Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

petronius

(26,694 posts)
21. Jumbo jets (aircraft) are also exempt from the CPSA
Thu May 29, 2014, 02:44 PM
May 2014
but such term {consumer product} does not include—

(A) any article which is not customarily produced or distributed for sale to, or use or consumption by, or enjoyment of, a consumer,

(B) tobacco and tobacco products,

(C) motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment (as defined by section 30102 (a)(6) and (7) of title 49),

(D) pesticides (as defined by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act [7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.]),

(E) any article which, if sold by the manufacturer, producer, or importer, would be subject to the tax imposed by section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [26 U.S.C. 4181] (determined without regard to any exemptions from such tax provided by section 4182 or 4221, or any other provision of such Code), or any component of any such article,

(F) aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, or appliances (as defined in section 40102 (a) of title 49),

(G) boats which could be subjected to safety regulation under chapter 43 of title 46; vessels, and appurtenances to vessels (other than such boats), which could be subjected to safety regulation under title 52 of the Revised Statutes or other marine safety statutes administered by the department in which the Coast Guard is operating; and equipment (including associated equipment, as defined in section 2101 (1) of title 46) to the extent that a risk of injury associated with the use of such equipment on boats or vessels could be eliminated or reduced by actions taken under any statute referred to in this subparagraph,

(H) drugs, devices, or cosmetics (as such terms are defined in sections 201(g), (h), and (i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 321 (g), (h), and (i)]), or

(I) food. The term “food”, as used in this subparagraph means all “food”, as defined in section 201(f) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 321 (f)], including poultry and poultry products (as defined in sections 4(e) and (f) of the Poultry Products Inspection Act [21 U.S.C. 453 (e) and (f)]), meat, meat food products (as defined in section 1(j) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act [21 U.S.C. 601 (j)]), and eggs and egg products (as defined in section 4 of the Egg Products Inspection Act [21 U.S.C. 1033]).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2052

It's entry E up there that covers firearms.

It seems to me that the claim is disingenuous at best: firearms, and a bunch of other things, are excluded from the CPSA. That does not mean they are unregulated or not subject to safety standard, nor do the manufacturers have a blanket immunity from lawsuits...

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I knew that for years gejohnston May 2014 #1
Interesting article. blueridge3210 May 2014 #2
God, there are crap toasters. I'll stick with proof marks. Eleanors38 May 2014 #3
Which controller group opposed grandfathering "extended" magazines... Eleanors38 May 2014 #4
VPC I'm guessing. blueridge3210 May 2014 #5
Actually that statement is correct. While there many regulations effecting guns, flamin lib May 2014 #6
Actually, no the statement is not correct. blueridge3210 May 2014 #7
Actually, yes that is correct. flamin lib May 2014 #8
The amount of lead in a bullet nykym May 2014 #9
And this has exactly what to do with the exemption of gun makers from flamin lib May 2014 #10
they are not gejohnston May 2014 #13
This message was self-deleted by its author friendly_iconoclast May 2014 #11
not unture nykym May 2014 #14
"Gun makers cannot be sued for producing a defective, unsafe product." friendly_iconoclast May 2014 #17
Do the lawsuits mentioned in post #16 not exist in your universe? friendly_iconoclast May 2014 #18
Jumbo jets (aircraft) are also exempt from the CPSA petronius May 2014 #21
I stand by my original statement. blueridge3210 May 2014 #20
Not true- Remington has been sued many times over defective rifles friendly_iconoclast May 2014 #16
Yes I agree Remington has been sued nykym May 2014 #19
..thus demonstrating that flamin lib was wrong when they said: friendly_iconoclast May 2014 #22
if you read my post nykym May 2014 #24
You are correct, you and secmo are starting threads in the gungeon, Jenoch May 2014 #12
And I wear it with pride! nt flamin lib May 2014 #15
Maybe so. SecMo not so much. oneshooter May 2014 #23
I can't speak for SecMo but for me there are discussions I start but refuse to participate in. flamin lib May 2014 #25
"...endless red herrings, straw men and general nastiness." Lizzie Poppet May 2014 #26
That's rich. Straw Man May 2014 #27
It appears to be envy. blueridge3210 May 2014 #28
Why submit myself to abuse, name calling and any manner of logical fallacy... sarisataka May 2014 #31
We don't need more guns smart or otherwise. upaloopa May 2014 #29
I'm sorry, you are far too reasonable to post here . . . . nt flamin lib May 2014 #30
Nice words... sarisataka May 2014 #32
If gunners would show a willingness to upaloopa May 2014 #33
honest question gejohnston May 2014 #34
If persons on the pro-control side blueridge3210 May 2014 #35
The treatment of lumping all together upaloopa May 2014 #36
Good luck with that. blueridge3210 May 2014 #37
My observation is that people apply the 'lumping together' strategy when petronius May 2014 #43
What is this compromise? sarisataka May 2014 #38
Well you just pointed out the problem upaloopa May 2014 #39
Just occurred to you? Really? blueridge3210 May 2014 #40
Bingo sarisataka May 2014 #41
Well there has to be pain on both sides upaloopa May 2014 #42
Compromise is nobody is really happy sarisataka May 2014 #44
"No holds barred gun ownership". Jenoch May 2014 #45
Red states are making laws to remove power upaloopa May 2014 #46
I'm in a blue state and that is the law here. Jenoch May 2014 #47
Ok now I am feeling like I am talking to upaloopa May 2014 #48
How is it a talking point? blueridge3210 May 2014 #49
He made a ridiculous claim and could not back it up. Jenoch May 2014 #50
Look recognize you have an opinion based upaloopa May 2014 #51
Dude, it's a DISCUSSION board. blueridge3210 May 2014 #53
Stop trying to educate me ok? upaloopa May 2014 #54
I would beg to differ. blueridge3210 May 2014 #55
You are right, you don't need anymore education, you have your blinders on and don't need to see oneshooter May 2014 #56
amazing, asked a simple question Duckhunter935 May 2014 #52
Just curious... When, exactly, did the "right wing turn up the heat?" HALO141 May 2014 #57
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Some of the Gungeoneers w...»Reply #21