Controversy Over Legal Protections For Gun Companies
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-02-04/controversy-over-legal-protections-gun-companies
A 2005 law protects gun companies from liability suits, making it difficult for victims of gun violence to challenge the industry. Diane and her guests explore how gun makers got special protection, and new attempts to change the federal law.
Guests
Josh Horwitz
executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
Richard Feldman
president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association.
Peter Wallsten
national politics reporter at The Washington Post.
Andrew Arulanandam
director of public affairs at NRA.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
"ecgberht2 wrote:
Dan D.
"Spurwink Rod and Gun Club. I`m tired of doing your home work."
"Many gun and shooting clubs,,even target ranges require NRA memberships... What a racket..."
Dan, didn't you know? "One" constitutes "Many". He got this from the Huff post website. Spurwink Rod and Gun Club has about 300 members as of a year ago, does not have a website (except for FB), and is just one of thousands and thousands gun clubs and ranges in the country.
"By the way, the controversy at Spurwink about having to join the NRA to shoot is not new. It goes back at least a couple of years, but I can't find a SINGLE other club that requires NRA membership. The claim that "many gun and shooting clubs, even target ranges require NRA membership" is specious. In fact, public ranges MAY NOT exclude non-members by law.
February 4, 2013 - 1:47 pm"
Ahhhhh, more carefully researched and thought out Comments from two of Diane's favorite Listeners.
I'm offering a Tutorial on Google Searches for beginners. Wanna join??
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Interesting discussion, but the most important point did not get sufficiently clarified, namely, whether this law does in fact interfere with due process and discovery.
Also, I'm not sure whether this law offers "special protection" for gun makers. No matter how you feel about them, guns are a "special case" and they require "special" (i.e. specific) legislation. As was pointed out, gun makers don't get off the hook for manufacturing defects. One example was offered in which gun makers should be sued if guns aren't equipped with biometric safeties. This doesn't seem very sensible to me. If such safeties are not required by law, then the manufacturer is not liable. For those people who want to ban guns in the US, they're not going to accomplish their goal by trying to sue gun makers out of existence. We are still a nation of rule of law.