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.
Just to make sure I understand: so the idea is to hold out for something impossible instead of something possible?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
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.Robert Hairless said:Just to make sure I understand: so the idea is to hold out for something impossible instead of something possible?
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 partiesbumm 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
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).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.
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.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
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.
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 .lostone1413 said:S. 397 would promote "safe storage" designed to prevent unauthorized persons from obtaining a handgun.
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.lostone1413 said:Another provision of S. 397 would ban "armor piercing" ammunition.
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:Remember when the seat belt laws were passed? Back then you didn't have to use them you do now.
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.lostone1413 said:Armor piercing ammo. It gives them the right to define what armor piercing ammo is.
You evidently believe that compromise is failure and refusal to compromise is success.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