Sanders takes heat from gun control group ahead of debate

[riversedge]

Source: the Hill





By Tim Devaney - 10/13/15 11:07 AM EDT

A prominent gun control group is criticizing Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) ahead of the first Democratic presidential debate.

In contrast to Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, who has made gun control a top campaign issue, Sanders has a mixed record on guns that concerns many gun control advocates.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is pressing Sanders to take a stand for gun control during the debate on Tuesday evening. They’re asking Sanders to explain why he voted in favor of Republican legislation back in 2005 that protects the gun industry from lawsuits.

As a senator, Clinton voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and says she would push to repeal it as president. Another Democratic presidential candidate, Lincoln Chafee, also voted against the legislation when he was a Rhode Island senator.
..................

"Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Chafee voted against it in the Senate. Senator Sanders voted for it,” the group continued. "Please explain why each of you voted the way you did................

Read more: http://thehill.com/regulation/legislation/256756-sanders-under-fire-from-gun-control-group-ahead-of-debate

---

Tweet:
The Hill ?@thehill 8m8 minutes ago

Gun control group goes after Sanders ahead of #DemDebate: http://hill.cm/749pfz2

[mainstreetonce]

1. I hope they ask that

tonight

[Dawgs]

2. Have anything nice to say about your candidate?

Other than polls numbers?

[riversedge]

5. oh you don't like the poll numbers?? shucky darns.

[Dawgs]

9. I forget. You also like to act like a child.

My bad. I'll have conversations with adults for now on.

[riversedge]

14. good deal. bye

[Orrex]

15. Does "saying nice things about" someone win the election?

Is that how adults discuss political strategy--by "saying nice things" about their candidate?

DU's front page is routinely clogged with apparently great (but redundant) poll numbers for Sanders. Do you complain about these as well, or only when they favor the opposing candidate?

[irisblue]

22. alert results

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is a pointed personal attack having nothing to do with the topic of discussion.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Oct 13, 2015, 07:32 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Gooooo Dawgs, sic em, woof woof woof
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Looks like it was handled between the two of them within the thread. Nothin' to see here, move along...
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post that this one was replying to was also inappropriate and instigating.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

[PSPS]

3. Sanders can handle this. His response last weekend to the same question made perfect sense.

[Keep-Left]

4. Im sure he will flip flop soon

and follow Hillary's lead

[thesquanderer]

38. Hillary has flip-flopped on guns

so if BS did, yup, I guess he would be following her lead in flip flopping

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251671803

In all his years, I'm sure there must be some things he has changed position on. But face it, overall, he's much more consistent overall than HRC. Each candidate has strengths, but consistency is something that favors BS.

[lark]

6. Nobody's perfect

not even Bernie. I wish he were a bigger gun control advocate, and really hate that he voted to give the manufacturers a free pass. He, however, is REALLY good on income equality issues, Wall St., TPP, college costs, the environment, so I still intend to vote for him in the primary.

[appal_jack]

11. I actually wish he were more of a 2nd Amendment advocate.

But you & I share the enthusiasm for his strengths in the areas of "income equality issues, Wall St., TPP, college costs, the environment," and other issues that will have me giving him my vote as well.



-app

[lark]

12. Totally agree

Remove that wart, support sensible gun control and he'd be pretty near perfect.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

7. Why did he vote that way?

Because the gun manufacturers legally produce guns. After they legally leave their hands, their responsibility for the use of said weapons ends.

Because remember: People kill people - a gun is just a tool they use to effect death.

[SunSeeker]

20. No, a manufacturer of a legal product is still responsible for injuries caused by negligent design.

An AR-15 with a 100-round magazine is such a ridiculously inappropriate, unreasonable dangerous product for civilian use, that the manufacturer should be liable for injuries sustained when that piece of military equipment is sold over the internet to a civilian. But thanks to the PLCAA that Sanders voted with the GOP to pass, gun manufacturers are immune, unlike any other product manufacturer.

[branford]

23. You don't understand the actual legal issues concerning a negligent design claim,

and the manufacturer of a actual negligent 100 round magazine does not have immunity from suit under the PLCAA.

Also note that a 100 round magazine, and all magazines, are accessories, and the extremely large magazine are not something integral to a weapon nor generally provided by the manufacturer of the pertinent firearm.

[SunSeeker]

30. Yes I do understand the law.

The AR-15 is designed to be able to handle massively large magazines. That is a negligent design.

And is it really your position that an ammunition magazine is not a "qualified product" covered by PLCAA immunity? The statute defines qualified product as:

(4)Qualified product

The term “qualified product” means a firearm (as defined in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 921(a)(3) of title 18), including any antique firearm (as defined in section 921(a)(16) of such title), or ammunition (as defined in section 921(a)(17)(A) of such title), or a component part of a firearm or ammunition, that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7903

[beevul]

32. It was actually designed to accept the magazines sold by the manufacturer.

Those by other manufacturers are 'after the fact' designed.

Sorry but that does matter.

The AR-15 is designed to be able to handle massively large magazines. That is a negligent design.

That's simply your opinion , which you'd to see like legislated from the bench, hence the reason why the plcaa is necessary.

[branford]

39. beevul highlighted a key component of your misunderstanding.

May I inquire as to your legal qualifications since you're making particularly bold and conclusory statements of law?

Again, a manufacture has no immunity under the PLCAA if there was actually a defect in the product design. The PLCAA essentially provides firearm and accessory manufacturers a means to curtail frivolous, vexatious and expensive litigation by providing early motion practice and attorney fee shifting, with the remaining legal issues consistent with standard product liability law.

Deep pocket municipalities and sympathetic, yet legally meritless, victims of firearm violence were trying to bankrupt the firearm industry with legal fees and expenses from SLAAP lawsuits. Congress reacted. Gun control must now be effected only through the legislature or under standard product liability jurisprudence in court.

Further, what constitutes a design defect under the law is generally defined under the common law, with issues of fact determined by a jury. Citing the PLCAA doesn't address the issue.

Simply, you want to substitute your personal opinion about constitutes design defects outside of the relevant jurisprudence (i.e., guns=bad). This is an matter mostly outside the statutory language of the PLCAA, and obviously your attempt to circumvent much of the intent of the Second Amendment and related common law through the courts because the legislative route for gun control is effectively foreclosed for the foreseeable future.

When you have evidence that any particular 100 round magazine is dangerous to the user because it fails to function as intended, I will be happy to reexamine this issue.

For reference:
http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-a-design-defect/

[SunSeeker]

43. I responded to beevul, see post 42. I have no "misunderstanding."

I am not trying to force my "opinion." I think the jury should decide. The PLCAA takes these cases away from a jury.

Again, is it your position magazines are not covered by the PLCAA?

[branford]

49. Juries do not decide issues of law, only fact under relevant common law and statutory instructions.

If a plaintiff can provide sufficient evidence that the design of a particular firearm magazine is actually defective, then the pertinent manufacturer will not be immunized by the PLCAA.

However, as I indicated in my post and reference link, defective design is not necessarily the same as more "lethal," particularly when the relevant magazines pose no additional danger to the user, work as intended, and are employed in a constitutionally protected product whose very design is intended to be reliably lethal.

Simply, the ability to fire more bullets with no demonstrable danger to the user or failure in operation is not a design flaw, no matter how large your personal disgust at such an ability or product.

Juries should not be able to award damages because they just don't like or approve of a product. Your conception of design defect and product liability law would be the equivalent of finding a car manufacturer liable if a drunk driver killed someone with a perfectly functioning and legal sports car because a jury didn't like fast or environmentally unsound cars or a particular car manufacturer. Luckily, there are few lawsuits against automobile manufacturers in an attempt to bankrupt the industry because they produce some vehicles that many disapprove of for a variety of reasons, like SUV's and fast sport cars. However, if the environmental movement started suing car manufacturers to demand green vehicles because of legislative failure to pass stricter emissions rules, I would expect similar legislation from Congress as the PLCAA to protect the automobile industry.

Remember that the PLCAA was passes in response to SLAAP-type lawsuits with plaintiffs seeking to improperly obtain in court what virtually no legislature would outlaw, and the PLCAA never really changed long-standing products liability jurisprudence other than fee shifting to dissuade frivolous litigation.

[SunSeeker]

53. No, the issue of causation is a question of fact for the jury.

As is whether a design is defective or not. You and the gun industry want to substitute your judgment for a jury. That is what the PLCAA does. It declares the unhinged shooter the sole cause of injuries as a matter of law. That is despicable.

The lawsuits against the gun manufacturers were not SLAPP suits. If they were, they could have been easily dismissed under existing anti-SLAPP statutes. It just involves filing a simple motion with the court. There was no need for the PLCAA to stop SLAPP suits. We already had laws against SLAPP suits. PLCAA was passed to prevent the expected meritorious suits in the wake of the AWB expiring in 2004.

[branford]

56. Laws against SLAPP-type suits are inconsistent and not always available.

That's precisely why Congress passed it's own SLAAP-type lawsuit to protect the firearm industry.

Moreover. the legal theory advanced by the plaintiff of whether a product suffers from a defect in design is generally a matter of law, and not an issue for a jury. You also apparently don't understand the issue of causation generally, or are able to explain how large firearm magazines are actually the cause of injuries specifically. It is even my understanding that in those exceptionally rare shootings were a 100 round magazine or similar items items were used, they either jammed to the benefit of the victims or the first few shots alone resulted in the fatalities.

Your issue obviously is not really with 100 round magazines. It is apparent that you believe firearms are inherently dangerous and immoral, and therefore defective and should be banned, either by amending the constitution or through the courts. The court strategy was employed already resulting in many millions of dollars in litigation almost universally won on appeal by firearm manufacturers or through settlements that were still cheaper than the outrageous legal fees (and, of course, the related and recent Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions).

The gun control movement, often through municipalities using taxpayer dollars, abused the court system (and product liability jurisprudence) for political purposes. However, nothing is currently preventing these same parties from advancing "novel" legal theories in court, but they now risk having to pay legal fees if they don't prevail. Moral blackmail, emotional appeals to juries, and bankrupting legal fees are no longer a viable litigation strategy, and the inevitable appeals just raise the ultimate legal costs that would be borne by plaintiffs. The gun control movement may still commence cases and lodge appeals (and they occasionally do so, as they've tried a few times in Connecticut and Colorado), but trial and appeal courts have certainly not been receptive to these worn theories

Lastly, note that I'm actually a litigation attorney in NYC, and many of these matters are rudimentary. Either you're playing an armchair lawyer, or if you do practice law, I believe you're letting ideological blinders prevent an objective legal analysis.

[SunSeeker]

58. Please cite a jurisdiction that does not have adequate anti-SLAPP laws available to litigants. nt

[branford]

60. Wikipedia is your friend.

I didn't even have to bother with Westlaw or Lexis.

United States
Twenty-eight states, the District of Columbia, and Guam have enacted statutory protections against SLAPPs.[26][verification needed] These states are Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota,[27] Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas,[28][29] Utah, Vermont, and Washington. In Colorado and West Virginia, the courts have adopted protections against SLAPPs. These laws vary dramatically in scope and level of protection, and the remaining states lack specific protections.

There is no federal anti-SLAPP law. The extent to which state laws apply in federal courts is unclear, and the Circuit courts have reached different conclusions. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has allowed California litigants to use their state's special motion in federal district courts located in California, in cases where the court is hearing at least one California state law claim through the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction.[30] However, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has held that the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP law, as a mere matter of procedure, does not apply in federal courts.[31]

It has been argued that the lack of uniform protection against SLAPPs has encouraged forum shopping; proponents of federal legislation have argued that the uncertainty about one's level of protection has likely magnified the chilling effect of SLAPPs.[32]

In December 2009, Rep. Steve Cohen (D–Tennessee) introduced the Citizen Participation Act in the U.S. House.[33] This marks the first time the Congress has considered federal anti-SLAPP legislation, though the Congress enacted the SPEECH Act on the closely related issue of libel tourism.[34] Like many state anti-SLAPP laws, H.R. 4364 would allow the defendant of a SLAPP to have the suit quickly dismissed and to recover fees and costs.

[SunSeeker]

61. Then why didn't the NRA push for a federal anti-SLAPP law instead of the PLCAA?

[branford]

63. The NRA-ILA is a one issue lobbying organization.

Their interest is solely the Second Amendment, not general litigation reform. Not only would a federal anti-SLAPP law not apply to many state court issues due to federalism concerns as well as the lack of federal nexus or constitutional matters, widening the potential scope of an already controversial law would only garner more opposition. Limiting the PLCAA to the firearm industry was simply prudent politics.

If other interest groups believe they deserve specific SLAPP-type protections, they are welcome to seek legislative relief from Congress or state legislatures. Note that firearms are not the only product to receive specific protections. Certain vaccines and airline part manufacturers receive similar protections. Many states, such as Colorado, also have their own state-level equivalents of the PCLAA.

The discussions about the PLCAA and relevant product liability law unfortunately tend to be more about myth and television-level lawyering than actual fact and considered legal analysis.

[SunSeeker]

66. But the PLCAA is not an anti-SLAPP statute. It is an immunity statute.

Last edited Fri Oct 16, 2015, 05:55 AM - Edit history (1)

It the NRA really thought these victims' product liability lawsuits were meritless and nothing more than attempts to attack their 1st Am/free speech rights (which is what SLAPP suits are) then why not use the same language of anti-SLAPP statute? The basic way anti-SLAPP statutes provide relief is allowing the defendant to bring a motion to strike and if the plaintiff can't show the judge he can win on the merits, the case is dismissed.

Why does the PLCAA resort to the draconian immunity provision that so long as a criminal pulled the trigger, the gun company has immunity, no matter how much evidence the plaintiff has that the gun company shared in causation? Certainly there are such instances, for example a gun manufacturer knowingly selling to a gun store that is responsible for the majority of guns sold to criminals in the region, or selling 5000 bullets and a 100-round magazine to a civlian online. Why is there no provision for the plaintiff to show merit to the judge to prevent dismissal?

No other consumer product manufacturer receives this type of immunity. Vaccines and airline parts are not consumer products, nor are the provisions you refer to "similar" to the culpability absolving PLCAA.

[branford]

74. SLAAP references are generally just meant as laws to disincentivize frivolous lawsuits.

Don't get bogged down in comparing certain other anti-SLAPP litigation to the PLCAA due to titles and layman descriptions. There is no question that the PLCAA was intended to stop meritless lawsuits against the firearm industry both explicitly and implicitly intended to bankrupt the them as a means of gun control. Virtually all lawsuits were lost by the plaintiffs (usually on appeal) or settlements reached due to increasing large legal fees that outstripped any potential damages. As I additionally previously explained, nothing about the PLCAA actually prevents lawsuits for true design defects and related matters consistent with current product liability jurisprudence. Similarly, while you might not find the vaccine and airline parts immunity laws comparable, most other jurists disagree, and your attempt to differentiate them as not "consumer products" is not particularly persuasive as a legal matter (and vaccines are indeed consumer products, mostly intended for children).

You also oddly seem to demand that the gun right lobby should have requested a weaker law than the PLCAA, copied laws that might not have been applicable to their industry, and otherwise want to upend the entire nature of products liability jurisprudence. The NRA and other firearm rights and industry lobbying groups are not in the business of gun control, and opposition groups did in fact lobby against the bill and won some concessions. The existence of the PLCAA is a testament to the strength and pervasiveness of support for firearm rights in this country, and its passage due entirely to overreach by the gun control lobby and grandstanding mayors and governors.

To use the car analogy, you're basically claiming that cars are an inherently dangerous and polluting consumer product that manufacturers and dealers know will often be driven by drunk or impaired drivers or those with a suspended license. Therefore, all SUV's and sports cars are defectively designed and/or so unnecessarily hazardous to the health and safety of the public because they go fast or are not fuel efficient, and the manufacturers and dealers should then be liable. These suits do not happen because the public would not tolerate them and they would be inconsistent with product liability law. If environmental and safety groups attempted a similar strategy to gun control advocates pre-PLCAA, I would guarantee the passage of a PLCAA-equivalent law for the auto industry.

Simply, you're still making the same legally-defective arguments advanced by gun control plaintiffs before the passage of the PLCAA and doing a great job justifying its existence. What you desire may only be found in the legislative realm (with the need for a possible constitutional amendment). You may no longer use sympathetic plaintiffs and juries and outrageous legal expenses, together with a demonstrable lack of knowledge about the design and use of firearms and accessorizes, to achieve what you cannot do in various legislatures.

[SunSeeker]

76. If these lawsuits would win but for the PLCAA, then they are not frivolous SLAPP suits.

I think the question is best left to juries. That is our legal system. The PLCAA's imposition of the NRA's determination rather than a jury's, using draconian statutory fiat, flies in the face of all that.

[branford]

81. Let me state this yet again, you do not understand legal civil procedure or products liability law,

particularly the proper role of a jury, regardless of whether the matter concerns firearms, both pre and post-PLCAA. You also don't fully understand the PLCAA or much about the actual nature, function, use, design and history of most firearms and accessories.

It's because of the rampant abuses of our legal system by people who believe as you do that necessitated the passage of the PLCAA. Further, also as previously stated, nothing immunizes firearm manufacturers and vendors under the PLCAA for actual negligent design or function. You simply refuse to comprehend that your idea of what constitutes a defect or negligence is certainly not consistent with the principles and substance of American product liability jurisprudence, with emphasis on the issue of causation.

[SunSeeker]

83. Bringing meritorious product liability cases is not an "abuse" of our legal system.

Stopping such cases from being brought is the abuse. Until the PLCAA, those case could be brought and were meritorious. Enforcing the NRA's opinion is what flies in the face of American product liability jurisprudence.

[branford]

85. "Meritorious" is not defined by what you believe is right.

This discussion is pointless. You don't understand the procedural or substantive legal issues, and have no desire to learn.

I would simply suggest that you research the various firearm liability cases before the passage of the PLCAA. Focus specifically on what almost always happened on appeal after the jury sided with a sympathetic plaintiff and the court's reasoning as to why.

[SunSeeker]

87. I didn't say it was. Meritorious is what a jury determines, not the NRA.

I believe in the use of juries. So did our Founders. That is why it is the Constitution and is the bedrock of our legal system.

[branford]

89. Again, no. Just because a jury renders a verdict, does not make it sacrosanct or meritorious.

That is precisely why we have various courts of appeal, the forum where pre-PLCAA firearm lawsuits went to quietly die, at least those that weren't lost on a motion to dismiss or summary judgment, and therefore never went to a jury, or were otherwise settled to avoid legal expenses.

Your understanding of juries is demonstrably flawed even with respect to criminal matters, no less civil concerns.

[SunSeeker]

90. If all of these cases "died," the NRA would have had no need for PLCAA immunity. nt

[branford]

93. Read my post again.

The lawsuits were both intentionally and implicitly designed to bankrupt the firearms industry with legal fees, particularly appeals fighting outrageous and unjustified jury awards.

The primary purpose of the PLCAA that you don't seem to understand is that it not only provides a clearer path to dismiss meritless lawsuits, but it permits recovery of defendants' legal fees. This provision was so substantial that it even frightened the pre-PLCAA deep pocket, municipal plaintiffs who would have to justify millions of lost taxpayer dollars for their political stunts in the courtroom.

[SunSeeker]

99. The lawsuits were designed to recover damages.

The was no wave of gun company bankruptcies before the PLCAA.

[branford]

108. The was no wave of bankruptcies, but not for lack of trying.

That was precisely the type of harassment the PLCAA was designed to stop.

Most of the deep-pocket municipal plaintiffs, private groups, and individuals were quite open and proud of their intentions at the time. This was the period when gun control groups thought they might win the public debate concerning firearms (and before the rapid expansion of gun rights legislation across the country, and well in advance of Heller and McDonald), and no attempt was made to soften their language with euphemisms like "reasonable restrictions" or "gun safety," or even placating claims about how they still respected the American firearm hunting and sporting tradition. In fact, it was the political muscle behind acts like the passage of the PLCAA that amply demonstrated to many gun control advocates just how badly they misread the opinions of the public, elected officials, and many judges.

By your standards, they law wouldn't be valid until much of the firearm industry was out of business fighting appeal, even though they virtually always prevailed. As is always the case, it's best if a law tries to prevent a problem, rather than fix the aftermath.

All your arguments are but a small rehash of gun control's failed harassment litigation strategy of the late 1990's and early and mid 2000's. It's time to move on...

[SunSeeker]

109. The PLCAA is like voter ID laws, a solution in search of a problem. nt

[branford]

111. Read the Congressional testimony and the innumerable news articles

if you believe there wasn't a problem. Again, Google and Wikipedia will prove quite helpful.

Nevertheless, your allegation is unsurprising, particularly since you've proven that you have no functional or practical understanding of legal civil procedure or substantive product liability law, and still refuse to accept the ample history, political and legal, the preceded the passage of the PLCAA. To you, the situation was a "solution looking for a problem," because you believe the only problem was that you and your ilk couldn't convince the legislature or courts to implement gun control.

The litigation strategy was pure blackmail, and plaintiffs', including many elected officials, intent was as open and clear as it was absolute. The majority of Americans, acting through their elected representatives, stopped this strategy dead in its tracks.

For instance, just read the background section of the PLCAA's entry on Wikipedia:

After years of unsuccessful attempts to legislate gun control, proponents of gun control attempted to coerce gun manufacturers and dealers into voluntarily implementing some measures to avoid lawsuits that could put them out of business.[1]

In 1998, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley sued gun makers and dealers saying "We are going to hit them where it hurts, in the wallet". [2]

In 2000 Smith and Wesson, facing several state and federal lawsuits, signed an agreement brokered by President Bill Clinton, in which the company voluntarily agreed to implementing various measures in order to settle the suits.[3][4] The agreement required Smith and Wesson to only sell guns through dealers that complied with the restrictions on all guns sold regardless of manufacturer, thus potentially having a much wider potential impact than just Smith and Wesson.[5]

HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo was quoted as saying that gun manufacturers that did not comply would suffer "death by a thousand cuts", and Eliott Spitzer said that those who didn't cooperate would have bankruptcy lawyers "knocking at your door". [6]

In January of 2005, New York City passed a law allowing lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers that did not voluntarily implement certain gun control measures. [7]

[SunSeeker]

117. The "majority of Americans" did not stop such lawsuits in their tracks.

I doubt the majority of Americans even know what the PLCAA is. This was the NRA's baby. The NRA does not represent the majority of Americans.

Again, nothing you cite indicates a problem that needed a solution. These lawsuits were not bankrupting gun manufacturers. Requiring gun manufacturers like Smith and Wesson to only sell guns through dealers that complied with the restrictions on all guns would not and obviously did not bankrupt Smith and Wesson. It is something they should already be doing.

Nor is suing manufacturers to compensate victims of their defective products a "problem" that must be stopped.

[branford]

118. We live in a democratic republic.

The PLCAA was passed by both the House and Senate, and signed by the president. It, by definition, received majority approval, and is in fact the law of the land. Equally important, according to polls from Pew, Gallup and others, an ever increasing majority of Americans support gun rights and against restrictions represents, a number much higher than in the early and mid-2000's, all while gun rights have expanded nationwide, crime rates have been nearly halved over the last couple of decades, and the Supreme Court has since repeatedly affirmed our individual right to keep and bear arms.

Your denial about the intent and function of the lawsuits and ignorance of product liability law and civil procedure is becoming tiresome. You have yet to provide any basis to support your opinions or contradict the information I and other provided, no less your conclusory statements of law.

What you believe is inherently "defective" about 100-round magazines or firearms generally is simply not consistent with current and historic jurisprudence, no matter how this may offend your sensibilities. Further, there's no question that the lawsuits were intended to affect gun policy by implementing punitive damage awards and/or legal fees on the gun manufacturers unless they conceded on gun control legislation and other policy. Unfortunately for your side, rather than surrender, the firearm industry and gun rights groups went directly to their own sympathetic elected representatives, and quite publicly put an end to the attempted moral and financial blackmail. For every action, there will be a reaction.

Lastly, except for the now smaller and shrinking shrill chorus of ideologue gun control advocates and a demonstrable minority of elected representatives, including some obviously pandering politicians from our Party (including Bernie who voted for the PLCAA, unsurprising since he's from VERY gun-friendly, low crime Vermont), there's absolutely no real impetus to repeal the PLCAA nor any of its state analogs.

While you're tilting at the PLCAA windmill, support for gun control continues to erode and gun rights expands throughout much of the country.

[SunSeeker]

123. Our democratic republic often does not work the way it is supposed to.

The influence of special interests with lots of money often perverts the process. The passage of the PLCAA was one of those times.

[NickB79]

48. It was based on the M-16, which was designed for 20-rd magazines

You have it backwards; magazine manufacturers designed large magazines for the AR-15.

[SunSeeker]

54. I don't have it "backwards." The AR-15 was designed to take large magazines, as you note.

20 rounds is a large magazine. 100 is ridiculous. But since they have immunity for marketing such monstrosities thanks to the PLCAA, the greedy, morals-free companies do it.

[Travis_0004]

102. Every single gun ever made could take a large capacity magazine

I could probably design a 100 round magazine for any magazine fed gun ever made.

[SunSeeker]

104. All the more reason you should be held responsible for your product. nt

[Travis_0004]

105. By that logic, if I make a flame thrower, can we sue blue rhino for selling me a propane tank

Magazines are legal. We should not be suing manufactures of a legal product that is misused. I could argue that one doesn't need a car with 500 HP, but if somebody speeding gets in a wreck, we blame the driver, not chevy.

I can go out and buy 24 cans of beer tonight, and if I drink them all and cause problems, nobody blames budweiser, they would blame me.

[SunSeeker]

106. An otherwise safe propane tank is a reasonable with reasonable uses.

A civilian is no reasonable uses for a 100 round magazine. The product is marketed to appeal to unhinged individuals who want to commit mass murder.

[Travis_0004]

107. Then pass a law and make it illegal

99.99 % of hi cap magazines are not used illegally, so I would argue they are not marketed to unhinged mass killers.

[SunSeeker]

110. We have perfectly good product liability laws already on the books.

We just need to repeal the PLCAA.

[branford]

112. You need to speak with an actual litigation attorney (as you clearly do not trust me at all).

Pardon the yelling, but YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND LEGAL CIVIL PROCEDURE OR SUBSTANTIVE PRODUCT LIABILITY LAW. Watching television, surfing the internet, reading partisan gun control literature, reading DU, or just hating guns and gun owners, is not a substitute for real world legal training and experience.

The PLCAA, in practice, basically attaches a high financial cost to plaintiffs without viable defect and negligence theories and expedites early resolution of pertinent lawsuits. Nothing in the PLCAA provides immunity to actual, legitimate, and recognized product defect claims. You simply don't understand the nature of such claims (or causation, limitations of civil juries, etc.).

Since most of the pre-PLCAA cases were ultimately lost by plaintiffs on appeal, with the exponentially higher attendant legal costs, defendants were now incentivized to appeal, and plaintiffs strategy would not only not hurt the defendants' bottom line, but particularly with the many public plaintiffs, they would have the unenviable task of having to explain to voters how they lost so much money.

In any event, the PLCAA and its many state equivalents are in no danger of repeal any time soon, no matter the political pandering and misinformation spread by some of our Party's elected officials and candidates.

[SunSeeker]

115. The victims' lawsuits were actual, legitimate, recognized product liability claims.

That is why the gun industry sought the immunity provided by the PLCAA. If they were not "legitimate, recognized product liability claims," as you assert, then the gun manufacturers could have easily dispensed with such lawsuits at the pleading stage, via demurrer or motion to dismiss. That is what they are now doing by invoking the PLCAA.

[branford]

119. Just because you assert a claim, does not make it meritorious.

I cannot repeat this often enough. Just because a plaintiff files a lawsuit, even if they are very sympathetic victims of violence, does not entitle them to win before a jury, and our system has ample protections to prevent civil decisions contrary to law either at the trial level or appeal.

You also have little understanding of motions to dismiss (or summary judgment, or much else). The issue is that these motions are normally exceedingly difficult to win, and (often elected) trial judges in anti-gun jurisdictions with sympathetic plaintiffs usually let the matter go to the jury and pass the problem on to the courts of appeal. The problem is that litigation is very expensive, including lawyers fees, costs, posting large bonds for judgments, etc., to say nothing of the time and attention devoted to them. The PLCAA expedited and codified the procedure to dismiss these cases when they are without legal merit, and helped eliminate some of the judicial politics from the trial. Most importantly, and by far the larges disincentive to the gun control lobby, was the fee shifting provision. Now, if the defendants prevail, all the costs associated with the harassment of the litigation, including appeals, would be borne by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs could still bring recognized defect and other claims, but the political and financial advantage of the lawsuits was eviscerated.

[SunSeeker]

121. If motions to dismiss or demurrers in these cases are "exceedingly difficult to win"...

..then they are not frivolous cases and do state a recognized cause of action.

The PLCAA did not remove politics, it injected politics into the litigation but substituting the NRA's judgement for the jury's.

[Big_Mike]

69. Sunseeker, if you are going to state something as fact, your argument would be stronger

if your point was actually factual.

The concept for the precursor to the AR -15 was designed by Eugene Stoner. This weapon was not adopted by the Army. It was later re-worked as a lighter caliber weapon, enabling soldiers to carry more rounds for a given amount of weight. It was produced with a 20-round magazine, which was determined to be insufficient for combat conditions. A 30-round magazine was produced. However, the magazine retention system remained as designed for a 20-round weapon.

When heavier magazines are employed, springs used to retain the magazines are not strong enough to consistently retain magazine systems heavier than 30-rounds, pictures of Rambo wannabe's notwithstanding. The springs used in extended capacity magazines will seldom feed the ammo consistently. I believe that the shitbird (I refuse to name mass killing scum publicly; these diseased vermin desire fame and only merit disgust and disdain) who shot up Aurora dropped his weapon after failure to feed errors. The shit stain that shot up Virgina Tech used pistols with 10 round magazines. The gonorrhea dripping pile of crap that shot Gabby was physically taken down during a botched magazine change.

My point here is that the amount of ammunition in the magazine is not the limiting factor in these events. A mentally unstable person will kill with whatever weapon is at hand. The feces breath who killed at UCSB and its environs used a knife, a gun, and a car to inflict his damages.

So no, the weapon was not designed for extended capacity magazines. A 20- or 30-round magazine functions as designed, and is in no way negligent from that standpoint. In fact, if the magazine fell out using one of those magazines, then the magazine manufacturer and perhaps the weapon manufacture would be liable for an improperly working firearm.

[SunSeeker]

71. Selling 30 rounds magazines to civilians is ridiculous.

You may prefer to place all the blame on the mentally unhinged gunmen, but who else buys this shit? If you can't kill a deer with a 7 - round magazine, you are a danger to yourself and others.

But if you disagree with me, fine. My point is a jury should be allowed to decide if selling AR-15s and 100-round magazines is reasonable or negligent. That is the American way. The PLCAA steps in and takes that question away from a jury. The PLCAA denies compensation to the victims, no matter how culpable the gun seller was, so long as a third party pulled the trigger.

[branford]

75. That is most certainly not the "American Way."

All product liability lawsuits are most certainly not entitled to go to a jury, firearms or otherwise (pre- and post-PLCAA), when a jury does deliberate, they are restricted by the confines of the law through jury instructions, and under no circumstances is the standard "who else buys this shit." Similarly, courts are not a substitute for firearm regulation under the purview of the legislature.

You don't understand the intricacies of civil litigation procedure or substantive products liability law, and your revulsion to firearms and those who own them is so great that I doubt you've really been paying attention to some of the many explanations of what's wrong with your ideas or objections to the PLCAA, either in this thread or elsewhere.

[SunSeeker]

78. Oh please. I understand plenty. Juries are the trier of fact in product cases.

Causation is an issue of fact. The PLCAA made it one of statutory law, taking the issue away from juries and substituting the opinion of the NRA. That is un-American. In the words of one Bernie Sanders, that is rule by oligarchy.

[branford]

82. No, you don't understand civil procedure, the limitations on juries, and causation,

no less what happens on appeal.

You have often stated many legal opinions under the guise of fact.

I've been practicing civil litigator in NYC for a couple of decades. What exactly are your legal qualifications?

[SunSeeker]

116. Yes, I do understand the law. See post 114.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1236226

[TeddyR]

29. Whatever you think about an AR-15

It is a legal weapon. Legal. So why do you want to hold the manufacturer responsible for producing and selling a legal item? And you aren't even claiming the firearm malfunctioned, you just don't like how it works and want to hold the manufacturer responsible for producing a LEGAL item. For me, that's not how we work in America. Instead, we ask individuals to be responsible for their actions, and if they use a firearm to shoot someone then we should hold the individual that misused the firearm accountable. There isn't a single manufacturer in America that we would hold responsible for producing an item that didn't malfunction, so why do you want to hold gun manufacturers to a different standard?

[SunSeeker]

31. Cars are legal too. Yet car makers get sued all the time.

And not just when a car malfunctions, but when the design negligently failed to prevent foreseeable injuries in a collision--even when the driver caused the collision.

[beevul]

33. Show me a car maker getting sued for someone who misused the car to drive drunk.

You know, in one of those irresponsibly designed 600+ horsepower corvettes or mopars.

Finding an example shouldn't be too hard if you're right.

Admitting that your position is a double standard on the other hand, that may be more difficult.

[SunSeeker]

42. Cars are not designed to be driven drunk. ARs are designed for mass killing.

If a car has a design defect that causes injuries, it does not matter if the driver was drunk or fleeing from a bank robbery. The auto maker would still be liable. Buy if that auto maker was covered by the PLCAA, it would be off the hook. The PLCAA was written to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products, regardless if the negligent design or marketing of the product was the proximate cause of the injury. The PLCAA proclaims that the criminal was the legal proximate cause of the injury, taking that determination away from a jury.

There is really sneaky language gun lawyers threw into the PLCAA:

...where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7903

Of course, any time large numbers people are mowed down by an assault rifle it is a crime. So, the PLCAA essentially gives the gun industry immunity for manufacturing and marketing to civilians this heinous product.

[beevul]

45. Thats an opinion, and not one well grounded in reality.

ARs are designed for mass killing.

Thats an opinion, and not one well grounded in reality. The notion that ANY repeating civilian legal firearm is designed for mass killing is quite disconnected from reality.

...where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage;

I get it. You find these things objectionable because you blame the gun, you blame the dealer, you blame the manufacturer, you blame the distributor.

You'd certainly like to see them sued out of business because you don't like guns. Lose at the ballot box? No problem, get it legislated from the bench.


You are the reason the PLCAA is necessary.

[SunSeeker]

46. I see you resort to insults. Typical.

I assure you I am quite grounded in reality. It is people who think it is dandy to sell mass killing equipment to civilians over the Internet that are off their rocker.

[beevul]

47. No, its people who define 56 year old commonplace design rifles as "mass killing equipment"...

No, its people who define 56 year old commonplace design rifles as "mass killing equipment", that are off their rocker.

And they're the reason the PLCAA is necessary.

I see you resort to insults. Typical.

You're conflating "insults" with "embarrassing truths", though I understand why.

[SunSeeker]

52. Today's AR-15 with a 100-round magazine is mass killing equipment.

It was never "commonplace" in your grand pappy's time.

[beevul]

55. Thats your opinion.

Semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable mags are commonplace. They have been for many decades.

"100 round magazines" to my knowledge, are aftermarket.

[SunSeeker]

59. Do you think 100-round magazines should be sold to civilians? nt

[beevul]

62. Until and unless they've been prohibited via due process, yes. N/T

[SunSeeker]

64. Why? What legitimate use does a civilian have for a 100-round magazine? nt

[beevul]

65. That question is above your pay grade. N/T

[SunSeeker]

67. I'm not getting paid for this conversation, are you? nt

[beevul]

68. Thats why its above your pay grade.

Until such time that an agency is set up to determine whats legitimate for individuals to own, and determine whether someone does or does not need a given thing, AND you are the decision maker of this agency, then yes...

It is above your pay grade.

[SunSeeker]

70. I never said it was up for me to decide. I want a jury to decide.

In America, juries decide if a defendant's actions that result in injuries were reasonable.

The PLCAA takes the question away from the jury and imposes the NRA's determination.

But regardless, I was asking YOU what legitimate use a civilian would have for a 100 round magazine. Can you answer the question?

[beevul]

72. Its above MY paygrade.

But regardless, I was asking YOU what legitimate use a civilian would have for a 100 round magazine. Can you answer the question?

Asking that question is above your paygrade. Likewise, its not for me to say, decide, or explain. Answering that for someone else, is above MY paygrade.


Besides, what difference does it make?

[SunSeeker]

73. It matters what we think about selling 100-round mags online to civilians.

It is a matter of life and death for the victims.

[branford]

77. If you want to ban certain firearms or accessories,

you need to lobby the Congress and state legislatures (to the extent such restrictions are constitutional).

Moreover, a 100-round magazine ban seems to be a solution looking for a problem. Can you even identify how many people were killed or injured with or by them in the last few decades, and is the number statistically significant among the 300+ millions legally owned firearms in the USA?

If you cannot answer this question, or deflect by attempts at moral blackmail like "if it saves just one life" or "think of the children," you will have confirmed the suspicions of almost every gun rights advocate of their belief that such proposed restrictions have nothing really do to with safety, and are just a strategy for an incremental near to total ban on firearms. It's not like these types of discussions haven't been going on for decades.

Moreover, we do not ban products in our free country because some don't believe others "need" them, no less when such products are explicitly protected by the Constitution. I don't understand how a liberal could ever justify an argument which essentially justifies the belief that you may only possess or use what the government believes you need, and all else is banned. That is the definition of tyranny.

[SunSeeker]

80. Oh good God. So you think banning 100-round magazines is "the definition of tyranny."

Wow, just wow.

[branford]

84. No. I simply don't believe that any citizen is required to justify a "need" to the government

in order to possess or use a particular product, no less one protected by a constitutional amendment.

Luckily, centuries of jurisprudence and culture, as well as the beliefs of the Democratic Party, fully support my view.

Now, would you care to answer the pertinent inquires in the rest of my prior post about the purported "need" for a 100-round magazine ban other than your personal dislike of the product?

[SunSeeker]

86. If there is no need for such a dangerous product, why make it?

No one on this thread has identified a legitimate need for civilian to have such a thing. As far as anyone can identify, the only use for a 100 round magazine is to mow down lots and lots of people. That is just one more fact for a jury to consider in deciding whether a manufacturer was culpable to the victims in marketing such a monstrosity.

[derby378]

88. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

You know the rest.

I don't own a 100-round drum magazine for my rifle - I'm not even sure they exist. Any magazine that holds more than 40 rounds for my gun is quite rare and prohibitively expensive, so I make do with 30-round mags and am content. But that doesn't mean I'm holding it against anyone who has a 100-round drum for their AR-pattern rifle as long as they're legally able to own it and don't plan on doing anything stupid with it.

[SunSeeker]

92. I have no issue with a well regulated state militia having large magazines.

But selling them to unhinged civilians on the internet is another matter. The victims should be able to sue manufacturers for that sort of cravenness.

[branford]

95. There is no recognized tort of "cravenness." nt

[SunSeeker]

97. That sort of cravenness was culpable before the PLCAA. nt

[branford]

91. Here is a lesson is basic economics:

Manufacturers make a product because there is a demand. If there was no demand for 100-round magazines, they would not be produced.

Again, no one has to justify a "need" for a product under American law and jurisprudence. If you want to ban or restrict a product, lobby your state or local legislature or Congress. Moreover, a jury may not consider whether anyone "needs" a product in any consideration of product liability. Negligence and defects are totally separate matters from "needs" or "likes," and when a jury issues an award against a defendant simply because they don't like the product or defendant, it's generally reversed on appeal. This was precisely what happened with most firearm lawsuits before the PLCAA, with the remainder settled to avoid bankrupting legal fees regardless of the merit of the suit.

I don't know if you realize it, but people like you continually justify the necessity of the PLCAA.

[SunSeeker]

94. I am not disputing the economics of it, but whether that should come with legal responsibility.

People bought lawn darts too. And they got to sue when kids stabbed other kids with them. It is not a matter of "like." It is a matter of whether the product is unreasonably dangerous for the consumer market.

[branford]

96. Again, you simply don't understand procedural or substantive product liability law,

regardless of whether the matter involves firearms or not. There's nothing I can apparently do to educate you.

This entire discussion is futile.

The PLCAA and state equivalents exist, and there's absolutely no danger of their repeal. Gun control advocates' strategy of bankrupting the firearm industry with lawsuits ended conclusively in 2005. As always, if you wish to restrict firearms, to the extent your ideas pass constitutional muster, you must seek redress in the appropriate legislative body.

[SunSeeker]

98. I do understand. I just I disagree with you. nt

[branford]

113. I've provided the foundation for my opinion, so I'll ask again, what's yours?

Do you have extensive legal education and practice as a jurist, or maybe decades of studying the issues in a scholarly context?

I'm a practicing civil litigation attorney in NYC. I literally need to know these basic rules and law to pay my rent. I've also studied numerous criminal justice issues, including firearms, prior to my legal practice when I worked for the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, in Washington, D.C.

There's always some nuance in discussions about products liability or even the practical effects of the PLCAA, but you apparently do not even command the basics about causation and civil juries.

[SunSeeker]

114. Who you are is not a basis. The 2 bases you did provide were factually incorrect.

You claim the PLCAA is appropriate because:

1. The gun victims' suits are meritless, frivolous "SLAPP" suits that all "quietly died"; and

2. The gun victims' suits would/were bankrupting gun manufacturers.

Here's mine:

1. The suits do not come within the definition of what a SLAPP is, the suits have merit, that irresponsibly marketing an unreasonably dangerous product for which there is no legitimate need to civilian consumers is a design defect rendering the seller liable under product liability laws. The gun industry obviously agreed with me, which is why they pushed to immunize themselves from such actions.

2. The PLCAA was not passed because such actions were bankrupting gun manufacturers. There is no evidence of that. Rather, they did it because they could, thanks to the GOP and Bernie Sanders.

Simply arguing I do not understand the law is not only offensive and rude, it does nothing to dispute my argument, as any judge will tell you, counsel. Unlike you, I have confidence in my arguments and don't feel the need to brag about who I am. It should not matter anyway. This is an anonymous message board. We don't know who the posters really are. The arguments must rise and fall on their own merits. Your arguments lack merit.

[branford]

120. I'm not "bragging," but offering the basis for my opinion and conclusion.

The issues we are discussing I deal with every day, and they are quite rudimentary for any even remotely experienced litigator or scholar.

You have yet to explain what makes you authoritative in any way.

The use of the term "SLAPP" is a meaningless distraction, and simple a shorthand for frivolous lawsuits.

As I explained in other posts with citations, and readily admitted by the plaintiffs and certain elected officials, the lawsuits were intended to use financial blackmail, primarily legal fees and fighting damage awards on appeal, in order to force concessions from the firearm industry on gun control legislation and policy. The settlement alone totaled millions of dollars, and they resulted because litigation costs would be much higher even if defendants prevailed on appeal. This is a simple fact of litigation in the USA.

Rather than concede, and knowing their advantage with a majority of elected officials, they lobbied Congress and many states to expedite the dismissal process and shift the cost burden. Legitimate lawsuits under recognized jurisprudence could continue, but the courthouse doors were slammed shut for political purposes.

You can have any opinion you want concerning firearms and related accessories, and their inherent "defectiveness," but such opinion is not currently legal (or political) fact, these immunity laws do not appear to be in any danger of repeal for the foreseeable future, and your fighting gun control battles lost a decade ago is the reason for the sorry shape of the gun movement.

[SunSeeker]

122. Claiming you are a lawyer is not a basis for a conclusion.

Your posts demonstrates incredible arrogance. Your opinion is no better than anyone else's. I prefer to keep my anonymity. I wish to be judged by my posts, rather than who I am or my degrees or my title. You should address what I say instead of trying to insult me.

"SLAPP" is not "shorthand for frivolous lawsuits." You lied and said the victims' suits were SLAPP suits when in fact they were not. Nor were they frivolous. You have not provided any citations to case law finding these lawsuits frivolous.

Don't be so sure that the PLCAA is not in danger of repeal. Both Hillary Clinton and O'Malley seek to repeal the PLCAA, and even Sanders said he is open to revisiting it, as he said in the days leading up to the debate and at the Democratic debate itself.

[beevul]

100. I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion.

Every time so called extreme capacity mags are involved in a noteworthy event, they seems to jam.

See the giffords shooting and the CO theater shooting.

[SunSeeker]

103. They don't jam soon enough. nt

[thesquanderer]

37. Wouldn't the AR-15 be covered under assault weapon ban?

BS voted for assault weapon ban.

[SunSeeker]

40. The AWB expired in 2004. Yet Sanders voted for the PLCAA in 2005.

He knew the AWB had no chance of being resurrected any time soon. Yet he voted to take away the only other remedy available to victims of assault weapons against those who profit from selling assault weapons. It was despicable.

Sanders knows it was despicable. He essentially flip-flopped on the PLCAA last night at the debate, suggesting that we "take another look at that liability issue."

[Duckhunter935]

101. The Sandy Hook AR pattern rifle

Was fully AWB compliant. NY SAFE compliant AR pattern rifles are sold as long as they do not have a pistol grip. Functionally the same as all other AR rifles. The wonders of cosmetic feature bans.

[ncjustice80]

34. These weapons are made for the express purpose of murdering people.

The manufacturer should be held liable, as should anyone who purchases a gun that is later used in a crime or accident.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

36. No! If you want accoutability you have to look at the paid for congressmen.

It's really as simple as that.

[still_one]

8. I wonder if they will bring up his vote against the economic bailout which prevented a second great

depression?

[hollowdweller]

10. Dems are setting themselves up to lose with the gun control stuff

The issues that will get us the votes is the FDR populisim and economic fairness. Not the cultural stuff that LOSES us elections.

Trump is actually somewhat economic populist on some issues so the gun issue will shift some of the votes to him if the dems embrace it.

Personally I think we need to do something to stop mass shootings. However with the gun issue we are about the same point as gays in the military or gay marriage was when Clinton was elected. It has the potential to turn off potential voters on the economic fairness issue.

Now maybe for some dems gun control is more important than a 15 an hour min wage or saving social security. However at this point more voters feel they will be under paid and have no retirement than feel they will be the victim of a mass shooting.

[oberliner]

13. If Democrats don't stand up to the NRA, no one will

Gun control is not an issue to be shelved for political expedience.

A person of a conviction will stand by their convictions even when they are unpopular.

That's what makes a leader.

[hollowdweller]

16. You mean stand up to voters who don't agree with them on guns but might on other issues

I'm fine with us losing the White House because we go too strong on gun control and not strong enough on populisim. Course we will have Obamacare repealed, a few more conservative supreme court justices, maybe a new war or 2.

But hey that's the price of being on the right side?

[Rose Siding]

25. Large Majority Support Stronger Gun Safety Policies

http://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2015/large-majority-of-americans-includin-gun-owners-support-stronger-gun-safety-policies.html

Guns kill twice as many kids as cancer
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01/27/3206581/kids-gun-violence-killed-injuries/

I bet it's a winning argument.

[branford]

24. The NRA has about 5 million members out of 80-100+ millions legal firearm owners.

Feel free to "stand-up" to the NRA, but potentially alienating the other 95% of gun owners and their supporters, including many millions of Democrats who often reside in very competitive states and districts, and whose vote is often determined on this one issue, if a very risky political strategy.

How will all your (our) progressive convictions fare if Republicans win elections. Gun control would still fail, and the remainder of the liberal agenda would continued to stymied.

[oberliner]

27. Gun control does not alienate all gun owners

In fact, many of them support reasonable gun control laws.

[hack89]

41. You need to look at the details

yes, there is widespread support for UBCs. There is not widespread support for AWBs or registration.

More to the point, support for gun control is not evenly distributed. That is why it keeps dying in the Senate. There are enough low population but pro-gun states to ensure it will not pass.

[oberliner]

50. Fair enough

I definitely need to do more research on the matter.

[hack89]

51. The Senate is the key obstacle to more gun control

and why the issue is very much isolated from how much public support gun control has. The difference in population between NY and Wyoming is vast yet both states have two votes in the Senate. So it doesn't matter if the percentage of NY's population supporting gun control dwarfs the entire population of Wyoming - the Senators from Wyoming will vote their constituents desires.

[Fred Sanders]

18. If you think gun control is just "cultural stuff" that no Democrat should support then maybe you are

in the wrong Party? The "concern" is well known.

[pocoloco]

21. Oh Hell yeah, gotta disarm the victims!!

http://waltonso.org/public-information/press-releases/entry/defuniak-springs-man-arrested-for-brutally-attacking-elderly-man

[branford]

26. Read the Democratic Platform.

The gun rights supporters here are generally far closer to our Platform on firearm rights that many here, including yourself, who seek and support severe firearm restrictions and often even deny the RKBA is an individual constitutional right.

Maybe you too should consider whether you're in the right party...

Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

[beevul]

35. You, as an admitted gun banner, are miles farther away from the party platform...

You, as an admitted gun banner, are miles farther away from the party platform than Hollowdweller, and pretty much every pro-gun poster on DU.

You are in no position to be questioning whether they belong in the party, that's a fact.

[Android3.14]

19. True wisdom here

Gun control during an election is the fatal third rail. With Hillary, we all know she is making mouth noises when it comes to gun control, and this is all wink-and-nod bull shit that has been SOP for this unfortunate candidate.

With bernie, people are believing the things he says, and if he tries to tackle gun control he will fall flat. I would be unsurprised if this was also a strategy by the Clinton campaign to draw Sanders into stepping on the third rail.

[stone space]

28. Should Dems cave on gay marriage as well? (nt)

[Android3.14]

17. The author of The Hill article is a biased mole for the conservative evangelicals

Take anything from this guy's pen with a serious grain of salt.

[wordpix]

44. I was all for Bernie until this moment last night

Now I'm conflicted

[Reter]

57. Sanders gets a D-

Can a candidate with an F even win?

[AtomicKitten]

79. I think some here forget Howard Dean had an A rating from the NRA.