Posted on 01/23/2012 11:20:48 AM PST by Kaslin
I must say, Santorum’s answers on #10 and #14 do sound potentially promising, as they touch on private arms issues that transcend hunting. But they are still issues that hassle hunters too (Uncle Sam and the hunters may not agree on what a “sporting” arm is, for example). I hope it’s only a matter of his website being out of date, if he really has opened his views to the self defense crowd.
Thanks for the link.
Paulnuts are tenacious, illogical things. Probably easier to get Santorum to concede, but that probably won’t happen for a few more primaries. Gingrich’s win of SC seems to be the handwriting on the wall for his nomination (it has been since 1980). In the meantime Santorum will worry out loud some more about how can you count on Gingrich, not even thinking to double check how his own church vetted Gingrich.
Rick has never had closed views on self defense.
1998 was the last year that Gingrich, Paul and Santorum were all in Congress. Gingrich’s annual and lifetime ACU ratings were better than both of the others:
(100% = perfect conservative voting record)
100% - Gingrich: Annual 1998 ACU Rating (90% Lifetime Rating as of 1998)
88% - Paul: Annual 1998 ACU Rating (88% Lifetime Rating as of 1998)
84% - Santorum: Annual 1998 ACU Rating (83% Lifetime Rating as of 1998)
Source: http://www.conservative.org/ratings/ratingsarchive/1998/98houseratings.htm
So Newt won’t. Putting “Brady” in it is like, of course, waving a crucifix at a vampire, even though the system vastly disappointed the Bradyites who pushed for something much more nannily.
I am curious, who is out there complaining about being stymied by that system? It means among other things that the failure to get a Federal no for ANY reason (including systems down) means a yes.
This Nation is too close to the edge of the abyss for Rick to pick up some on the job experience.
Newt's been doing battle with - and whoopin' - these marxist bastards for years.
And without that fire, our Constitution is finished.
Does the man have baggage ?
Discounting the self-righteously blind, who doesn't ??
Is he the only one of this crop with the remotest chance of leading a successful TEA POWER revolt to retake our country ?
HELL YES
Santorum voted yes on a bill that would make gun manufactures legally liable for crimes of offenses that others committed with their manufactured guns.
Santorum had been reportedly bucking for the veep slot under Mitt. Newt seems to have said he wants Allan West. Of course we know what’s coming if/when this happens — West gets called Uncle Tom by every Sharpton shyster out there. Santorum might make sense as a veep (for Gingrich). He would be the heir apparent to the GOP candidacy eight years hence.
Hey, nobody’s perfect :-)
/.02
Arlen Specter.
Santorum needs to go, he tried but FL is not IOW the way SC was not IOWA.
He does not help republicans he only helps Rinos.
At this point he is just a useful idiot vote splitter.
The instant check computers have periodic outages and false positives happen from time to time. Me personally? I'm not big on having to meet some faceless bureaucrat's criteria in order to exercise a God given right. In as much as criminals are going to get firearms anyways (if not have them provided gratis by the DOJ), the Brady Act is simply an intrusion on law abiding citizens.
Sanitorium wont be on Gingrich’s ticket. Not after the personal, “he’s not stable” Left wing attacks coming from Santorum.
Gingrich/Perry organization/money/great national network of supporters
Gingrich/West a long shot possible
To the contrary, Santorum voted "yes" on a bill that would prevent gun manufacturers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products.
In 2005, the US Senate voted on S 397 - The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The act sought to protect gun manufacturers, retailers, and suppliers from being sued for crimes or accidents involving the weapons they sold or manufactured. The legislation came to a vote in July of 2005 and passed the Senate with a vote of 65-31. Rick Santorum voted in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
Mr. SANTORUM:
Mr. President, I rise to express my support of S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act introduced my colleague Senator CRAIG of Idaho.
The number of frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers has significantly increased in recent years. Since 1998, dozens of municipalities and cities have filed suit against America's firearm industry, falsely alleging that manufacturers are responsible for the unforeseen acts of criminals. Firearms manufacturers have already pent more than $200 million in legal fees yet have not been found liable by a single court for the criminal misuse of their highly regulated products. Unfortunately, these lawsuits appear to be designed to impose a political agenda that 33 State legislatures have already rejected. Lawsuits against manufacturers who have nothing to do with the crime at hand thwart the will of the people by bypassing their elected representatives and attempting to impose novel legal theories by judicial fiat. Worse, these suits--even while unsuccessful--drain significant resources from these companies that are the backbone of supplying our military and police officers with the weapons to protect themselves on the job. We cannot allow this trend to continue.
S. 397 is a narrowly crafted bill that stops the lawsuit abuse, while continuing to hold those individuals and companies that knowingly violate the law liable for their actions. Specifically, the bill provides that lawsuits may not be brought against manufacturers and sellers of firearms or ammunition if the suits are based on criminal or unlawful use of the product by a third party. This bill provides carefully tailored protections that continue to allow legitimate suits based on knowing violations of Federal or State law related to gun sales, or on traditional grounds including negligent entrustment, such as sales to a child or an obviously intoxicated person or breach of contract. The bill also allows product liability cases involving actual injuries caused by an improperly functioning firearm, as opposed to cases of intentional misuse.
Many of my constituents have raised concerns about frivolous lawsuits in the gun industry. Pennsylvania leads the Nation in the number of licensed deer hunters and ranks among the leaders in firearm hunters. There are nearly three million hunting licenses sold in Pennsylvania each year. Over one million hunters go out in the field each fall. These suits, by threatening the survival of firearms makers, threaten to end that outdoor tradition and the family time that often accompanies it.
The hard-working men and women in Pennsylvania who make up our labor unions also support S. 397. This should be no surprise, however, as working men and women recognize a threat to their jobs and their way of life when they see one. The numbers are telling. Pennsylvania has 227 companies involved in firearms manufacture. There are over 3,000 federally licensed firearms dealers. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, there are approximately 34,000 jobs and $909 million in salaries and wages supported by those businesses and sportsmen in Pennsylvania. Additionally, these Pennsylvania sportsmen spend about $2 billion in the State, generating approximately $119 million in Pennsylvania State tax revenue.
Many families' lives are negatively impacted by these reckless lawsuits. While many of the personal tragedies behind these lawsuits are horrific, the individual responsible is--as it has always been in our system of justice--the criminal not the lawfully operating company. If a lawsuit is based on a defective firearm, a knowing violation of the law or the breach of a contract, that suit should proceed--and S. 397 would allow it to proceed. However, the frivolous suits with novel legal theories and invented liability have already cost jobs, including here in Pennsylvania, and they will cost more jobs if they continue. They will force company closures and they will close family businesses. Suing law-abiding gun makers and dealers for the acts of criminals is like suing automobile makers for the damage caused by reckless drivers. It is wrong and goes against the entrepreneurial and industrial spirit of this country.
I agree there is a need to reduce violent crime, and I share the concerns of gun control advocates with the number and severity of violent acts occurring within our Nation. During a June 13th field hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee in Philadelphia, we learned about the many factors that contribute to the problem of youth violence including poverty, broken families, a lack of mentors, and loose enforcement of current gun laws. I believe it is necessary to focus on the root causes of these problems rather than develop a policy that appears helpful on the surface. I have worked and continue to work on the issues of poverty, broken families and mentoring, however I believe that greater enforcement of existing gun laws is a key part of the solution to eradicating gun violence.
The program ``Project Exile'' is an example of how stricter enforcement of current laws can make a difference. For this reason, I have been involved in implementing Project Exile in Philadelphia. This program began in Richmond, VA, and has proven to be extremely successful in reducing gun crime by simply enforcing existing Federal gun laws. The program adopts a zero-tolerance policy for Federal gun crimes. Federal, State and local law enforcement and prosecutors work hand-in-hand to expedite prosecution of each and every Federal firearms violation under Project Exile. Thanks to Project Safe Neighborhoods and Project Exile, Federal prosecutions of firearms offenses have gone up 91 percent since 2000. Nationally, those prosecutions have jumped 76 percent in the same time period. That means that more criminals are serving hard time for breaking Federal gun laws. More criminals off the street means our citizens are safer. That is a much more effective way to fight crime than punishing innocent manufacturers through frivolous lawsuits.
I encourage my colleagues to support S. 397. Doing so will help an industry that is being unfairly targeted for violent crimes, and allow us to continue to focus on the real causes of violent crimes.
What I was trying to say is the system seems to be built to err on the side of permission, which has to grate on the actual Brady teeth.
I did not know it was faceless bureaucrats who set the law the system has to follow (though they may well administer it).
BTW, about Newt’s idea of using fingerprints to make the system go, I think he would find that most unknown armed assailants never bothered to go through the system. So we would have the FBI rooting around in a database of virtually all innocents. That can’t augur well.
“to the contrary, Santorum voted “yes” on a bill that would prevent gun manufacturers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products.”
Nope.
Do a little more extensive research and you will find out that Santorum voted against a like bill...before he voted for it.
I’m guessing 96 was an election year for him.
Gingrich can be magnanimous — I don’t think Santorum sniping would prevent his consideration once he has conceded (and the sooner the concession the better).
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.