Senate Passes Bill Protecting Gun Manufacturers

[KEmperor]

Title: A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.

Having read over this bill, I wholeheartedly support it.  It's a great law.  It basically says that you can't sue the gun companies if you get shot due to the gun owner being stupid.  I just hate that I have such crappy Senators.  It passed 65-31.

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

[© tweed]

It sounds the type of lawsuit they're illegalizing is similar to the case that the movie 'Runaway Jury' revolved around.

[Emsworth]

Excellent bill. Of course, these types of lawsuits should not be heard in federal courts in the first place.

[Ebowed]

I agree with Emsworth.

[Smash255]

Their is more to it however, the stuff I have problems with.  It also limits lawsuits against cases of negligence against gun dealers.  For example some guy comes into the dealer with a friend/ girlfriend etc, points out some guns tha he wants, has his friend pay for it, only the friend is checked, even though the person who picks out the gun could have a criminal record.  Their are a few cases currently going around on this issue.  One of which is against a PA dealer who has had over 100 guns bought in his establishment traced back to crime (which is more than all the other dealers in PA combined).  Some of the provisons in this bill stop lawsuits being brought against dealers who are negelent & just don't do their jobs correctly, that is a problem.

[Emsworth]

It also limits lawsuits against cases of negligence against gun dealers.  For example some guy comes into the dealer with a friend/ girlfriend etc, points out some guns tha he wants, has his friend pay for it, only the friend is checked, even though the person who picks out the gun could have a criminal record.

Once again, why should this be an issue for a federal court, instead of a state court?

[Smash255]

Dems who voted for it
Baucus MT
Byrd WV
Conrad ND
Dorgan ND
Johnson SD
Kohl WI
Landrieu LA
Lincolin AR
Nelson NE
Nelson FL
Pryor  AR
Reed NV
Salazar CO

Independent Jeffords VT voted for it

Reps voting against it
Chafee- RI
Dewine-OH

Not voting  
Feinstein D-CA
Roberts R-KS
Smith R-OR
Sununu R-NH

All other Dems voted against it, all other Republicans voted for it

[Smash255]

It also limits lawsuits against cases of negligence against gun dealers.  For example some guy comes into the dealer with a friend/ girlfriend etc, points out some guns tha he wants, has his friend pay for it, only the friend is checked, even though the person who picks out the gun could have a criminal record.

Once again, why should this be an issue for a federal court, instead of a state court?

Because of guns bought due to negligence on the part of a dealer in one state & used in a crime, murder in another state.  One of the cases regarding a cop being killed due to this (don't remember the state) fits this description.

[Emsworth]

Because of guns bought due to negligence on the part of a dealer in one state & used in a crime, murder in another state. 

That is not interstate commerce, and therefore is not within the purview of Congress.

[Ebowed]

So much for Chafee being a libertarian.  He's authoritarian on guns.  Of course, that goes without saying seeing as he's a social liberal RINO and all.  The guy seriously needs to go.

[John Dibble]

It also limits lawsuits against cases of negligence against gun dealers.  For example some guy comes into the dealer with a friend/ girlfriend etc, points out some guns tha he wants, has his friend pay for it, only the friend is checked, even though the person who picks out the gun could have a criminal record.

Even if you forced a check on both, it would be pretty pointless and easily worked around - the guy who wants the gun just tells the other person the exact gun they want and that person goes inside on their own to buy the gun, gets it, and the dealer is completely unaware of who really gets the gun. The buyer is responsible in this case, not the dealer - they hand the gun to the person with the criminal record of their own free will, and by doing so it should be fair that they should get a record for doing that.

[Sam Spade]

Excellent bill. Of course, these types of lawsuits should not be heard in federal courts in the first place.

^^^^^^^^

What this guy said. 

[AkSaber]

Excellent bill. Of course, these types of lawsuits should not be heard in federal courts in the first place.

^^^^^^^^

What this guy said. 

What these two guys said.

It was about time the Senate passed this!!

I wonder what the NRA will focus on next.

[Smash255]

It also limits lawsuits against cases of negligence against gun dealers.  For example some guy comes into the dealer with a friend/ girlfriend etc, points out some guns tha he wants, has his friend pay for it, only the friend is checked, even though the person who picks out the gun could have a criminal record.

Even if you forced a check on both, it would be pretty pointless and easily worked around - the guy who wants the gun just tells the other person the exact gun they want and that person goes inside on their own to buy the gun, gets it, and the dealer is completely unaware of who really gets the gun. The buyer is responsible in this case, not the dealer - they hand the gun to the person with the criminal record of their own free will, and by doing so it should be fair that they should get a record for doing that.

The problem is a bit deeper than that.  When you have some gun dealers who happen to have a much much higher rate of guns being used in crimes than other gun dealers in the same general vicinity their is some definant problem that needs to be adressed & something that the particular dealer is not doing correctly.  I generlally yhink their are some frivilous cases against gun dealers that shouldn't go through, however their are others that are very legitimate & are due to sheer negligence in some cases of the dealer, this is what I fear with a bill like this.  Instead of doing more to stop the frivilous casees, it also stops the actual legit cases as well.

[opebo]

So much for Chafee being a libertarian.  He's authoritarian on guns.  Of course, that goes without saying seeing as he's a social liberal RINO and all.  The guy seriously needs to go.

How is it authoritarian to object to an interference with individual's rights to sue by an overbearing State?

[bullmoose88]

So much for Chafee being a libertarian.  He's authoritarian on guns.  Of course, that goes without saying seeing as he's a social liberal RINO and all.  The guy seriously needs to go.

How is it authoritarian to object to an interference with individual's rights to sue by an overbearing State?

In addition...Chafee may be in the delegate, and not trustee, mindset here.

Maybe RI is just against the bill?

[Smash255]

So much for Chafee being a libertarian.  He's authoritarian on guns.  Of course, that goes without saying seeing as he's a social liberal RINO and all.  The guy seriously needs to go.

How is it authoritarian to object to an interference with individual's rights to sue by an overbearing State?

In addition...Chafee may be in the delegate, and not trustee, mindset here.

Maybe RI is just against the bill?

Thats a good possibility.  He could be just simply voting what his consituents want especially considering his re-election bid next year

[bullmoose88]

So much for Chafee being a libertarian.  He's authoritarian on guns.  Of course, that goes without saying seeing as he's a social liberal RINO and all.  The guy seriously needs to go.

How is it authoritarian to object to an interference with individual's rights to sue by an overbearing State?

In addition...Chafee may be in the delegate, and not trustee, mindset here.

Maybe RI is just against the bill?

Thats a good possibility.  He could be just simply voting what his consituents want especially considering his re-election bid next year

Would I be surprised that he was anti-gun? No.

But I think he's doing whatever RI wants him to do, and since its a blue (network colors) state...its really hard to tell.

[Smash255]

So much for Chafee being a libertarian.  He's authoritarian on guns.  Of course, that goes without saying seeing as he's a social liberal RINO and all.  The guy seriously needs to go.

How is it authoritarian to object to an interference with individual's rights to sue by an overbearing State?

In addition...Chafee may be in the delegate, and not trustee, mindset here.

Maybe RI is just against the bill?

Thats a good possibility.  He could be just simply voting what his consituents want especially considering his re-election bid next year

Would I be surprised that he was anti-gun? No.

But I think he's doing whatever RI wants him to do, and since its a blue (network colors) state...its really hard to tell.

He probably is anti-gun as well.  Chafee is quite socally liberal on social issues (Pro-Choice, seems to be Pro-Gun Control, Pro Gay-Rights, Anti Death Penalty)

[MissCatholic]

Look for those that dont like people with guns - TOUGH

i'm keeping mine and no judge, no person is going to tell me otherwise. So whatever the NRA get i support.

[Bono]

Any riders?

[Ebowed]

So much for Chafee being a libertarian.  He's authoritarian on guns.  Of course, that goes without saying seeing as he's a social liberal RINO and all.  The guy seriously needs to go.

How is it authoritarian to object to an interference with individual's rights to sue by an overbearing State?

I'm referring to his overall philosophy.  If you support frivilous lawsuits that put the responsibility of gun crimes on gun manufacturers instead of the criminals, then chances are, you're anti-gun.  Which is an authoritarian position to hold.  You know, there's a reason why one of the defining characteristics of the Libertarian Party is gun rights.

[Alcon]

Rhode Island is not a very pro-gun state, and he does not want to get his butt kicked come 2006.

I'm a bit surprised at DeWine.  Brave for a Republican in Ohio.  Desiring to piss off his constituency even further?

[Emsworth]

I have just read the bill. I have found that it restricts in both state and federal courts. Therefore, I'm afraid that I do not support it any longer.

The justification? The purpose of the Act is "To guarantee a citizen's rights, privileges, and immunities, as applied to the States, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to section 5 of that Amendment." Do I see the Republicans in the Senate arguing for the doctrine of incorporation when it comes to the Second Amendment? I wonder why they feel that incorporation is valid for gun rights, but not for other rights. Hmm...

[Bono]

I wonder why they feel that incorporation is valid for gun rights, but not for other rights. Hmm...

because they're weasels.