Newly revealed letter highlights Sanders' complicated history on gun control

[question everything]

At Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate, the audience booed Sen. Bernie Sanders after a rival noted his vote for a 2005 bill that shielded gun manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with weapons they made and sold. Sanders launched into a full-throated response to the attack, acknowledging he had cast a “bad vote,” but disputing the idea that he had been soft on gun issues and had opened the door for high-powered weapons to be used in mass shootings.

"Because of all these disgusting and horrific mass shootings, the American people now understand that we must be aggressive on gun safety, not be dictated to, by the NRA," Sanders said. "I am proud that I have a D-minus voting record from the NRA -- if elected president, it will get worse than that."

The issue has the potential to dog the Democratic front-runner, who has spent a career navigating a nuanced course on gun control measures popular with many primary voters, but less appealing to his constituents in rural Vermont.

In a 1991 letter he wrote to a gun shop owner in Burlington, obtained by ABC News and not previously reported, Sanders put his mixed feelings about gun control measures into words. Over the course of the letter, Sanders writes that he is against a “one-size-fits-all policy,” that he “opposed the ‘Brady Bill … [and] the seven-day waiting period.” He writes that he would “support an assault weapons ban” so long as it did not permit Treasury Department officials to add additional models of weapons to the ban and providing the ban expired in three years.

He concludes by writing that he would ultimately be voting against the ban -- because it was part of a larger crime bill, which had other provisions he did not like. The letter lays out an approach that has sent mixed signals to voters who are trying to evaluate his stance. While he has, as he said in the debate, amassed a record disliked by the National Rifle Association, he has not always voted in step with those advocating gun control, including the 2005 vote backing legislation that shielded gun manufacturers from lawsuits filed by victims of gun crime. And he has, over decades, remained largely silent about the presence just north of Burlington of one of the nation’s largest manufacturers of military-style assault rifles – which made the weapons used in two mass shootings last summer.


More..

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/newly-revealed-letter-highlights-sanders-complicated-history-gun-211500589.html

=====

This is why I asked, several weeks ago, how Beto's Texas view this approach

[Cha]

1. KR

[George II]

2. Always a caveat or disclaimer....

I wonder if those guns that were manufactured just north of Burlington are different from the guns in Los Angeles or Chicago?

[NurseJackie]

3. Disgusting. Infuriating. That's not leadership.

In a 1991 letter he wrote to a gun shop owner in Burlington, obtained by ABC News and not previously reported, Sanders put his mixed feelings about gun control measures into words. Over the course of the letter, Sanders writes that he is against a “one-size-fits-all policy,” that he “opposed the ‘Brady Bill … [and] the seven-day waiting period.” He writes that he would “support an assault weapons ban” so long as it did not permit Treasury Department officials to add additional models of weapons to the ban and providing the ban expired in three years.

I just don't have the words.

Actually, I truly DO have the words... I know what I'm thinking and what I'd like to say. But, for obvious reasons I'll just keep it to myself. (Those of you who know me and who know what I think of BS will have a pretty good idea of what's on my mind anyway.)

[Shermann]

4. I agree with his 2005 vote

I don't understand the rationale for repealing the PLCAA. These types of laws aren't in place to prevent a series of perfectly justifiable lawsuits with clear responsibility by the manufacturers. If their gun blows up in your hand, you can still sue.

Bernie is walking it back a bit, but is still vague.

Beto is a full blown gun-grabber.

[David__77]

5. I'm not an expert on it. I haven't seen any reason to repeal that immunity that makes sense to me.

If the gun wasn't properly manufactured, that's one thing. If on the other hand it properly manufactured and then sold to a retailer who in turn sold it, I don't know why the manufacturer should be liable for what happens after it's sold to the retailer so long as it's in accordance with applicable laws.

[Shermann]

6. Exactly

So the PLCAA establishes the strongest precedent possible for this narrow range of lawsuits to prevent repeated challenges again and again.

Opening this door is just a way to pressure the gun industry or perhaps to be used as a bargaining chip. But it's not a slam dunk no-brainer by any stretch.

[Blue_true]

11. Automobile manufacturers put components in their cars that aren't made by them.

But they are held liable for fixing damage caused by those components. Gun manufacturers can come out hard against modifications to their gun design, or installation of high capacity magazines, but they don't, unless there is a profit motive behind their positions. They market AR-15 guns as sporting hardware, when it is plain that many people that buy those guns aren't interested in the sporting angle.

Also, how can Bernie support a home state gun manufacturer that supplies jobs in his state, while Biden can't support banks that supply tens of thousands of jobs in his state, or Booker support drug companies that support hundreds of thousands jobs in his state? The double-standard used to deify Sanders while running others down is a bit sickening.

[David__77]

12. I probably disagree with both of them on this issue.

...

[Blue_true]

14. You probably disagree about what exactly?

Are you saying that Biden should not have worked to protect jobs in his state, or that Booker shouldn't have done the same? Yet you are ok with Bernie protecting a home state gun manufacturer? If so, you truly have a case of selective outrage, IMO.

[David__77]

15. If they favor repealing manufacturer immunity, then it's likely that I disagree with both of them.

"They" being Biden and Sanders.

[jmg257]

7. It's obvious - and the reason it was enacted in the 1st place...

To attempt to legislate through lawsuits instead of laws.

The big bad NRA apparently keeps any notable laws from getting passed, so sue the manufacturers for making legal products to bankrupt them or decide producing ARs isn’t worth it.

It was high on Bloomberg’s to do list.
Would likely work if companies had to defend themselves from all the potential lawsuits - justified or not.

[Shermann]

8. Joe will take down the PLCAA given the opportunity

And I don't buy the justification. He talks about uncles with hunting rifles on one end, and madmen with bazookas and machine guns on the other. It's always exaggerated that way.

I have today and tomorrow to decide if I'm going to jump ship over to Sanders. I don't believe the PLCAA is a priority for him.

[jmg257]

9. I have a feeling it won't matter who the candidate is...

Much of all their gun control policies are the same at the basic level. Democratic control and overturning PLCAA will be just 1 of numerous policy changes - bans and loophole laws, UBC, etc.

This ain’t 1994 though. Word will spread fast among gunners, so it’ll be an interesting struggle.

[highplainsdem]

10. The NRA helped Sanders get elected to Congress the first time, because his Republican oppnent

favored gun control:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287576715

And before that, throughout the 1970s, Sanders was a member of, and a gubernatorial and US Senate candidate for, a fringe radical group, the Liberty Union Party, that was opposed to all gun control.

[betsuni]

13. K&R