Defensive Carry banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

· Registered
134 Posts
MSNBC is reporting this right now.

I posted the link instead of the article. Copyright stuff and all that.

On a similar note, legislation has been passed prohibiting obese people from suing food companies and restaurants for their condition. Common sense seems to have flaired for a brief moment. Let's try and keep the flame alive.

Well they give you the option to Print it - E-mail it - or Blog it.
So...I'm blogging it. Too much garbage and advertisment crapped up on that page. MSNBC sue me. :biggrin:

Updated: 3:27 p.m. ET Oct. 20, 2005

WASHINGTON - Congress gave the gun lobby its top legislative priority Thursday, passing a bill that would protect the firearms industry from massive lawsuits brought by crime victims. The White House says President Bush will sign it into law.
The House voted 283-144 to send the bill to the president after supporters, led by the National Rifle Association, proclaimed it vital to protect the industry from being bankrupted by huge jury awards. Opponents, waging a tough battle against growing public support for the legislation, called it proof of the gun lobby’s power over the Republican-controlled Congress.
Under the measure, about 20 pending lawsuits by local governments against the industry would be dismissed. The Senate passed the bill in July.

The bill’s passage was the NRA’s top legislative priority and would give Bush and his Republican allies on Capitol Hill a rare victory at a time when some top GOP leaders are under indictment or investigation.
“Lawsuits seeking to hold the firearms industry responsible for the criminal and unlawful use of its products are brazen attempts to accomplish through litigation what has not been achieved by legislation and the democratic process,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., told his colleagues.

Katrina momentum
Propelled by GOP election gains and the incidents of lawlessness associated with the passing of Hurricane Katrina, support for the bill has grown since a similar measure passed the House last year and was killed in the Senate.
Horrific images of people without the protection of public safety in New Orleans made a particular impression on viewers who had never before felt unsafe, according to the gun lobby.
“Americans saw a complete collapse of the government’s ability to protect them,” said Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s executive vice president.
“That burnt in, those pictures of people standing there defending their lives and defending their property and their family,” he added, “where the one source of comfort was a firearm.”
With support from new Republicans who arrived for this session of Congress, the bill passed the Senate for the first time in July. House passage never was in doubt because it had 257 co-sponsors, far more than the 218 needed to pass.
The bill’s authors say the bill still allows civil suits against individual parties who have been found guilty of criminal wrongdoing by the courts.
Critics cite D.C. sniper
Opponents say the strength of the bill’s support is testament to the influence of the gun lobby. If the bill had been law when the relatives of six victims of convicted Washington-area snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo sued the gun dealer from which they obtained their rifle, the dealer would not have agreed to pay the families and victims $2.5 million, they said.
“It is shameful that Republicans in Congress are pushing legislation that guarantees their gun-dealing cronies receive special treatment and are above the law,” said Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Calif.
The Brady Campaign, which campaigns to control firearms, said it would challenge the legislation’s constitutionality in court.
Dennis Henigan, director of the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project, said, “This shameful law will not stand. We will challenge the constitutionality of this special interest extravaganza in every court where the rights of gun violence victims are being threatened.”
“This bill is an unprecedented attack on the due process rights of victims injured by the misconduct of an industry that seeks to escape the legal rules that govern the rest of us,” he added.
Product lawsuits still allowed
Bush has said he supports the bill, which would prohibit lawsuits against the firearms industry for damages resulting from the unlawful use of a firearm or ammunition. Gun makers and dealers still would be subject to product liability, negligence or breach of contract suits, the bill’s authors say.
Democrats and Republicans alike court the NRA at election time, and the bill has garnered bipartisan support. But the firearms industry still gave 88 percent of its campaign contributions, or $1.2 million, to Republicans in the 2004 election cycle.
Gun control advocates, meanwhile, gave 98 percent of their contributions, or $93,700, to Democrats that cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Reuters contributed to this report.

· Premium Member
25,596 Posts
I'll say - keep the flame alive at all costs.

I have been dismayed so many times at the attempts to remove responsibility and culpability from the unwashed masses - in order to lay them at the feet of manufacturers etc.

It is almost surprising ammo companies haven't been sued - for making ''bullet things'' than can <gasp> kill people!

Whatever happened to self-determination and common sense - time for a resurgeance.

· Registered
5,154 Posts
Yes, the article mentions the Senate passed this so it is the Senate version which does contain a trigger lock provision. It requires that trigger locks be sold with every firearm. So another "tax" to help raise the price of guns. It is also the nose under the tent for a national law requiring trigger locks be used on all firearms. So some good and some bad.


· Banned
1,951 Posts

Can you say "Camels nose under the tent"????

Just one more case of the federal government increasingly mandating, dictating, controlling the lives of the American people.

In a couple years expect to see Fine-Witch or "Son of Chuckie" Schumer trying to pass legislation dictating the locks be used when the gun is not in use "for sporting purposes" or some other crap.

· Registered
17,530 Posts
i wouldnt mind the trigger lock so much as having them built into the gun i only own 2 guns with locks that are truly built in and not easily removeable my Hk and Smith 500 the Springfield 1911 real easy to change out the Mainspring housing

· Registered
132 Posts
If you've purchased a new handgun in the past few months, you probably noticed some form of locking device being provided with the gun. The manufacturers have been doing this for some time as a CYA measure so in most cases nothing will change. In S397 there is no provision that mandates the purchaser/owner MUST use the locking device. I would have preferred H800 over S397, but at least now the manufacturers do not have to suffer nuisance lawsuits.
There are some fears that the next step will be a law which MANDATES that the locking devices be used. (Some states already do this) I have no doubt that this could be defeated if everyone took the time to contact lawmakers and let them know how dumb that is. It's unenforceable at best.

· Registered
822 Posts
It's unenforceable at best.
Until they make laws that went the way of England and Austiala(sp). Where they inspected all gun owners that were on file to ensure that they had the weapons properly locked up, and took them if not.

You know, if the brady bunch and vpc were to do what they say, they would give every gun owner the money to buy a big safe to store their guns and then buy them a another safe to store the ammo. But they won't. I know, I called and asked *grin*


· Registered
278 Posts
I don't know, buzzg. That might be interpreted as readiness to actually store the ammo away from the gun. So why not pass a bill that mandates that ammo MUST be kept away from the gun, like we have over here.

"Wait a minute, Mr. Homeintruder, I have to open my other safe and load a magazine." Yeah, right.

I prefer the idea of contacting your represantative and demanding... well, representation.

· Registered
1,643 Posts
Hmmm... could we sue the auto industry to force them to provide a brethalizer device that also scans the operators DL and takes a thumbprint to ensure that the operator isn't intoxicated, is properly trained, and is in factr the individual he claims to be?

They should sue the manufacturer of the aircraft used on 9/11... they should have known their product could be misused.

1 - 12 of 12 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.