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
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: I think O'Malley and Hillary are just posturing after this recent gun tragedy. [View all]one_voice
(20,043 posts)128. Well...here's the thing...
End immunity for gun manufacturers. Every state holds manufacturers accountable for producing and selling products that cause harm. But in 2005, the Republican-controlled Congress protected gun makers and dealers from most liability when their firearms are used criminally: the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act effectively wiped out gun liability laws in all 50 states. OMalley will fight to overturn the Act, allowing states and cities to better protect their citizens from negligence, and giving victims of mass shootings the ability to hold irresponsible gun manufacturers and dealers accountable.
https://martinomalley.com/the-latest/preventing-and-reducing-gun-violence/
https://martinomalley.com/the-latest/preventing-and-reducing-gun-violence/
In 2005:
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - The Republican-controlled Congress delivered a long-sought victory to the gun industry on Thursday when the House voted to shield firearms manufacturers and dealers from liability lawsuits. The bill now goes to President Bush, who has promised to sign it.
The gun liability bill has for years been the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association, which has lobbied lawmakers intensely for it. Its final passage, by a vote of 283 to 144, with considerable Democratic support, reflected the changing politics of gun control, an issue many Democrats began shying away from after Al Gore, who promoted it, was defeated in the 2000 presidential race.
"It's a historic piece of legislation," said Wayne LaPierre, the association's chief executive, who said the bill was the most significant victory for the gun lobby since Congress rewrote the federal gun control law in 1986. "As of Oct. 20, the Second Amendment is probably in the best shape in this country that it's been in decades."
*snip*
But opponents called the bill shameful -- "bought and paid for by the N.R.A.," in the words of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts. Representative Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, whose constituents include victims of the 2002 sniper shootings in Washington and its suburbs, called the measure "a cruel hoax" on victims of gun violence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/politics/congress-passes-new-legal-shield-for-gun-industry.html
The gun liability bill has for years been the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association, which has lobbied lawmakers intensely for it. Its final passage, by a vote of 283 to 144, with considerable Democratic support, reflected the changing politics of gun control, an issue many Democrats began shying away from after Al Gore, who promoted it, was defeated in the 2000 presidential race.
"It's a historic piece of legislation," said Wayne LaPierre, the association's chief executive, who said the bill was the most significant victory for the gun lobby since Congress rewrote the federal gun control law in 1986. "As of Oct. 20, the Second Amendment is probably in the best shape in this country that it's been in decades."
*snip*
But opponents called the bill shameful -- "bought and paid for by the N.R.A.," in the words of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts. Representative Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, whose constituents include victims of the 2002 sniper shootings in Washington and its suburbs, called the measure "a cruel hoax" on victims of gun violence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/politics/congress-passes-new-legal-shield-for-gun-industry.html
So what he wants to is overturn an existing law...it's very specific.
Apparently the same thing Hillary wants to do. I'd have to dig to see if O'Malley was always in favor of this being repealed--that could take a minute. He did a lot for gun control as Gov...I'd have to search to see if he spoke to this specific issue.
The first debate is a week away, Bernie can call them out on it & all three of them can and should be grilled about specific of all their policies.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
142 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I think O'Malley and Hillary are just posturing after this recent gun tragedy. [View all]
retrowire
Oct 2015
OP
Whaddya mean bull? Of course it's an important issue and it is being addressed. n/t
retrowire
Oct 2015
#2
You said they are posturing. I say Hillary and Martin are standing on principle.
hrmjustin
Oct 2015
#10
go to the link and read what Ben Carson said. No bullet riddled body is reason
roguevalley
Oct 2015
#90
Oh. Okay ... I didn't know you were focusing on that piece of the legislation. ...
1StrongBlackMan
Oct 2015
#95
Sorry but i find it very difficult to believe. If Sanders was out front like this you and the
hrmjustin
Oct 2015
#55
It is his record. You guys have no problem criticizing positions Hillary took in the 90's
hrmjustin
Oct 2015
#80
Compromised. Good one. Do I even need to start posting HC gun statements?
DisgustipatedinCA
Oct 2015
#120
Amazing how many posters on this site have done a 180 on the gun issue because
hrmjustin
Oct 2015
#27
I am saying some posters who were here in during the Newtown Tragedy were very
hrmjustin
Oct 2015
#39
Guns are different. They are extremely dangerous devices which only function as weapons.
DCBob
Oct 2015
#65
When it's not used to score political points and misrepresent a candidate who is also....
Armstead
Oct 2015
#44
^^^^^^ Exactly, both are trying to score political points from the latest tragedy. n/t
slipslidingaway
Oct 2015
#61
Don't they already print warning labels saying not to point this gun at someones face?
retrowire
Oct 2015
#75
Because promises on the campaign stump, are forgotten after taking office, that's why.
99Forever
Oct 2015
#77
Background checks would definitely help. Assault weapon ban would cool down the gun market.
Hoyt
Oct 2015
#31
I don't care if you have a 6 shooter at home, but other than hunting (animals, not people)
Hoyt
Oct 2015
#104
Doesn't anyone care about the companies? Students and kids are getting killed, not gun companies.
FSogol
Oct 2015
#142