Bernie Sanders voted for the most reprehensible pro-gun legislation in recent memory.

[JaneyVee]

Disclaimer: I'm only posting this because it appears to be making the rounds on social media and trending.

Snip-

But before liberal Democrats flock to Sanders, they should remember that the Vermont senator stands firmly to Clinton’s right on one issue of overwhelming importance to the Democratic base: gun control. During his time in Congress, Sanders opposed several moderate gun control bills. He also supported the most odious NRA–backed law in recent memory—one that may block Sandy Hook families from winning a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the gun used to massacre their children.

Snip-

In 1993, then-Rep. Sanders voted againstthe Brady Act, which mandated federal background checks for gun purchasers and restricted felons’ access to firearms. As a senator, Sanders supported bills toallow firearms in checked bags on Amtrak trains and block funding to any foreign aid organization that registered or taxed Americans’ guns. Sanders is dubious that gun control could help prevent gun violence, telling one interviewer after Sandy Hook that “if you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen.”

Snip-

None of these views are particularly shocking for a Vermont representative: Sanders’ deep-blue state has both high gun ownership and incredibly lax gun laws, and it’s perfectly logical for the senator to support his constituents’ firearms enthusiasm. And a close friend of Sanders once said that the senator “thinks there’s an elitism in the anti-gun movement.”

But Sanders’ vote for a different kind of pro-gun bill is more puzzling—and profoundly disturbing. In 2005, a Republican-dominated Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This law doesn’t protect gun owners; it protects gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers. The PLCAA was the No. 1 legislative priorityof the National Rifle Association for years, because it shields gun makers and dealers from most liability when their firearms are used criminally. It is one of the most noxious pieces of pro-gun legislation ever passed. And Bernie Sanders voted for it. (Sanders’ campaign has not replied to a request for comment.)

link: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html?wpsrc=fol_tw

On the other hand, this could peel off some independents.

[DanTex]

1. I heard he was moderately pro-gun, but didn't realize he was this far right on the issue.

Voting against the Brady Bill and voting to shield gun manufacturers from liability suits shows a serious lack of judgement.

[derby378]

57. The original Brady Act also mandated a national five-day waiting period for handguns

I'd have voted against it, too. But I would have supported the NICS check 100%, and still do.

[Cosmic Kitten]

101. Almost as bad as voting for an illegal war!

[GGJohn]

121. Except that it doesn't shield the man. for lawsuits for a defective product,

what it does is protect them from frivolous SLAPP lawsuits, which the Brady org., along with numerous cities, tried to bankrupt the gun industry by sueing them for the criminal misuse of their firearms by criminals.
The Brady org is responsible for this law.
You can't sue Ford, Chevrolet, Chrysler, etc because a drunk got in a wreck with one of their cars and injured or killed someone.
Same intent with the PLCAA.

[DanTex]

122. Obviously, you stand behind the NRA and the gun manufacturers no matter what.

The interesting thing is that Bernie Sanders, supposed progressive, does also. I wonder if he will be asked about this, and if he is, will he repeat the same NRA talking points that you have memorized.

[GGJohn]

124. And obviously you've been corrected numerous times on the PLCAA,

yet you continue to misrepresent what it really means.
So which # is this NRA talking point?

[DanTex]

127. I know exactly what it means. You've been watching too much FOX,

and spending too much time in the gungeon (is there a difference?). Arguing with gun nuts is fun and all, but the point of this thread is that Bernie Sanders, progressive hero, is not so progressive when it comes to certain issues.

[GGJohn]

130. Yeah, go with the insults, it elevates your debate so effectively.

The auto industry has the same exact protection, do you want to take away their protection also?
Or is it just because it's firearms?

[DanTex]

133. I wasn't looking for a gun nut debate. If I was, I'd be in the gungeon or on FreeRepublic...

I'm not surprised that the NRAers crawl out into GD to defend even the most absurd pro-gun legislation, but, truly, the "target audience" here is progressives, not gun maniacs.

[GGJohn]

136. Can't or won't answer the question?

Why? If you're position is correct, then I'd expect you to post proof of what you're claiming about the PLCAA instead of platitudes and insults.

[MicaelS]

129. Shielding gun manufacturers from liability suits ...

Was done because it will be all but impossible to outlaw guns directly though the proper Legislative process. So some Anti-gun types decided they would engage in devious, underhanded and surreptitious means to sue the Gun Companies out of existence. Which is simply an attempt to do an end run around the Legislatures, who are supposed to the ultimate arbiters of what is supposed to be the Law in the country. The legislation blocks that, as it should.

[DanTex]

132. Hey, the whole NRA contingent is here!

[GGJohn]

139. Instead of baseless accusations,

how about proving what we're saying is wrong?

[DanTex]

144. So calling NRA members NRA members is now "baseless"? LOL.

[GGJohn]

147. I don't belong to the NRA, never have, never will,

so, yeah, baseless accusations.
Can you refute with links what I've said about the PLCAA? Without the baseless accusations?

[DanTex]

148. Really? You had me fooled.

[GGJohn]

150. Well, that doesn't surprise me.

A question is pending.

[beevul]

159. They know you're correct about what the law does and is intended to do.

What it does and is intended to stop, is their entire reason for opposing it.

[GGJohn]

161. Yup,

that's pretty much how they're coming across, can't refute the facts, then accuse one of being an NRA member spouting NRA talking points.

[Travis_0004]

165. Somebody has a well thought out, reasonable post

You have on response on why that is not a valid reason for this law, so you attack the messenger.

Thank you for your informative update to this topic.

[daleanime]

2. Don't expect to agree with Bernie on everything....

don't like his view on drones either, but that said he's still miles closer to what I want then any other candidate.

[Omaha Steve]

46. x 2

[OKNancy]

3. He's acting in the interest of his constituents

Vermont - gun owners
Massachusetts - medical device manufacturers
New York - Wall Street

That's what representatives ( small r ) do.

[JaneyVee]

11. I agree. Representing constituents should be #1 priority.

People seem much more upset that he also represented gun manufacturers, gun ownership is understandable.

[still_one]

32. Sure, but when dealing with reasonable legislation such as the Brady

Bill, and voting against it, is troubling to me

[Eleanors38]

79. Neither "reasonable" nor effective: Millions sold while in "effect"

and millions more since

As with most forms of extremist prohibitionism, the law was a cultural statement with the legal system somehow force-fit to punish others. The "statement" was made, and semi-auto carbines have become the biggest-selling long gun, starting with the law's enactment.

[still_one]

80. It instituted federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States. What is NOT

reasonable about that?

We disagree

[beevul]

84. I believe he was referring to the AWB portion of that legislative session. N/T

[still_one]

89. I thought that was separate, and not part of the Brady Bill proper

[Eleanors38]

96. I was speaking of the AWB. UBCs I support as long as government doesn't register.

[still_one]

98. Someone just made that clarification to me in the subthread. Thanks for the clarification

[Eleanors38]

106. My mistake in not so noting.

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. A mark against him on one important issue.

I am not a one issue voter, so I will compare his stand on many issues to the other applicants to be my representative in the executive branch of government.

[djean111]

5. Not enough to make any other candidate look better.

[cali]

6. LOL. He's evolved, Janey.

The NRA has bestowed an "F" on him for years.

Vermont is about anti-gun control as possible. And it also has the lowest rate PER CAPITA of murders by gun violence and a very low gun violence rate.


Want a better issue to attack him on? Go for his support for the F-35.

[DanTex]

8. Yeah, his gun policies might work in Vermont, but they are a disaster nationwide.

Maybe this extends to his generally outlook.

[cali]

15. You mean like working toward narrowing income inequality? Supporting a $15 min wage?

Expanding Social Security, lifting the income cap? Expanding Medicare? reforming the criminal justice system? Doing away with for profit prisons? Equal rights for all?

Look, gun control and the F-35 are it for issues you guys can use against Bernie. And please don't give me any of that "I haven't decided on Bernie" tomfoolery. I've seen enough of your posts re Bernie. Just try to be honest.

[DanTex]

21. I have decided about Bernie. I support most of his policies, but he can't win.

I also support most of Hillary's policies, and she can win, which is important. And guns (and the F-35, as you mention) show that neither candidate is perfect.

But what's funny is the phony defenses that Sanders supporters are throwing out there. "He's evolved." Great that Bernie is allowed to "evolve" but when Hillary does it it makes her shifty and untrustworthy.

And then the NRA talking point about how (some) rural pro-gun states have less murders than the South Side of Chicago, so therefore more guns yay!

Or "he's from Vermont!" Right, like any of the pro-Bernie people would accept "she's from New York" as an excuse for Hillary's ties with Wall Street.

And other people just ignore this completely. Because 30,000 gun deaths a year isn't really a big deal, I guess.

[Hoyt]

59. +1. Vermont's roughly 95% white demographics explains his votes on gunz.

I'd rather see a Presidential candidate who does what is right for the country, not the scared folks who've armed up.

[hack89]

70. What are white Vermont gun owners scared of? nt

[Hoyt]

73. Minorities escaping from New York for one. I remember you Gungeon folks having a big

discussion on best gunz in a hurricane, or other disaster, when Sandy was blowing in.

In any event, Sanders is playing politics with his support of gunz.

[hack89]

74. Because all gun owners are racists. I forgot. nt

[beevul]

83. Its a statement by your interlocutor about the voters of vermont, Hack.

They're racist inbred hillbilly gun owners. So much so that they elected a Democratic socialist to represent them.

Or something.




PM me if he ever starts to make any sense, please.

[notadmblnd]

108. Why do people think that there are droves of boogey men out there just waiting to steal stuff?

What's so special about their crap (which will probably be destroyed during a disaster) that they think it's worth killing for? A gun would be pretty low on my list of things needed during a disaster.

I don't feel the need to protect all the crap from China I've accumulated over they years now- while it's still in working order. Chances are China will still be there and after the dust settles, I can just get more crap.

[Hoyt]

110. Feel the same way. Gunz are high up on the list for gun fanciers.

And for the very reason, they are scared to death of the boogey people. That's the main reason they carry guns, train with silhouette targets, etc.

It's the main reason the town folks in Gretna Louisiana sent the police force out to block starving, dehydrated, dying people trying to cross the bridge from New Orleans after Katrina.

[cali]

62. mockery. unlike most Hillary supporters

I don't go for that bullshit. Bernie doesn't have a good record on gun control. I won't try to deny tend if it's an overwhelmingly important issue to a voter,than they shouldn't support him.

[JaneyVee]

17. I don't want to attack him, I love Bernie. Besides...

We should all be unifying behind whoever the Dem nominee is because Republicans are a clear and present danger.

[Cosmic Kitten]

103. You don't want to attack him.... bwahahaha

Yet you post an unflattering
and distorted OP on him.

yeah, whatever

[Renew Deal]

154. The post is only unflattering if the reader is anti-gun.

If the reader is pro-gun Sanders just became more appealing.

[DCBob]

58. Evolved?? In 2005 he voted with the NRA and Rethugs to help pass the PLCAA.

"In 2005, a Republican-dominated Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This law doesn’t protect gun owners; it protects gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers. The PLCAA was the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association for years, because it shields gun makers and dealers from most liability when their firearms are used criminally. It is one of the most noxious pieces of pro-gun legislation ever passed. And Bernie Sanders voted for it. (Sanders’ campaign has not replied to a request for comment.)"

Has he denounced that vote??

[Eleanors38]

81. Hasn't "denounced" that vote, nor should he. That proposed law has a pitiful precedent

in the number of suits which were shit-canned by several courts as a transparent and letigious means of trying to shut down an industry when legislation would not work or could not be enacted.

You cannot hold a manufacturer liable for a product's misuse. SO ABUNDANTLY CLEAR.

You can hold a manufacturer responsible for a defective product, up to and including consequential damages, injury, and death. But the gun banners wanted to "shield" arms manufacturers from equal protection of the law. As laughable an attempt at subterfuge as the Jim Crow-era laws the South enacted to pinpoint blacks for discrimination.

BTW, a man was charged with murdering 4 people during the 2014 SWSX in Austin by plowing through a crowd in a Honda automobile. No one has sued Honda Motors for this mass-murder.

Guess why.

[DCBob]

114. He should if he wants to be the Dem nominee for POTUS.

[beevul]

115. The Dem nominee should be on record as supporting lawsuits...

The Dem nominee should be on record as supporting lawsuits against manufactures for product misuse by third parties?


Um...No. Such a thing would be insane support for an insane position.

[DCBob]

116. I think you are confused...

Please reread what he voted for.

[TheKentuckian]

118. If the poster isn't right then correct them. That is also my understanding of the proposal.

What is the misinformation?

[DCBob]

120. If the OP isnt right then you correct it.

[GGJohn]

123. The poster is right and you were corrected.

You can't sue a manufacturer for the criminal misuse of it's product.
That's all the PLCAA addressed, you can sue if the product is defective and causes injury or death.

[DCBob]

131. Gun manufacturers should be held accountable.

They sell extremely dangerous products and should be held to a higher standard. Im shocked a serious progressive could vote with the NRA on this.

[GGJohn]

138. They should be held liable for the criminal misuse of their products?

So should the auto industry be held liable for the criminal misuse of their products?
How about the knife industry?
How about the bat industry?

[DCBob]

143. As I said gun manufacturers should be held to a higher standard.

For obvious reasons.

[GGJohn]

149. They are held to a higher standard, govt regs are pretty strict concerning firearms. eom.

[DCBob]

151. Clearly not high enough.

[GGJohn]

155. Bullshit!!!

What other product do you have to have a background check?
What other product are you prohibited from buying/possessing if you have a felony, domestic violence conviction, adjudged mentally unfit?

You still didn't answer my question,
Should car man. be held liable for the criminal or negligent misuse of their product?
How about the knife industry?
How about the bat industry?

[DCBob]

156. Get lost. Not interested in your warped opinions.

[GGJohn]

158. The last gasp of defeat.

Buh bye.

[TheKentuckian]

160. Are you supposed to be Francis or Pee Wee? Probably few worries that I'll speak my piece.

What the the fuck is the point of the no information and snarky ass response besides maybe a wee bout of the gotnothins.

[GGJohn]

167. Jury results.

Automated Message

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your alert

Mail Message



On Wed May 6, 2015, 09:55 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

Are you retarded or just pretending?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6632949

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

Retarded? Really? On a progressive website?
Not cool.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Wed May 6, 2015, 10:18 PM, and voted 7-0 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Almost 17000 posts and you still don't know when you've crossed the line?
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Welcome to 2015. At present, the use of the word retarded as posted is not acceptable in modern society. Please consult your online dictionary for more information.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Retarded is now considered beyond the pale.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Not just a personal attack but a slur on people who are "different." Somebody serve this poster a granite cookie with his curdled milk.

Thank you.

7-0. Pretty clear he went over the line.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

119. Agree 100%

Stupid laws should be defeated.

[99Forever]

7. ...

:yawn:

[GoneFishin]

55. Yawn. What you said.

[Agnosticsherbet]

9. Link to his votes on gun issues from votesmart.

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm

[Thinkingabout]

10. This would not be the only issue i have with Bernie, but this one does not give me a reason

To vote for him.

[morningfog]

16. Of course, you said you oppose all of his positions, which would include this one.

[Thinkingabout]

18. Sure did, glad you remembered.

[zappaman]

12. I heard he eats babies.

Looking for the link...

[Segami]

19. LOL!

The 'Onion' has been alerted...

[jeff47]

134. That's why his hair is so wild. Baby souls. (nt)

[sarisataka]

13. So, does he fail

The Purity Test?

[Cheese Sandwich]

14. Wait why should gun manufacturers be sued for gun deaths?

Unless they committed fraud or something. I don't get it.

Like cigarette companies were sued because they hid the known harmful effects.

I don't get why gun makers would be sued by victims. Maybe somebody wants to explain that.

[onehandle]

20. I welcome you and your NRA talking points to Democratic Underground.

'Gosh! They are just innocent biznissmen scraping by. Boo-hoo-hoo. Those poor 1%ers!'

[Cheese Sandwich]

30. The purpose of a gun is to kill. So why sue a gun maker for making a product that works correctly?

If guns are a problem then regulate them, limit them.

But it just makes no sense to sue a gun makers when their product is legal, unless maybe for fraud or for a product defect, then they should be sued.

That's not NRA talking points. It's just common sense.

[still_one]

35. I think you are right. I do have a problem with those who oppose the Brady Bill and

reasonable gun legislation

[AgingAmerican]

36. Bernie gets an 'F' rating from the NRA

nt

[DanTex]

23. The question is why should gun manufacturers get special protection against liability lawsuits.

Obviously, they shouldn't, the courts should decide. Of course, the NRA is afraid that the courts might decide in favor of public safety over profits, so they get Republicans and a few Dems like Bernie to put in special laws to specifically protect gun manufacturers.

It's the same reason that the NRA got congress to cut research into gun violence. They were afraid of what the research might say.

[hack89]

29. It was because the gun control movement overplayed their hand

they put together a campaign to drive gun manufacturers out of business by overwhelming them with endless civil law suits. This was the blow back.

The law does actually allow for gun manufacturers to be sued for defective products or the result of criminal or negligent actions on their part. All the law says is that if gun manufacturers or dealers obey all state and federal laws, they cannot be sued if someone uses a gun to commit a crime. Just like you can't sue Coors if someone gets drunk on their beer, drives and slams into your car.

[DanTex]

33. I was wonder how long it would take for the NRA to show up.

Yes, we get it, there is nothing the gun industry or the NRA could do that you would disagree with. Shielding them from liability lawsuits is so indefensible that it's actually funny to read this stuff. You know, you can sue Coors for whatever you want. If it's a baseless case, you will lose in court.

Same goes for gun manufacturers. Or at least, it should. Shielding corporations from "harassing lawsuits" is classic right-wing craziness. I didn't realize Sanders was so extremely right-wing on this issue. It really hurts his credibility when he rails at corporate power.

[hack89]

37. The gun control movement shot themselves in the foot once again

what can I say? They are the gift that keeps giving to the NRA - first the AWB and then their civil law suit campaign. They have never missed an opportunity to give the NRA a political opening large enough to drive a truck through.

Instead of carping about the NRA, perhaps you should work to get your movement some adult leadership.

[DanTex]

43. Yes, I understand that you always side with the powers that be on every issue.

The point here is that if Bernie wants to claim to be some kind of reformer taking on powerful interests instead of siding with them, then capitulating to the gun industry flies in the face of that.

[hack89]

49. Bernie did what his constituents wanted him to do.

let the voters decide what interests they want him to take on. It would appear that the people of Vermont don't share your views on evil guns.

[DanTex]

54. Like every other politician. Which is my point. He's not above politics or special interests.

Hillary gets a lot of flack for ties with Wall Street, but of course she was from New York.

[hack89]

56. Of course he is no different from any other politician. nt

[Unvanguard]

48. Question

If gun retailers engage in conduct that foreseeably results in increases in violent gun deaths, and doesn't have any compensating social benefit (e.g., acting otherwise wouldn't impose huge costs and wouldn't impose large disadvantages on lawful gun owners), do you think they should be liable for those deaths?

[hack89]

53. It is hard to imagine what such conduct would look like

given how tightly the gun business is regulated. The government regulates what they sell, how they sell it and who they can sell it to. Perhaps you can give an example that falls within the realm of possible?

[Eleanors38]

82. You can't argue coherently, you can only label. nt

[jeff47]

135. What special protection? You can't sue Ford if a drunk driver hits you in an F150. (nt)

[MicaelS]

137. I support business getting "special treatment" if the Courts..

Try to institute a de facto ban of a legal product because of misuse by a small percentage of the populace. I don't care if it guns, fast cars, aircraft, alcohol, vaping, porn, or WTF-ever.

[DanTex]

145. Of course you do!

[cali]

24. What I want to know and the author doesn't say is had there ever been

a successful law suit against a gun manufacturer or dealer for manufacturing or selling a legal firearm BEFORE that legislation (the PLCAA) passed? And can't many firearms be used for mass murder? I don't get the comparison to a car with faulty brakes. If a gun manufacturer makes a faulty product, that manufacturer can be sued.

I'm not supporting the PLCAA or Bernie's vote on it. Although gun control is not an overwhelming issue to me for many reasons, I think that vote was wrong.

[DanTex]

40. I think it was mostly a pre-emptive action.

My understanding is that there were lawsuits in progress, and the NRA didn't want to leave the outcome up to the courts. Bernie felt that the poor gun corporations needed to be protected from from these lawsuits. Because, you know, corporate power and influence on congress is bad, except of course for the corporations that manufacture products that kill 30,000 Americans every year.

[cali]

63. that makes sense

And btw,Dan,Bernie has never taken any money from gun manufacturers. None. Unlike Hillary and the banksterss and her vote for a bankruptcy bill written by credit card companies and banks

[Eleanors38]

94. PDF 0472115103-intro.PDF. "INTRODUCTION: An Overview of Lawsuits against the Gun Industry"

I cannot link on this device.

In this work, Timothy D. Lytton gives a history, four main categories of suits, and results of the suits. The history starts well before the law in question, and the results for plaintiffs (pre-law) have been little.

There is a history. The law came after persistent attempts to go after deep pockets, and to effect policy through the courts. Take note of "Theories of Liability," p. 5.

[Unvanguard]

28. Mostly for negligently letting them fall in the hands of criminals.

For not being careful enough about preventing that from happening, basically.

[Cheese Sandwich]

38. OK I would agree that part.

Maybe we should make a distinction between the manufacturer and the retail gun dealer in this case.

If someone is responsible for doing a background check and they don't do it, then yeah they were negligent and should be sued.

[Unvanguard]

41. The statute protects both manufacturers and retail gun dealers.

There are exceptions to the blanket bar on suit, and if a different statute requires a background check, it might fall into one of them. But normally you can bring suit for negligence even for conduct that isn't independently illegal, and the statute mostly closes that option off.

[beevul]

104. It protects them ONLY if they follow federal law.

Doing the background check, in the case of the dealer, for example.

If a dealer doesn't do a background check, they can be sued.


Is it your position that a federally licensed dealer selling a legal product which has followed all laws pertaining to the making and selling of that product, should be able to be sued because someone misused it?

Because frankly, that's a ridiculous position.

[Unvanguard]

111. The point is that the law guarantees special treatment to gun manufacturers and dealers.

Imagine I do something that causes serious risks to people around me, and as a result, my neighbor gets seriously injured. For my neighbor to be able to win a lawsuit against me, she doesn't need to point to any particular statute specifically prohibiting my dangerous behavior. What she has to do (oversimplifying a bit) is show that I was negligent (I wasn't exercising reasonable care, I was endangering other people out of proportion to the social value of what I was doing) and that my negligence proximately caused her harm (her injury happened because of my dangerous conduct and it was foreseeable that something like her injury could happen because of my dangerous conduct).

The same thing ought to apply in the gun context. If a gun retailer markets the product in a way that she knows or should know excessively facilitates purchase of guns by violent criminals, the gun retailer should be liable. You shouldn't have to point to a specific violation of a statute. What the gun lobby achieved with the Act is a special exemption for gun manufacturers and dealers from the normal rules of civil conduct that apply between other parties in our society. It didn't merely clarify that certain practices aren't negligent; that's fine, courts make the wrong calls sometimes. It put in place a general exemption.

This isn't about saying that a gun manufacturer or retailer should be automatically responsible for anything anyone ever does with their product. It is about saying that a gun manufacturer or retailer should have the same duty everyone else has not to subject other people to unreasonable risks.

[beevul]

112. It didn't happen in a vaccum.

Slapp/nuisance lawsuits by anti-gun clowns caused this, 100 percent.


Do you have a suggestion on how to fix it while still preventing slap/nuisance lawsuits?

"Imagine I do something that causes serious risks to people around me, and as a result, my neighbor gets seriously injured. For my neighbor to be able to win a lawsuit against me, she doesn't need to point to any particular statute specifically prohibiting my dangerous behavior. What she has to do (oversimplifying a bit) is show that I was negligent (I wasn't exercising reasonable care, I was endangering other people out of proportion to the social value of what I was doing) and that my negligence proximately caused her harm (her injury happened because of my dangerous conduct and it was foreseeable that something like her injury could happen because of my dangerous conduct)."

Show me one actual (unimagined) lawsuit against gun manufacturers that fits your above mold.

"If a gun retailer markets the product in a way that she knows or should know excessively facilitates purchase of guns by violent criminals, the gun retailer should be liable. You shouldn't have to point to a specific violation of a statute."

Government approved and mandated methods guidelines rules and laws are in place to prevent just such "purchase of guns by violent criminals". If a manufacturer adheres to those standards, which are law, I don't see a liability issue.

"What the gun lobby achieved with the Act is a special exemption for gun manufacturers and dealers from the normal rules of civil conduct that apply between other parties in our society."

The manufacturers do not sell to the general public. They sell to FFL holders. Federal law mandates such. If they've sold a legal weapon, to a legal retailer and followed all the laws in doing so, they have zero liability in my view.

Retailers, if they follow the law, have no liability in my view.

If someone passes the background check and then misuses the gun, is the government liable too in your view, since it was the governments background check that the individual passed


To me this is otherwise unnecessary nonsense, which became necessary because of another bunch of unnecessary nonsense.

[Unvanguard]

117. Any lawsuit alleging negligence fits that mold.

That's just what a negligence claim is. This law was not enacted in response to courts holding that gun manufacturers or retailers were strictly liable for gun deaths. That claim is a loser and it was long before the law. It was enacted in response to the prospect of courts holding manufacturers and retailers liable for negligent practices that let guns fall into the hands of criminals.

You don't handle frivolous claims of liability by abolishing liability, any more than you handle prosecutions of innocent people by abolishing the criminal code. And you definitely don't do so by enacting special protections for particular business interests. What you're doing is just repeating the mischaracterization advanced by supporters of laws like this, the idea that somehow these lawsuits are about making A responsible for what B does. No: they are about holding A accountable for what A does, including when A's actions negligently enable B. The message of the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" is that the firearms industry should have a special protection from accountability.

Federal regulation of gun sales is probably inadequate, but the government regulation is not the issue here. Just as I can be liable for harm to another person even if my behavior isn't criminal, so should gun manufacturers and retailers be held responsible for harms resulting from their negligence even if their behavior doesn't violate government regulations.

[beevul]

153. No. Just no.

What you're doing is just repeating the mischaracterization advanced by supporters of laws like this, the idea that somehow these lawsuits are about making A responsible for what B does.

Making A responsible for what B does, is EXACTLY what prompted this law.

Suit after suit doing exactly that. And it hasn't stopped.

10 familys trying to sue bushmaster over sandy hook, for example?

The recent case the brady bunch pushed in CO? Behold:

Senior U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch of the District of Colorado dismissed Sandy and Lonnie Phillips’ suit against four websites because Colorado and federal laws shield firearms and ammunition sellers from liability based on a customer’s wrongful acts. Phillips et al. v. Lucky Gunner LLC et al., No. 14–cv–02822, 2015 WL 1499382 (D. Colo. Mar. 27, 2015).

http://blog.thomsonreuters.com/index.php/parents-lost-daughter-mass-shooter-now-owe-220000-suppliers/

I guess Senior U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch of the District of Colorado "is just repeating the mischaracterization advanced by supporters of laws like this, the idea that somehow these lawsuits are about making A responsible for what B does", too, right?

Perhaps you can give me some examples of lawsuits that should not have been dismissed as such...I've yet to see a single one.

[Unvanguard]

172. Both of the lawsuits you mention follow the lines I described.

In both cases, the plaintiffs sought to hold gun sellers or manufacturers liable for their own practices insofar as those practices enabled violent gun deaths.

The phrasing of the article you quote isn't very helpful. Lots of times, some harm is caused by more than one person's wrongdoing. If I let a drunk person drive my car, and he gets into an accident, of course he (as the driver) caused the accident. But I am still responsible for it insofar as I negligently let him use my car, when I knew or should have known that, since he was drunk, he wouldn't be able to drive it safely. If the injured person sues me, it is true in a sense that I am being sued for someone else's "wrongful acts" (I'm not the one who got into the accident, and if there had been no accident there would be no harm and I wouldn't be liable). But it is more accurate to say that I am being sued for my own wrongful act: me negligently entrusting a drunk person with my car.

Likewise here. The argument of these lawsuits is not that gun manufacturers and dealers are automatically responsible for what their customers do. The argument is that gun manufacturers and dealers are liable when their own wrongdoing enabled violent criminals to get their hands on guns. That's not somehow an out-of-bounds argument to make in a lawsuit. Indeed, PLCAA preserves some of those claims. But it makes it much harder to win on this kind of argument.

I don't think any of these lawsuits should be dismissed under PLCAA. Some of them should probably be dismissed under other grounds. For example, I think the suit against Bushmaster, which effectively argues that sale of a particular product is automatically negligence, probably goes too far by stepping into the legislature's prerogative. But that's what we have courts for, to evaluate legal arguments in particular cases and see whether or not they are meritorious. It's not usually a good idea for legislatures to short-circuit this process for a whole industry. And it is even less of a good idea when it is not state legislatures doing it, but Congress. If one state wants to have more expansive liability principles than another state, why not let them?

[beevul]

174. You can characterize it any way you like, but I see through it. And I'm not alone.

Lets see what some of the others who oppose this law have to say about it:

It is outrageous that a product that exists for no purpose other than to kill has an exemption from state tort liability. Allowing tort liability would force gun manufacturers to pay some of the costs imposed by their products, increase the prices for assault weapons and maybe even cause some manufacturers to stop making them.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/19/why-isnt-the-media-discussing-the-unprecedented/191910

I don't support that.




Lets see what a more local gun control supporter has to say about it:

Repealing immunity should be a top priority

Then multiple states and cities can sue the gun industry into oblivion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022327471#post54

I don't support that.


The desired avenue expressed in both cases, needed to be closed. If you have any proposals which would keep that avenue closed, while fixing objectionable areas, I'm all ears.

[Unvanguard]

175. The way you keep that avenue closed is through the courts.

Those are the institutions we generally task with deciding whether or not particular lawsuits are meritorious. Much better than granting special exemptions to industries that happen to wield a lot of lobbying power.

[beevul]

176. Its not like its unprecedented.

I am pleased to sign into law S. 1458, the "General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994." It is before me today as a result of bipartisan support in the Congress, and the hard work of many who have labored long to achieve passage of such legislation. The result is legislation that accommodates the need to revitalize our general aviation industry, while preserving the legal rights of passengers and pilots. This limited measure is intended to give manufacturers of general aviation aircraft and related component parts some protection from lawsuits alleging defective design or manufacture after an aircraft has established a lengthy record of operational safety.

In 1978, U.S. general aviation manufacturers produced 18,000 of these aircraft for domestic use and for export around the world. Our manufacturers were the world leaders in the production of general aviation aircraft. By 1993, production had dwindled to only 555 aircraft. As a result, in the last decade over 100,000 wellpaying jobs were lost in general aviation manufacturing. An innovative and productive American industry has been pushed to the edge of extinction. This Act will allow manufacturers to supply new basic aircraft for flight training, business use, and recreational flying.

The Act establishes an 18-year statute of repose for general aviation aircraft and component parts beyond which the manufacturer will not be liable in lawsuits alleging defective manufacture or design. It is limited to aircraft having a seating capacity of fewer than 20 passengers, which are not engaged in scheduled passengercarrying operations.

In its report to me and to the Congress last August, the National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline Industry recommended the enactment of a statute of repose for general aviation aircraft. The report indicated that the enactment of such legislation would "help regenerate a once-healthy industry and help create thousands of jobs." I agree with this assessment; this is a job-creating and jobrestoring measure that will bring good jobs and economic growth back to this industry. It will also help U.S. companies restore our Nation to the status of the premier supplier of general aviation aircraft to the world, favorably affecting our balance of trade. Therefore, as I sign into law the "General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994," I am pleased to acknowledge the bipartisan work done by the Congress and by all the supporters of the general aviation industry.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

The White House, August 17, 1994

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=64825

[GGJohn]

128. That would fall under the dealer,

manufacturers don't sell directly to the public.

[ileus]

68. Because guns are mean and scary...

with their assault clipizines and pistol grips....only made for killing.

[AgingAmerican]

22. He gets an "F" rating from the NRA

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm

[still_one]

44. That shows just how radical the NRA has become. In fairness looking

Last edited Wed May 6, 2015, 03:02 PM - Edit history (1)

at Bernie on the issues that have you provided, I would say it should be a C

I also suspect the NRA is showing their right wing bias, and are not entirely focused on guns

[AgingAmerican]

51. They gave him an 'F'

...not a 'C'.

I think Bernie should have voted 'yes' on the law that would have allowed gun manufacturers to be sued. I believe they should have given him a D-.

[still_one]

78. I know they gave him an F, and looking at his voting record, I would have given him a C. I was

commenting that I think the NRAs voting system is so biased against progressives they would have given him an F even if he voted against every piece of gun legislation, which he didn't.

I hear though. You said a D-, so maybe we agree a little bit on the F grade.

Actually, I don't believe gun manufacturers should be sued on the basis of people buying their guns and hurting people with them. The fault is with the gun owner, the parents or guardians if a minor gets hold of the weapon.

Assuming the OP is correct, I don't understand why Bernie would have voted against the Brady Bill. That is only calling for background checks essentially, and why anyone no matter how hard core of a gun enthusiast a person is, I just don't understand why they would be against that

[beevul]

86. Manufacturers should be sued, because a third party end user misuses their product?

Manufacturers should be sued, because a third party end user misuses their product?

Asus and intel should be sued when an anonymous hacker hacks something using a PC with an asus motherboard and intel cpu?

Honda should be sued when someone goes too fast on a honda sport bike or in a Honda car and kills someone??

Alcohol and car manufactures should be sued when someone drives drunk and kill someone?

Bic and Exxon should be sued when someone commits arson with their products?


Or is it just the gun manufacturers that should be treated thusly legally, because gunz.

[jwirr]

25. He represents a rural state. They are hunters. And his state also has been in the gun manufacturing

business for most of the life of this country.

[fredamae]

26. What else was in the bill?

And has anyone actually contacted him for an explanation From Him?

And yes, I agree...regardless there will Never be 100% of the people in 100% Agreement with any politician on Any issue...ever.

I want to hear his reasoning. That's all.

[Koinos]

27. Bernie's positions on gun control concern me.

Vermont's Governor Shumlin has signed new gun restrictions into law:

http://jurist.org/paperchase/2015/05/vermont-governor-signs-new-gun-restrictions-into-law.php

Has Bernie commented on this?

[hootinholler]

31. Should you be able to sue Krylon

For graffiti made with their spray paint?

How is this different?

[Unvanguard]

39. On the right facts, sure.

If they sell in markets that they know predominantly attract people who will use it for graffiti. If they incorporate product features that are really useful for people who use spray paint with graffiti, but not particularly useful for others. If they don't take basic, low-cost preventive steps that would keep it out of the hands of graffiti users (this will come into play less in this context because graffiti is far less harmful than violent gun death).

[beevul]

88. Gun Manufacturers don't sell to the general public.

Gun Manufacturers don't sell to the general public.

They sell to FFL holders (people approved and licensed by government to sell to the general public, who are required by federal law to do background checks on every firearm sale) who then sell to the general public.


That kind of makes your scenario...impossible.

[NCTraveler]

52. Absolutely you should.

If a judge finds your case to have merit. Why in the world shouldn't you be able to? What other corporations would you like to have such special privileges? Stop protecting the NRA. They don't need you shielding them from justice. Neither does Krylon.

[beevul]

92. "What other corporations would you like to have such special privileges?"

Last edited Thu May 7, 2015, 06:15 AM - Edit history (1)

"What other corporations would you like to have such special privileges?"

I'd like to see them all protected from frivolous lawsuits, which are based on a third party misuse of an otherwise legal product. But then, I don't see such things as a "privelege", but rather as common sense protections.

But then, I'm not looking to see entities sued because of anti-gun ideology, either.

[Jester Messiah]

34. Reminder: Pro-gun democrats do exist.

Speaking only for myself, I think ceding all the armaments to one side of the political aisle is suicidal.

[derby378]

69. Yes, we do

And while there are many who would bully us into silence, we still remember what happened in 1994.

So we'll keep doing what we do best until they learn their lesson and make peace with Democratic gun owners.

[cherokeeprogressive]

42. "I'm only posting this because..."

[DCBob]

45. Wow. That's bizarre. I can't imagine a pro-gun manufacturer candidate winning the Dem nomination.

Bernie is toast once this becomes well known.

[GGJohn]

177. Bernie is toast when this becomes well known?

What do you say now? Seems my man Bernie is doing exceptionally well despite your prediction.

[AZ Progressive]

47. Gun control is something I don't agree with

And I'm sure that many Progressives and Democrats don't agree on all progressive/Democratic issues 100%

I've cringed when seeing how blue states and european countries quite practically discourage being able to defend oneself physically with banning as many weapons as possible (with many countries in europe even banning pepper spray). I don't believe in trusting that the police will protect you.

And this is an issue for women as well. You should have a right to feel safe. There's still no self defense weapon out there as practical as a gun. I certainly wish there was something better that was not lethal and as practical. Even pepper spray may not kick in immediately and doesn't work if people are on certain drugs.

When your living in a rural area, your vulnerable to people coming on your property, plus you may have a family to protect. What other weapon than a gun means serious business to an intruder?

Gun control should be left up to cities at the very least. Guns are a very different issue in the city vs in rural areas.

[Unvanguard]

50. The "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" isn't about gun control.

It's about shielding gun manufacturers and retailers from civil liability. It's an ugly marriage of the worst aspects of tort reform and the worst aspects of the gun lobby.

[GGJohn]

146. It's about shielding gun manufacturers and retailers from civil liability.

NO IT'S NOT!!!!!
You can still sue a firearm manufacturer for a defective product, you can't sue them because their legal product is used in a criminal or negligent way.
Jeez, please learn what the PLCAA is really about before posting such nonsense.

[MicaelS]

152. Don't try to engage in de facto bans of legal products through the courts.

And you won't get laws like PLCAA. It's that simple.

[Unvanguard]

173. Liability isn't a ban.

Even a strict rule that gun manufacturers must pay for all deaths caused by guns purchased at their stores wouldn't be a ban. And that is a far cry from what is at issue here.

[Autumn]

60. I may not agree with him on some of that but I agree with him on a whole lot more.

It's not disturbing to me at all.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. I don't like it but it's not a deal breaker like someone elses IWR vote.

[The Second Stone]

64. Neither Sanders not Clinton are perfect candidates

we get to choose one in the primaries (unless someone we like more joins) and then we can vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election or the Republican nominee or some third party nominee. What we have to remember is that the whole nation gets four years of the winner.

[DCBob]

65. This would be a good debate question.

Maybe 6 debates is enough after all.

[ileus]

66. Finally one area Bernie trumps Hillary on, I may have to reconsider my Hillary support.

[kentuck]

67. Maybe he will change his mind?

I never expected to agree with him on everything. This is not a deal breaker for me personally but may be for some?

[olddots]

71. I get it okay ?

no text .

[closeupready]

72. I love Bernie, and I have no problem with his record on gun legislation.

I share his apparent support for the Bill of Rights.

[kentuck]

75. The Democratic Party has a lot of gun-rights voters...

...and many "independents" are pro-gun rights, also. This may cause some Democrats to desert the Hillary campaign? It will not hurt Bernie. Ironically, it may make him stronger.

[former9thward]

76. In 1990 the NRA supported Sanders over an incumbent Republican.

Sanders won by 17 votes.

The Sun-Sentinel later described the match-up as “the one 1990 congressional race in which gun control appeared to be a decisive issue.”

“What the NRA was buying with their support for Bernie Sanders was a closed mind,” the defeated Republican Smith later told the Vermont Times. “What they want is people who won’t think carefully about a problem.”

“Bernie’s response,” a Sanders spokesman said in response to critics of his boss’ reluctance to support gun control, “is that he doesn’t just represent liberals and progressives. He was sent to Washington to represent all Vermonters.”


The NRA also supported Howard Dean in his runs for governor.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/01/bernie-sanders-second-amendment-socialist/

[aikoaiko]

77. This is what a liberal looks like on gun control. I know it hurts some folks' feelings to say so.

but its true.

The NRA penalized him greatly for voting for universal background check in 2012.

[Eleanors38]

85. The NRA would give me an "F", too!.

[aikoaiko]

90. Last I saw they marked him a D- for the 2012 election.

[workinclasszero]

87. Deal breaker for Bernie Sanders!

He also supported the most odious NRA–backed law in recent memory—one that may block Sandy Hook families from winning a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the gun used to massacre their children.


How...progressive...of you Bernie!

Gotta protect those poor gun manufacturers against the crazy parents who's kids died in a hail of fucking bullets from said manufacturers guns...eh Bernie!?

SMFH what a sad, sick joke!

[Autumn]

95. What about the children who died when the bombs fell on Iraq?

Those killed here by a lone gunman and those killed elsewhere by our bombs, all children's lives are precious. No politician is perfect.

[workinclasszero]

99. Speaking of kids

Ohio boy, 3, picks up unattended gun, fatally shoots toddler in face

A toddler was killed in Cleveland, Ohio, on Sunday afternoon when a 3-year-old boy accidentally shot him with a gun that had been left unattended in a home, police said.

At least one person was home at the time of the shooting, but Cleveland Police Chief Calvin Williams said investigators hadn't determined who owned the gun.

The toddler, who was 1 years old, was pronounced dead at the hospital after he was shot in the face, WEWS-TV reported.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/04/ohio_boy_3_picks_up_unattended.html

Hopefully Bernie is on the job protecting the poor gun manufacturer from a frivolous lawsuit from the toddlers parents!

[Autumn]

100. I think the ass who left the gun unattended is the one who should be sued, and charged

with neglect. I'm allergic to peanuts. Should I be allowed to sue any farmer who cultivates and grows them?

[jeff47]

142. Only 999,999 to go to match the IWR vote. (nt)

[GGJohn]

157. So the manufacturers should be sued because these idiot parents left their firearm

where the child could gain access?
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

[petronius]

91. IMO, he got it right on the PLCAA. Absent specific misconduct on their own part,

manufacturers (of anything) should not be held liable for the criminal misuse of an otherwise legal and non-defective product. Nuisance and harassment lawsuits should be prohibited as a general thing...

[beevul]

93. Spot on. N/T

[AtomicKitten]

97. Burn him!

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

102. You all realize if he becomes President and the majority of Americans come to their senses

and we are finally able to enforce the 2nd as written, i.e. remove every single gun to locked up militias, that he would support that.

Or if we come to our senses about background checks, etc

Which we already have, actually

[Cosmic Kitten]

105. In 1993, then-Rep. Sanders voted againstthe Brady Act... 1993...1993

1993 Bwahahahaha

Thanks for the "concern"

[imnew]

107. What's even WORSE IS HE voted for Bush's WAR's

Or maybe not

[beevul]

109. Said legislation is only reprehensible to a small group of people.

Said legislation is only reprehensible to a small group of people:


SubGroup A: People who want to sue gun manufacturers out of existence for the actions of third parties.

SubGroup B: Those that don't necessarily understand the issue but buy what group A is selling "because gunz!".


A very small group indeed.

[grntuscarora]

113. His record on this is a disappointment.

I got crickets chirping when I voiced concern over his gun control voting record in the Sanders group last week. It's an Achilles heel for him, I think. I don't live in bucolic VT, and gun violence is a reality in my state. A candidate who is willing to stand up to the NRA is important to me. But as others have said, all the politicians are afraid of the NRA. He is no worse than most others on this issue. I've just gotten used to him being so much better than all the others.

Reality check for me. He's not perfect.

[tritsofme]

125. Not a Sanders fan, but that bill seems reasonable.

It doesn't make sense that a manufacturer should be held liable for the actions of another individual who used their product illegally.

[seveneyes]

126. Here is how at least 66.6 percent hear it

[Rex]

140. LOL! I see people are finally freaking out about an Independent...unlike their uncle that pretends.

BAD enough the scary Socialist tag didn't scare off enough potential voters...oh well, HEY BERNIE...WELCOME TO HRC's ONGOING NIGHTMARE!

Hope he has a high constitution.

[Scootaloo]

141. Congratulations, it took almost a week to find something to criticize about bernie

best that they can come up with is this, though. Seems to bode well for the future of his cmpaign, ifyou ask me.

[TheKentuckian]

163. Disclaimer translation: "I'm only posting this because I'm pushing this bullshit as furiously and as

much as I can in social media whilst playing the lame who me angle".

[Travis_0004]

164. I think that law makes sense

You can't sue auto manufactures if a speeding car hits somebody, and you don't sue budweiser if somebody is drunk and hits somebody.

You can sue the bar if they served somebody who is excessivly drunk, you can sue a gun dealer if they illegally sold the gun, but otherwise, I don't see how the gun company or beer company should be held liable.

[Puzzledtraveller]

166. Doesn't pro 2A cross party lines?

As far as many Democrat voters not minding his position, in fact maybe even supporting them? Just asking, im not particularly fluent on the issue at large, and a non gun owner.

[djean111]

168. This is where that don't be a purist thing bites some people in the butt.

Hillary seems good with sending people with guns to other countries, by the way.

[Cha]

169. Good to know his record.. I don't have a candidate yet and I'm not a one issue voter.. I look at the

whole picture.

[LeftOfWest]

170. "I'm only posting because"

creepy.

CREEPY. CREEPY post.

[Puglover]

171. Weak sauce.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm

Huh. Look who voted yes. Please.

Disclaimer: I'm only posting this because it's a fact.