Posted on 08/03/2005 8:28:10 AM PDT by holymoly
Last week, the Senate approved a bill that would make the average citizen less safe.
The gun-industry immunity bill passed 65-31 by the Senate on Friday and virtually assured passage in the House would shield gun manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits by people hurt by firearms.
At a time when the country is on perpetual high alert because of the terrorist threat, the bill is dangerous for any number of reasons.
Instead of making it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns, this bill would make it easier.
Manufacturers and dealers whose negligent business practices let weapons fall into the wrong hands would be off the hook.
And citizens harmed by those weapons would be out of luck, with no avenue to seek recourse for their pain and suffering.
If this bill were in place, that would have applied to surviving victims of the two snipers who terrorized the Washington, D.C., area in fall 2002.
An assault rifle used by the snipers was among 200 other firearms that disappeared from a Washington state dealer without leaving any documentation trail.
The dealer and manufacturer involved settled with victims and their relatives last year for $2.5 million.
If the House passes this bill as expected, all pending lawsuits would be dismissed.
That is something supporters of the legislation would cheer.
But there is no evidence of a flood of frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry.
In contrast, out of 10 million tort cases over 10 years, a mere 57 were filed against the gun industry, according to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
That is remarkably few, considering the gun industry's current practices. Thirty-five people who appeared on a terrorist watch-list were able to buy guns last year, according to the Government Accountability Office.
Apparently, it is perfectly legal to sell a gun to a suspected terrorist.
Instead of focusing on closing such loopholes, Congress is reinforcing the gun industry's already-lax controls and tendency to fork over firearms to anyone with enough cash.
No other industry - not car manufacturers, not pharmaceutical companies - enjoys such sweeping immunity from civil liability.
Why should the gun industry, which makes products that are inherently dangerous, be given a thick shield?
The National Rifle Association's clout goes a long way in explaining why, along with Democrats' realization that support for gun control harmed their prospects in the last election.
The 14 Democrats who sided with Senate Republicans on this bill no doubt were acutely aware of that.
Both New Jersey senators, Jon Corzine and Frank Lautenberg, deserve praise for holding their ground.
It is unfortunate that citizens harmed by guns soon may have no hope of the sort of monetary award that can help put shattered lives back together. And that gun manufacturers and dealers may have no incentive to reform the practices that facilitate this harm.
That is because we have something in this country called "due process".
Unless the person has been convicted of a felony, has been adjudicated to be mentally ill, or is subject to the "Federal Domestic Violence Gun Ban" (Lautenberg Amendment), that person can legally purchase a firearm.
The way to prevent "suspected terrorists" from purchasing firearms is to prosecute and convict them of a felony.
... and have a free and armed society ...
"No other industry - not car manufacturers, not pharmaceutical companies - enjoys such sweeping immunity from civil liability. "
Apples and oranges. Other industries are sued for flaws and/or negligence in their design or manufacture based on greed. A gun is manufactured to do exactly what it does.
If this bill were in place, that would have applied to surviving victims of the two snipers who terrorized the Washington, D.C., area in fall 2002.An assault rifle used by the snipers was among 200 other firearms that disappeared from a Washington state dealer without leaving any documentation trail.
The dealer and manufacturer involved settled with victims and their relatives last year for $2.5 million.
The dealer and manufacturer were NOT responsible for the beltway snipers. They should have been protected from lawsuits. How would the author of this idiotic piece feel if his/her automobile were stolen, driven by a drunk driver into a shopping mall playground resulting in the deaths of several children, and then lawyers came after the author for multi-millions of dollars because the car was not adequately secured? The fact that the dealer and manufacturer settled for $2.5 million to avoid the expense of a class-action lawsuit demonstrates the need for this legislation.
"Manufacturers and dealers whose negligent business practices let weapons fall into the wrong hands would be off the hook."
Huh?! I live in MA. I had to go through quite a paper drill when I bought a weapon at Smith & Wesson, as well as at a tiny dealer in a small town. Never mind the hoops to go through for license to carry.
The only negligence involved is state government, regarding the 2nd Amendment.
Flat out LIE.
And citizens harmed by those weapons would be out of luck, with no avenue to seek recourse for their pain and suffering.
You could always sue the bastard that shot you or do you also sue Anhauser Busch and GM when a drunk in a Buick plows into your car?
Wimpish media group. Four guns in the home, all legit. Hubby carries one with him at all times. And flies with the gun safely locked up and tagged in big red letters: CONTAINS FIREARM.
When, please tell me when, these boneheads are going to understand that guns can be had by anybody who wants one. If the gun manufacturers stopped making guns altogether, anyone who wanted one would STILL be able to get them. Any type and anywhere. It's people, not weapons, that are the problem. Going after the manufacturers would be an expensive waste of time and money ending with the criminals having the weapons. NO THANKS!
And this is the gun dealers' and manufacturers' fault?
Be Ever Vigilant ~ Bump!
This one is more like a ROFLMAO alert.....
Almost EVERY statement is a flat out lie.
There's too many of them for me to correct. Just take the opposite meaning of what was said, and go with that.
Except that it's hard to laugh in the face of blatant, bold-faced lies.
Succinct, and dead on.
This completely misses the point behind the law. A lawful dealer or manufacturer is not resopnsible for what happens after the commerce has taken place.
If I kill somebody with a sledge, is Home Depot resonsible, or the company who made it. If I make glass and sell glass and somebody breaks it and stabs somebody with it, am I responsible? Ridiculous.
There's an old saying: "Many hands make light work".
Each of us simply needs to pick one lie, and tear it to shreads. ;)
A "gag alert"? Try a "Hurry! Change the Depends Alert"?
57 tort cases related to guns and manufacturers amounted to nearly 200 million dollars worth of litigation against gun manufacturers and dealers for an average suit amount of nearly 35 million dollars per suit. Not small change compared to an average suit filed on other products and actions is a little over 2 million dollars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.