1911Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
4,821 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The Supreme Court has refused to block a lawsuit against a gun manufacturer, for criminal use of the weapons. Link

Supreme Court refuses to block lawsuit against gunmakers
03/10/2005 - 17:42:18

The US Supreme Court today refused to block a lawsuit against gun manufacturers accused of negligence for firearms violence in the US capital.

An appeals court had said that the city of Washington’s government and individual gun victims, including a man who was left a quadriplegic after being shot in 1997, could sue under a Washington law that says gun manufacturers can be held accountable for violence from assault weapons.

The high court had been asked over the summer to use the case to strike down the statute, which gunmakers said interfered with their right to sell lawful products.

The lawsuit could still be voided by a new federal law, however.

The Senate voted in July to shield firearms manufacturers, dealers and importers from lawsuits brought by victims of gun crimes.

Action is pending in the House of Representatives.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
I wonder if I can sue Visa for my crappy credit score? Seriously though, I think we should be able to sue people for starting B.S. frivilous lawsuits.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
I'm with GOA we need 800 passed with NO AMENDMENTS! I can't believe so many people tell you the amendments don't mean anything. If they didn't mean anything they wouldn't be in the bill. I thought the Republicans were on are side. With control of the senate and house no reason why we shouldn't have a clean bill. Oh well guess one way to look at it when it comes to gun control. If the Republican controled Senate didn't go along with the AWB if the first place we would never have had it. None of them are for the gun owners
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,037 Posts
lostone1413 said:
I'm with GOA we need 800 passed with NO AMENDMENTS! I can't believe so many people tell you the amendments don't mean anything. If they didn't mean anything they wouldn't be in the bill. I thought the Republicans were on are side. With control of the senate and house no reason why we shouldn't have a clean bill. Oh well guess one way to look at it when it comes to gun control. If the Republican controled Senate didn't go along with the AWB if the first place we would never have had it. None of them are for the gun owners
Just to make sure I understand: so the idea is to hold out for something impossible instead of something possible?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
785 Posts
Robert Hairless said:
Just to make sure I understand: so the idea is to hold out for something impossible instead of something possible?
My thoughts exactly. I know that at least some of the guys "holding out for a clean bill" are sincere, but we can't allow the gun grabbers to destroy the industry in America while we wait for something "perfect." The anti's have been very effective at nibbling away at our rights. Sure, we can work for a strong, clean, bill, but sometimes we have to accept the small victories and build on them. And the bill as it stands has no NEW bad amendments.
Marty
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,821 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I am also with you guys--I don't think we can count on H. 800 passing both houses of Congress as it is. We can get S. 397 through, and we would be foolish to sacrifice the opportunity to do so, in hopes of getting something better--especially when the amendments to it are so trivial.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
So I would guess what you are saying that we have a Republican House a Republican Senate and a Republican President and they aren't Pro Gun? Now your thinking i've said that all along. The goverment has to get a protection bill be it with or withour amendments. I say without amendments. Bet you can't guess the largest buyer of firearms in the country. The goverment needs the industry protected as much as the industry needs protection. The question is will they do it without sticking it to the gun owners. King George is no way a Consertative or a friend of the 2nd amendment. The Republicans are just as much an enemy of freedoms as the Democrats our. Hasn't anyone been watching what is going on in the country for the last 8 years? No i'm with the GOA on this.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
bumm said:
My thoughts exactly. I know that at least some of the guys "holding out for a clean bill" are sincere, but we can't allow the gun grabbers to destroy the industry in America while we wait for something "perfect." The anti's have been very effective at nibbling away at our rights. Sure, we can work for a strong, clean, bill, but sometimes we have to accept the small victories and build on them. And the bill as it stands has no NEW bad amendments.
Marty
You think the amendments don't nibble away at your rights???????? I know they don't mean anything like allot of gun owners want to believe. Maybe time just to vote 3rd party because their is no difference between the two major parties
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,821 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
lostone1413 said:
Bet you can't guess the largest buyer of firearms in the country. The goverment needs the industry protected as much as the industry needs protection. The question is will they do it without sticking it to the gun owners.
If the domestic firearms industry collapsed, the government wouldn't miss a beat--they'd just buy more Sigs, Glocks, Berettas, and H&K's (and whoever I'm forgetting).

The NRA isn't supporting this bill to protect the government's ability to buy weapons, and Feinstein, Kennedy and pals aren't whining about it out of a desire to see the government disarmed.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
785 Posts
lostone1413 said:
You think the amendments don't nibble away at your rights???????? I know they don't mean anything like allot of gun owners want to believe. Maybe time just to vote 3rd party because their is no difference between the two major parties
I'd vote libertarian, but I'd just be throwing away my vote. Sometimes we've gotta be cold-bloodedly realistic and take the best we can get.
Marty
 

· Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
To me this is how we got the anti gun laws we have today. The gun owners say don't take a mile from me i'll let you have just a 1/4 miles. Soon no gun rights left.When this is the best the Republicans can do for us when they control the whole game it really make any difference who gets in? Not to me anymore. Don't forget we never would have had an AWB if the Republican controled Senate didn't go along with it. I have never see so much done to destrory our freedoms as has been done since 911.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,037 Posts
lostone1413 said:
To me this is how we got the anti gun laws we have today. The gun owners say don't take a mile from me i'll let you have just a 1/4 miles. Soon no gun rights left.When this is the best the Republicans can do for us when they control the whole game it really make any difference who gets in? Not to me anymore. Don't forget we never would have had an AWB if the Republican controled Senate didn't go along with it. I have never see so much done to destrory our freedoms as has been done since 911.

Maybe the thing to do is to refuse to settle for any of the existing laws, turn in all the firearms we own, and tell the authorities that we don't want them back until we get everything we want.

Then what we can do is not help the Republicans in any way because they haven't given us everything all of us want. Let's vote for Hillary Clinton or some other Democrat as a way to protest the Republicans. Or maybe we just shouldn't vote at all: that's a good protest. Or we can vote for independent party candidates: they got 1% of the vote in the last national elections, and I bet that we could get about 1% of the vote in the next elections--or maybe we could work hard, instead of just griping that nobody is giving us what we want, and we might even double that percentage. After all, 2% of the vote isn't too bad. It's better to lose with 2% of the vote than with 1% of the vote, and it makes the point that nobody is going to get us to compromise.

So let's give up what's possible to get. Let's not settle for anything less than what's impossible to get, never will happen, ain't no way it's gonna be. Let's alienate the politicians who are willing to do something to help us, because what good are they if they don't give us everything we want? And after we have no friends at all we'll have exactly what some people seem compelled to make. Enemies.

I see your point that the Republicans have done nothing for us. What have they done except let the assault weapons ban die? And create a climate in which more states allow concealed carry? And engineer S 397 which protects the American gun industry, and says that the Second Amendment allows individuals the right to keep and bear arms, and says that the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right--as is the right to buy and own ammunition for those arms? And issued an Attorney General's finding that the Second Amendment makes the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right? And immediately cut off funding for gun "buybacks" in federally supported housing? We were much better off under Bill Clinton, right? And we'll be even better off under Hillary Clinton, right?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
Funny when the AWB went into affect seems them Republicans controled the Senate. You really think DC is responsible for the states getting CCW LOL What about he new AG coming out to renew the AWB now that is pro 2nd amendment. Might be good if gun owners grew some balls and said we compromise no more. Want to bet on that? Oh I see the Pro Gun Republicans have done Lets see they control everything Now the brady bill is a thing of the past oh I forgot the 68 gun law gone to. Say when the vote on the national reciprocity bill that was introduced what 2 years ago. Darn Democrats keep stopping them Pro 2nd amendment Republicans from giving us are rights back.Now I don't want to list how bad King George has walked over the Constitution. Maybe you don't believe in standing your ground but I was brought up that is the test on manhood
 

· Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
Protect Lawful Commerce in Arms
by Jennifer Freeman


When a pro-gun bill is introduced in the House or Senate, you would not expect it to contain anti-gun clauses. Right? And yet, that is exactly what appears to be happening with S.397, one of two Lawful Commerce in Arms proposals.

The original intent of S. 397 and H.R. 800 is to acknowledge that the Second Amendment is an individual right that shall not be infringed and to protect lawful firearm manufacturers, dealers, and importers from lawsuits resulting in the misuse of their product. Misuse of a firearm primarily includes pointing a loaded firearm at a person and pulling the trigger while not in a self defense situation. Most people would call that murder. But the anti-gun crowd has never sought to hold criminals accountable for their actions; they prefer to blame the inanimate firearm and its manufacturers. In their view, if guns did not exist "gun crimes" would not occur. Unfortunately this line of reasoning fails to take into account the overwhelming value of firearms in society and daily life.

In reality, if guns did not exist, law-abiding citizens, particuarly the elderly, handicapped, and women would be at an extreme disadvantage in the face of violence. "Gun crimes" would be a non-issue compared to the rampant bloodshed and mayhem that would ensue. And while anti-gunners want to demonize and bankrupt lawful firearm manufacturers and dealers via frivolous lawsuits, the police cannot be held liable if they fail to protect you. Politicians cannot be held liable for passing laws that may put your life in jeopardy. If it were not for the ownership of firearms by private citizens, the United States would never have existed but would have remained under tyrannical rule. Clearly, the liberation of citizens from tyranny and the ability to protect one's life in the face of grave danger demonstrates the value of the firearm. A value that is outweighed by its misuse in the face of an unarmed victim.

S. 397 and H.R. 800 were drafted to protect firearm manufacturers, importers, and dealers from such lawsuits. The two bills are not identical, however. S. 397, the bill that seems to be favored by the House and Senate, contains gun control measures whereas H.R. 800 does not. Unbelievable. Turn your head for one second and the guy (or girl) you voted into office tries to sneak your rights out from under you.

S. 397 would promote "safe storage" designed to prevent unauthorized persons from obtaining a handgun. The bill is not clear about what constitutes "safe storage". For example, is an unloaded, locked firearm really safe if a gang of thugs is coming in through the window? Is the firearm supposed to be safe from criminals or are law abiding citizens supposed to be able to defend themselves?

How do you prevent an unauthorized person from obtaining a handgun? First of all, if this person is unauthorized, they are already in violation of the law, right? Does this provision require biometric gun locks? We do not know as the proposal isn't clear and we have no idea how this could be interpreted in a court of anti-gun law.

Another provision of S. 397 would ban "armor piercing" ammunition. This could eliminate most hunting ammunition. Since the bill does not specify what constitutes "armor piercing", we have no idea what rounds of ammunition this includes. Anti-gunners know that most people are not likely to say that they support "armor piercing" ammunition, which is exactly why they will try to cast that net as wide as possible to include all the rounds they think they can get away with.

H.R. 800 does not contain any anti-gun clauses. And yet, your elected officials have decided to pursue S. 397 instead. What does that tell you about Washington? Your officials will seek to disarm you any way they can if they think they can get away with it. And remember, the Republicans are in control.

We kept them in check when gun-banners tried to make the ban on selected semi-automatic rifles permanent ("assault weapons" ban) and we can do it again with this bill. All you have to do is get mad and get active.

Contact the leader of the Second Amendment Caucus, Representative Marilyn Musgrave (CO) at 877-762-8762.

Locate your Senator and Congressman.

Read the text of the bills.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,821 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
lostone1413 said:
S. 397 would promote "safe storage" designed to prevent unauthorized persons from obtaining a handgun.
If mandating the inclusion of a lock with every handgun sale constitutes "promoting" safe storage, I guess the bill, as amended, would do that. What it definitely does not do is mandate the use of such a lock, or any other safe storage technology. So, in effect, the cheap, virtually worthless gun locks that are already part of nearly every new handgun purchase would now be legally required. Oh, the horror :rolleyes: .

lostone1413 said:
Another provision of S. 397 would ban "armor piercing" ammunition.
Not exactly. This ban has been in effect for almost 20 years, so the amended bill does exactly nothing to add to the list of banned ammunition.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
Remember when the seat belt laws were passed? Back then you didn't have to use them you do now.
Armor piercing ammo. It gives them the right to define what armor piercing ammo is.
I for one can't believe anyone would believe the amendments were added but they mean nothing. Why add them to start with then?
Gun Owners want to know why you have lost so many rights? Because you compromise on everything. Forget who it was but one of the founding fathers said If you compromise on what you believe in you have already lost the fight. Oh how true
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,821 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
lostone1413 said:
Remember when the seat belt laws were passed? Back then you didn't have to use them you do now.
I've seen that parallel, and find it wanting. A motor vehicle can be operated for the purpose it was intended, even while a seatbelt is used. In contrast, a gun lock prevents a gun from being used for its intended purpose, until it is removed. Therefore, mandating the use of a trigger lock would seem to be a somewhat more difficult step than mandating the use of seat belts.
lostone1413 said:
Armor piercing ammo. It gives them the right to define what armor piercing ammo is.
This bill would do nothing to authorize redefining what constitutes armor piercing ammunition. That definition is still solely based on the materials used in the construction of the bullets (and only applies to pistol ammunition). It directs the AG to conduct a study "to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible," and nothing else--I challenge you to find anything in the language of the bill or its amendments that provides for any change in the definition of armor piercing ammuntition.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,037 Posts
lostone1413 said:
Remember when the seat belt laws were passed? Back then you didn't have to use them you do now.
Armor piercing ammo. It gives them the right to define what armor piercing ammo is.
I for one can't believe anyone would believe the amendments were added but they mean nothing. Why add them to start with then?
Gun Owners want to know why you have lost so many rights? Because you compromise on everything. Forget who it was but one of the founding fathers said If you compromise on what you believe in you have already lost the fight. Oh how true
You evidently believe that compromise is failure and refusal to compromise is success.

That way of dealing with people works only if you don't want or need to have any dealings with them again. It's one good way to prosecute a war, for example, assuming that you are able to destroy every last one of your enemies. Daily life is more complex than war. You have to continue living among the people you might disagree with.

It's not socially acceptable to kill people who disagree with you, or even to take away their ability to vote. So while you just might be able to gain total victory on some issue now, if there are large numbers of people who don't agree with you, aren't convinced, or are resentful that total victory is guaranteed to be only temporary.

The composition of the Congress and all other elected offices always changes. A few years ago it tended towards the left. Today it tends towards the right. A few years from now it will turn towards the left again. How far left or right it turns always depends in part on the ability of the people who hold temporary power to persuade those who are temporarily less powerful.

Total victory relies on force and numbers, not on persuasion. So even if you win total victory in getting liberalized laws on gun issues now, you need to expect that total victory to be reversed within a few years if you alienate significant numbers of the people who oppose you now. That's not theory. It's reality.

Even now there's probably little chance of total victory on any substantial gun issue. But even if there were a chance it would be foolish to want a temporary victory that soon is reversed or destroyed through backlash by those who have lost the battle. It makes more sense to find a potentially lasting compromise that gives something to all parties.

Of course I am not talking about giving away anything truly meaningful. But in the case of S 397, for example, what's being relinquished in an attempted compromise is meaningful only to people who want total victory and are too inflexible to compromise. One issue is the prohibition against the use of armor piercing ammunition in handguns: the compromise involves accepting what exists today and has existed for about the last twenty years. Another issue involves increased penalties for the use of armor piercing ammunition in crimes: the compromise involves not committing crimes with armor piercing ammunition. The third issue involves a requirement for manufacturers to provide gun locks with all new guns sold: the compromise is that manufacturers do it anyway, the cost is minimal, there's no requirement to use the locks, and the law does not affect the many millions of used firearms. What we gain is protection of the American gun industry from extinction by suits designed to force manufacturers out of business, with the rising costs for legal defenses that they must pass along to us while they remain in business. We also gain a law that interprets the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms--and to buy ammunition for those arms--and that makes firearms and ammunition ownership civil rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

It's a great compromise from our point of view. We get more than we give, and what we get is much more valuable to us than anything we give. Of course that compromise won't satisfy people who think that all compromise is failure.

If you fear that any compromise will be a slippery slope that is going to result in total loss someday, the way to prevent that from happening is to become active within one of the two major parties. Political parties are composed of people. Become one of those people. Of course you can choose to reject both of the two major political parties and vote and work for some third party. But keep in mind that the independents totalled only 1% of the vote in the 2004 national elections. It's not even a good way to make a point. Nobody notices. And I'm not sure how much virtue there is in futile gestures. It strikes me as the adult equivalent of the child who throws a hissy fit and hides in his room when he doesn't get his way.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top