 0]

Ugh.

We are talking about companies which manufacture legal products. Price is irrelevant. If it worked in the commission of a crime, it was a functional firearm and operated as designed and manufactured by the manufacturer. Did the manufacturer partake in the crime? Hell no.

Quote

The Hill, a newspaper for and about Congress, in today's editorial endorses passage of the bill with some very persuasive logic. "Reasonable people do not believe that Ford or General Motors should be sued when a drunken driver speeds into and kills a pedestrian. They understand that the manufacturer should not be faulted merely because its product is used improperly and illegally. It is obviously the driver who needs to be punished." The Hill continues, "Yet a minority of people and politicians believe that the manufacturer should pay when a gun is used improperly or illegally. A bipartisan majority of legislators understands that the same principle should apply to guns as applies to autos, matchbooks, penknives and baseball bats. Each is a legal tool designed to perform legal functions." The editorial recommends wholehearted support, and predicts the bill will pass.

This is what the White House had to say about it today:

Quote

"The Administration strongly supports Senate passage of S. 1805. The Administration urges the Senate to pass a clean bill, in order to ensure enactment of the legislation this year. Any amendment that would delay enactment of the bill beyond this year is unacceptable. The manufacturer or seller of a legal, non-defective product should not be held liable for the criminal or unlawful misuse of that product by others. The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our Nation's laws, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty, sets a poor precedent for other lawful industries, will cause a loss of jobs, and burdens interstate and foreign commerce. S. 1805 would help curb frivolous litigation against a lawful American industry and the thousands of workers it employs and would help prevent abuse of the legal system. At the same time, the legislation would carefully preserve the right of individuals to have their day in court with civil liability actions. These civil actions are enumerated in the bill and respect the traditional role of the States in our Federal system with regard to such actions."

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[mnischalke 0]

you two bastards are too fast!

Sorry for my redundant items. I guess I am just a little slow...

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[mnischalke 0]

Anybody else see the alzheimer's association ad on the right of the Hill article? A lady exiting an otter?

check out where the link takes you.

kinda interesting...

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

ps - there's a misspelling in your sigline

Bwwwaaahahahahahahaaaaaahaaa...

Good catch! What is a cluture, anyway?

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[Kennedy 0]

Hey, I'm all for it. I love those "when I was your age" stories.

Yeah, spelling just jumps out at me. Unless I'm the one typing of course. Must be left over from being a TA in school.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Saturday Night Special bans [the last one I remember would have banned 75% of all handguns, regardless of cost or manufacturing quality]

Do you think there should be some standards the manufacturers would have to adhere to?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

HMMM GUN THREAD... looking around.... yup all the USUAL SUSPECTS

[Kennedy 0]

There are standards. Look into SAAMI. Also, if the things didn't function or were dangerous, oh, they'd be liable. Do you really believe Saturday Night Specials are so dangerous to their owners that they should be outlawed? I'm touched that you care so much for gun owners' safety.

The banning of Saturday Night Special is presented on one of two fronts. Both are garbage.
- First is that they are dangerous and "junk" guns. That is crap for many reasons, but mainly if it's dangerous to the user, the manufacturer would be sued - I haven't seen a plague of those cases to prompt a law to protect users.
- The second approach is to say they are the choice of criminals. So what? They are also the choice of thousands of law abiding buyers. Criminals arm themselves with what works for them. If they have to pay a little more, no big deal, they work in a cash business. But what about the shop owner who fears for his safety? Why should he have to buy a cadillac when a toyota will do?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Oooh, oooh, can I be mister pink? Oops, wrong cult classic.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

There are standards. Look into SAAMI. Also, if the things didn't function or were dangerous, oh, they'd be liable. Do you really believe Saturday Night Specials are so dangerous to their owners that they should be outlawed? I'm touched that you care so much for gun owners' safety.

The banning of Saturday Night Special is presented on one of two fronts. Both are garbage.
- First is that they are dangerous and "junk" guns. That is crap for many reasons, but mainly if it's dangerous to the user, the manufacturer would be sued - I haven't seen a plague of those cases to prompt a law to protect users.
- The second approach is to say they are the choice of criminals. So what? They are also the choice of thousands of law abiding buyers. Criminals arm themselves with what works for them. If they have to pay a little more, no big deal, they work in a cash business. But what about the shop owner who fears for his safety? Why should he have to buy a cadillac when a toyota will do?

It was an honest question - I'm not trying to make a point. Just wondering what kind of standards you support. In case you haven't yet realized, I am a supporter of minimal government interference in my (and everyone else's) life - including gun ownership. If I ever get the urge to buy one, I'd like to be able to do that without BATFE involvement.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

It was an honest question - I'm not trying to make a point

It was an honest reply. "Saturday Night Special" legislation is handgun banning in thin disuise.

They tried government oversight of quality, and the congress took measures to exempt the industry because they saw that some bureaucrats can't be trusted [firearms is an emotional issue to many, have you noticed?]

Ever since this exemption and rebordering, anti-gun people have given you the "less regulated than a teddy bear" garbage. Firearms manufacturers work under SAAMI and their own decisions on design. They also have every design, every product made, and every shipment sent reviewed and approved by federal bureaucrats. They are quite heavily regulated.

Quote

Just wondering what kind of standards you support.

I support manufacturers using whatever standards they see fit, and buyer responsibility. There are scores of magazines out there reviewing basically every gun made, and reputations exist for a reason.

Quote

In case you haven't yet realized, I am a supporter of minimal government interference in my (and everyone else's) life - including gun ownership.

I know you're not anti-gun, persay, but you do tend to argue one side more heavily than the other. [you'll also notice I haven't called you liberal or anti-gun]

Quote

If I ever get the urge to buy one, I'd like to be able to do that without BATFE involvement

Well you haven't got a prayer of that. They are involved in every single aspect of firearms after their design. [and they have rules on their designs]

[edit]
If you buy it from a federally licensed dealer [all dealers, not private owners] your name goes through NICS [the National Instant Check System]. And just an FYI, these checks happen at gunshows, so I really don't understand what other people mean by the gunshow loophole.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mnischalke 0]

Ya know, after the $53 million judgement against Precision Aerodynamics just a few months ago, I am surprised as hell more folks in the skydiving community are not following this bill. Yes, it would prevent junk lawsuits against gun manufacturers, as have been filed (and subsequently dismissed in 98% of all cases) by the truckload around the country, but it reaches much farther than the gun industry. Lots of other industries which make lawful, yet easily misused products, are following it and rooting for its passage as it sets precedent.

I guess nothing affects us as we are in our own little world. Oh wait, there is that $53 million that will put an end to one skydiving manufacturer should the as-yet-unfiled appeal fail.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

This bill outlaws liability lawsuits against gun manufactures for criminal misuse of their nondefective products. [means you won't be able to sue the gun maker for getting shot by a criminal]

Couldn't this also prevent lawsuits against manufactures that make say a cheap weapons with large capacity that end up being used to take out a small portion of a former employer?

I know that sounds very harsh, but I couldn't find another way to put it. Please don't flame me for it.

Why would that be the fault of the manufacturer? That's the MURDERER'S fault, or do you believe otherwise?

If you can agree with suing the legal maker of a legal product, who sells it legally to someone who may legally possess it, for something that buyer later does which is against the law...
...why not support suing automobile makers for the killings of innocent people when their cars are abused by drunk drivers? The legal theory is THE SAME.

Oh, but you say that the gun was "cheap" and had a "large capacity"? You mean only those guns that are expensive should be available for murder? Do you mean that the large capacity made it inordinately dangerous -- so much more dangerous when a gun has, say, a 13-round magazine as opposed to a 10-round one? What if we turned that toward the car industry, and said that the 5,500 pound SUV that the drunk drove into the Hyundai with the family of four in it was inordinately heavy and powerful?

I hope you can begin, with our help here, to see the fallacy of the position you argued.

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Ya know, after the $53 million judgement against Precision Aerodynamics just a few months ago, I am surprised as hell more folks in the skydiving community are not following this bill. Yes, it would prevent junk lawsuits against gun manufacturers, as have been filed (and subsequently dismissed in 98% of all cases) by the truckload around the country, but it reaches much farther than the gun industry. Lots of other industries which make lawful, yet easily misused products, are following it and rooting for its passage as it sets precedent.

That's precisely why the bill has had such widespread support. I don't remember the name of the group, but some manufacturers' organization threw themselves behind it. It is sure that manufacturers of things other than guns recognized that if the absurd legal theory of manufacturer accountability for illegal misuse of a product were allowed to gain ground, car makers, toaster makers, liquor makers, axe makers, weedwhacker makers... all would be subject to frivolous lawsuits like those aimed at the gun industry.

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Quote

Ya know, after the $53 million judgement against Precision Aerodynamics just a few months ago, I am surprised as hell more folks in the skydiving community are not following this bill. Yes, it would prevent junk lawsuits against gun manufacturers, as have been filed (and subsequently dismissed in 98% of all cases) by the truckload around the country, but it reaches much farther than the gun industry. Lots of other industries which make lawful, yet easily misused products, are following it and rooting for its passage as it sets precedent.

That's precisely why the bill has had such widespread support. I don't remember the name of the group, but some manufacturers' organization threw themselves behind it. It is sure that manufacturers of things other than guns recognized that if the absurd legal theory of manufacturer accountability for illegal misuse of a product were allowed to gain ground, car makers, toaster makers, liquor makers, axe makers, weedwhacker makers... all would be subject to frivolous lawsuits like those aimed at the gun industry.

They are all subject to lawsuits, frivolous and otherwise - this is the US of A.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.