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.
It's not special protection, it's about equal protection.
This is nothing more than an attempt to make an entire industry vulnerable to unreasonable lawsuits through product liability laws. A back door effort to undermine the second amendment.
If a lawful product is to be treated fairly and complies with standard product liability laws, the question of gun manufacturer liability is a moot point.
Types of liability
#1 manufacturing defect,
#2 design defect,
#3 a failure to warn (also known as marketing defects).
As with any lawful product there is the risk of abuse, guns are no different and should be treated the same. To single out any lawful product particularly one mentioned in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights as a need, it only strengthens the need for the PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT. Allowing for lawsuits deliberately designed to put gun manufactures out of business, clearly is an "infringement" as defined in our second amendment and beyond that it is a threat to any legal product on the market. The meaning of "Infringed" at the time of the drafting of the Constitution is the same now, to defeat or frustrate, to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.
If the left were honest about this debate, they would propose a Constitutional amendment and do their dirty work legally, out in the open where everyone could see it. They are not honest and they know they will never get enough states to give up their right to arms and amend the Constitution to eliminate gun rights. Because of this all their efforts are put into destroying the Constitution by a thousand cuts through liberal activist judges and laws they can force through in emotional times.
PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT
(5) Businesses in the United States that are engaged in
interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design,
manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale to the
public of firearms or ammunition products that have been shipped
or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are not, and
should not, be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally
or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that
function as designed and intended.
(6) The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry
for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal
system, erodes public confidence in our Nation's laws, threatens
the diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty,
invites the disassembly and destabilization of other industries
and economic sectors lawfully competing in the free enterprise
system of the United States, and constitutes an unreasonable
burden on interstate and foreign commerce of the United States.
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/15C105.txt
On October 20, 2005, it was passed by the House of Representatives 283 in favor and 144 opposed, in roll call 534 with the support of almost all Republicans and more than 1/3 of the Democrats.
THE BEST GOVERNMENT NRA MONEY CAN BUY...
IT`S CALLED FREE SPEECH...FOR THE CORRUPT...
Doesn't this sound a little more sensible than trying to go after 310,000,000 guns.
three hundred and ten million.
#1 Create an easily accessible database of those diagnosed as mentally ill and possibly dangerous. Have this database be part of the NICS program (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) that is already in place.
#2 Focus on the broken family and the moral decay of inner cities, where by far most gun murders occur.
What if the president came out in a news conference and spoke about the importance of the family unit? What if he said it was important to get married and stay married? This will never happen, that would mean we have a leader that actually has a moral compass.
How about this approach:
No special protection or legislation for any business or industry......treat ALL equally. Is The Land of the Free just "free" for those who pay off Congress?
Dan D. is absolutely correct. This "controversy", generated largely by urban media such as The Washington Post and NPR, is a backhanded and dishonest attempt to make it more difficult for law abiding individuals to purchase and use a legally manufactured product. Certainly a manufacturer of any product should be responsible if they make a product that is defective. For example, a rifle would be defective if it exploded when fired, injuring the owner. However this is not what this campaign seeks to address. This campaign seeks to leave gun manufactures open to huge lawsuits even if the product functions exactly as designed. It would then drive them out of business or make their product so expensive that only the very rich would be able to afford a firearm.
It is precisely this type of anti gun campaign which allows the NRA to correctly claim that there are many whose goal is to outlaw guns and also correctly claim that each one of these campaigns are an attempt to lead us down a slippery slope to a gun ban.
Lets compare guns to another legal product that I personally enjoy using: bicycles.
By its very nature, a bicycle is dangerous even when used correctly. In fact about 700 people die each year and about 40,000 injuries occur every year while riding bicycles Certainly a bicycle manufacturer would be responsible if they make a defective product. However, what if every injury or death resulted in a lawsuit because a bike was not made "safer" by the manufactures? Certainly a bicycle could be made safer by enclosing it in a metal body and frame.
Bottom line is that those in favor of outlawing firearms are attempting to use deceit and trickery when they can not achieve a gun ban through changing the laws or amending the constitution.
Full Disclosure I am a hunter and target shooter but NOT an NRA member. I support limits on the size of clips and universal background checks as well as a more complete mental health database.
What is not said is at times intentional. It's true in the gun controversy. Weapons give power that is capable of killing other humans. The psychological effects on the vulnerable and especially on the ones that have their human rights denied by human control. Call it revenge. Call it the doublespeak of church institutions. Roadside bombs are weapons.
Denying resources necessary for life controls life, as guns do.
We adopted TORT reform here in Ohio,a few years ago.This limited payouts for medical malpractice at $250K. All it did was force the taxpayers to pick up the cost for the guilty. The GUN and "Fracking' business are the same. Damages the guilty create,are passed onto taxpayers.
HELLO "NANNY STATE".
The gun industry wants, and got, special protection under the law. They say that they should not be responsible for the end use of their product, even though those products put holes in tens of thousands of people a year.
Rep Isaa held multiple hearings on the Fast and Furious gun tracking program. The gist of these hearings was that Eric Holder was responsible for the end use of guns that were moved through the DoJ, even though no ballistics evidence supports their contention that a federal agent was killed by one of those guns. (putting aside for a moment that that agent was one of what was once called a "jack booted government thug" by the NRA VP)
The GOP cannot have it both ways.
Freedom rocks wrote: "The gist of these hearings was that Eric Holder was responsible for the end use of guns that were moved through the DoJ"
The "gist" was and is, is that the ATF deliberately allowed approximately 2000 guns to cross the boarder with no effort to track them. Guns that the ATF knew were purchased by straw purchasers for drug cartel members. The gun used to kill Brian Terry the boarder control agent that was most likely a F&F gun and it was recovered at the scene. More F&F gun were recovered at crime scenes in Mexico, last I heard at least 200 Mexicans have been killed with F&F guns.
It is illegal for our government to allow the illegal purchase of firearms, it is also illegal to let them cross the boarder without control. Eric Holder is the head of the DOJ and therefore the ATF, he has done nothing except stonewall every effort to investigate what happened and why.
"So, it appears to be undisputed that two Fast and Furious guns were present at Terry's killing".
And what of the ballistics testing?
The only information we found about ballistics testing and Terry's death was an FBI report completed shortly after the shooting. The report, dated Dec. 23, 2010, says that the bullet that killed Terry could have been fired from the kind of guns that were found at the scene but that "firearms examinations" could not determine if the bullet came from either of the found weapons.
Why do we continue to create a nation of unaccountable citizens. If I spell a word incorrectly, can I sue the pencil manufacture. what about the fork, knife and spoon manufactures....can I sue them if I become fat?
License shooters, not guns. 2 reasons:
1) the number of guns already out there.
2) why can't we treat guns like vehicles? We recognize the right to own and use cars, but since we know that cars can cause immense damage, we protect the public (each other) by expecting drivers to practice safe driving, prove (thru licensing process) that they have demonstrated ability to use vehicles safely and know laws/rules of the road. Then we protect the public by requiring that drivers carry liability insurance.
Firearms are not manufactured or marketed for crime use. It’s that simple and you can’t editorialize or politicize the fact to be false. It is popular culture’s manufacture of images and messages that have popularized the misuse of firearms. Follow the money, and you’ll discover who to blame for the misuse of firearms in our culture/society.
I just tuned in and do not know the name of the person who was just speaking. Cho was the gunman at Virginia Tech, not Columbine. Please announce this correction to the audiance.
Win/win answer
Guns don't kill people. Ammo does.
Give people thier right to own guns.
Control ammo.
Increase the cost of ammo 10 times, at least.
Increase the cost/value of guns/ weapons.
Gun owners should LIKE this win win answer.
thanks for listening.
I am sorry, but comparing buying a gun with buying a car is like comparing apples and oranges. Cars are bought to get people from point A to point B, a gun has only one purpose when bought, to kill something. Saying you cannot sue a car manufacture when someone is killed as a reason not to sue a gun manufacturer is a terrible comparison. at least come up with a argument that makes sense.
Your guest mentioned that guns are working the way they are supposed to work, using the analogy that we wouldn't sue the car manufacturer for a drunk driver. However, the guns are not working the way they are supposed to work. As an example, children are not supposed to be able to fire the guns at themselves. We need something like a car key to prevent this from happening. When cars were able to be shifted into drive or neutral without a key and they rolled over children, you bet we sued the car manufacturers. As a result, cars now can't be shifted without a key, preventing many accidents with children. Some of the biggest problems with guns are accidents, suggesting massive product failure and liability for the manufacturer.
"By its very nature, a bicycle is dangerous even when used correctly. In fact about 700 people die each year and about 40,000 injuries occur every year while riding bicycles Certainly a bicycle manufacturer would be responsible if they make a defective product. However, what if every injury or death resulted in a lawsuit because a bike was not made "safer" by the manufactures? Certainly a bicycle could be made safer by enclosing it in a metal body and frame."
This is a classic strawman argument - how many people are killed by those riding the bicycles, that would be the relevant comparison.
I agree with horwitz that if manufacturers and dealers allow criminals access to guns without doing any of the reasonable things that they could do easily, then they are contributing to the problem and should be liable. This does not impose a major restriction on the industry. It only places a reasonable restriction on them. It is the same standard that we apply to many industries such as the prescription drugs and car industries
The military keeps their weapons under lock and key and account for them on a regular basis. Why shouldn't civilians do the same?
Richard Feldman said that this law protected US manufacturers BUT most gun manufacturers are European, Sig Sauer, HK, Walther, Baretta. Most cops carry a Glock, not an American gun.
The NRA is a huge foreign lobbyist.
"a gun has only one purpose when bought, to kill something"
Not really, the mere presence of a gun can and does diffuse more violent situations than it causes. Cops receive more respect by the presence of a handgun strapped on their hip than they would otherwise, in fact that is the basis of all armed security, private or otherwise.
The intention is to impose a cost to gun deals and lobbyists when gun violence is committed so that they have a stake in improving safety. An obvious backdoor approach is to simply require owners of registered firearms (with the exception perhaps of legitimate hunting rifles) to carry liability insurance. Then require firearm manufacturers and lobbyists to offer that insurance.
This is the essential missing piece to the proposed Maryland bill which would treat operating a gun much as operating an automobile along with education, testing, licensing, and registration.
Dan, buyers in AZ can purchase as many guns as they wish, then sell them to whomever they wish. They may KNOW these guns are headed south, is there any law that would put these people in jail? Is it being enforced?
Thank you for confirming my point that no ballistic evidence supports the contention that a federal jack booted thug was killed by a FF gun.
Please tell us why a gun dealer that sells a gun that kills somebody should be held to a different standard than the AG that has only a tangential relationship to a FF gun that ends up in Mexico? This prgram was around long before Holder took office, should other AG's be held responsible?
"Right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment" !!! The 2nd Amendment also references "a well-regulated militia."
How 'bout everyone can own a assault rifle provided they're active-duty National Guard, ie "well-regulated militia."?
Just crazy. As a current gun owner, who used to be anti-gun, nothing convinced me more quickly I needed to own a gun than attending a gun show. I went first as a lark, but when I saw the folks who were buying guns, I quickly relaized there is no way the police can protect me or my family. At the last show I could purchase a Glock with three large capacity magazines without even going in the door of the show.
It's just nuts!
Steve
bernie mihm wrote:
"is a backhanded and dishonest attempt to make it more difficult for law abiding individuals to purchase and use a legally manufactured product"
This argument fascinates me. It is correct, that the manufacture of guns is legal and allowed under the United States Constitution as affirmed by the Supreme Court.
However, these same people who make this argument about guns are also putting heavy restrictions on another legal and allowable process under the United States Constitution as affirmed by the Supreme Court. The process is abortion and if one would check Roe v. Wade abortion it is a legal medical procedure. Last time I checked but there is a huge movement nationally to make it all but impossible to get one if you want to exercise your Constitutional rights
my understanding is that the second amendment has to do with maintaining a militia.
if that is true, wouldn't the requirement be for potential militiamen to have automatic rifles, if automatic rifles are the weapon of choice for military use?
and if that is the case, wouldn't automatic weapon(s) be OK, but other weapons (not compatible with use by a militia) be subject to legislation that would not be inconsistent with the second amendment?
and since military grade weapons would be for use in militia situations, could open carry in situations not connected with militia duty also be legislated without being inconsistent with the second amendment?
It is almost universally accepted that guns should be kept out of the hands of "fellons" without making the distinction between violent fellons and non-violent fellons. Here in Florida with a prison population of over 100,000 ALL fellons lose their civil rights including the right to vote and must petition the state to have those rights restored - yet in the last year only 94 have had their rights restored even though they have paid their debt to society. To use the word fellon in the current discussion without distinguishing between types of fellons is not responsible and leads to the kind of injustice we see here in Florida. Not all fellons are violent or ever will be.
It is almost universally accepted that guns should be kept out of the hands of "fellons" without making the distinction between violent fellons and non-violent fellons. Here in Florida with a prison population of over 100,000 ALL fellons lose their civil rights including the right to vote and must petition the state to have those rights restored - yet in the last year only 94 have had their rights restored even though they have paid their debt to society. To use the word fellon in the current discussion without distinguishing between types of fellons is not responsible and leads to the kind of injustice we see here in Florida. Not all fellons are violent or ever will be.