Explaining for the record why Bernie's vote for gun manufacturer immunity was so horrible.

[DanTex]

Last edited Thu Jul 16, 2015, 10:57 AM - Edit history (1)

Whether you are for Bernie or Hillary, or anyone else, no progressive should be in favor of the NRA's push to give gun manufacturer legal immunity.

The standard NRA argument goes something like this. The bill only gives immunity from lawsuits for criminal misuse. If some crazy guy runs over a bunch of kids in a Ford, should you be able to sue Ford?

This is looking for a "no", but actually the answer is "yes". You should, but you will lose, and will have to pay Ford's legal costs because this is obviously a frivolous lawsuit. Ford doesn't need any special immunity law to protect itself from this. That in itself should demonstrate that this is not at all what the law was about.

Even the silly Ford analogy can be made into a case that should be tried in court. For example, suppose:
1) The Ford had special spikes on it
2) Because of the spikes, an extra 30 kids died
3) The spikes have no use except for killing more kids
4) Ford internal research showed that the profit they were getting by offering the spikes came almost entirely from people who ran over kids
5) Being run over by spiked Fords was killing thousands of people every year
6) Ford worked with dealerships to market the spiked cars in areas where they knew a lot of kid-runner-overs would buy them
Kinda changes the picture, doesn't it?

Is this exactly what was going on with guns? No. But it's a hell of a lot closer than the first analogy. And you know what the right way to determine which of the two analogies is closer is? You bring all the evidence to a trial, and let the court decide. Exactly what the NRA wanted to avoid.

More evidence that the lawsuits weren't remotely "frivolous" is that they were succeeding. Near the end of the Clinton administration, Smith and Wesson settled a huge lawsuit and agreed to change its business practices and institute gun safety measures in order to reduce the incidence of their guns being used in crimes. The NRA did not like this one bit. So they made the immunity bill their top legislative priority.

It's disappointing that some (not all) of the Bernie supporters appear to have latched on the NRA talking points on this one. Obviously, the usual gun nuts will support anything that means more guns, but otherwise progressive people should not be swayed by NRA talking points on this horrible bill, even if someone like Bernie Sanders is repeating them.

[Thinkingabout]

1. We need Congressonal members to step up and enact sensible gun laws. We know NRA is working for the

manufacturers and their only outward movements is selling more guns scare tactics of "they gonna take your guns away". Polls show Americans wants some gun control.

[Evergreen Emerald]

2. Excellent Post

Everyone should read this.

[flamin lib]

3. Guns are also exempt from the Consumer Product Safety Act.

Unlike any other product available to the consumer the federal government cannot force a recall of guns.

Take the Glock for instance. It has no mechanical safety and the trigger pull (creep) is very short resulting in many accidental discharges and injuries. Any other product that produced this many injuries when used for its designed purpose would be recalled, not guns.

Gunz is sooooo special . . .

[-none]

4. Guns designed purpose is to produce those kind of injuries they cause.

That is why the Chinese invented guns in the first place and why are so useful in war. To maim and kill.

[Sancho]

5. I think this is a big issue that weakens Bernie as a candidate. Some links:

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/watch-bernie-sanders-clash-with-a-gun-control-activist-who-thinks-he-sounds-like-the-nra/

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2015/07/10/bernies-big-break-with-the-left-on-guns

Bernie's Big Break With the Left on Guns

Gun control is one issue where the Vermont senator is out of step with the progressive movement.

ARLINGTON, Va. -- As a lifelong Bernie Sanders fan, Honora Laszlo was hoping for the best when she came to a forum here Thursday night to challenge the Vermont senator and presidential candidate on his gun control position.

The avowed socialist Sanders voted in 2005 to prohibit lawsuits against gun manufacturers when crimes are committed with their weapons. In the wake of the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, he told a home-state media outlet that stronger gun control legislation wouldn't have prevented the shootings.

[READ: Sanders Trying to Make the Most of His Booming 2016 Crowds]

This bothered Laszlo, a member of the local chapter for Gun Sense In America, who agrees with Sanders on virtually every other issue. So she stood up to pointedly pin him down on the matter, seeking a conversion or at least a concession. Instead, she got a confrontation – which illuminated Sanders' weakest spot with liberals in his long-shot quest for the Democratic Party nomination.

Laszlo first wanted to know how Sanders could claim that further gun control measures wouldn't prevent future mass casualty tragedies. She then pressed for an explanation on his 2005 vote.

A defender of the Second Amendment from a rural state, Sanders explained he knows tens of thousands of his constituents who hunt and target practice safely and lawfully. He stressed he has voted for a ban on assault weapons, in favor of instant background checks and to close the gun-show loophole covering private sales.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html
Bernie Sanders, Gun Nut

He supported the most reprehensible pro-gun legislation in recent memory.

The consequences:

http://reverbpress.com/news/phillips-lucky-gunner-aurora-shooting/
Grieving Parents Forced To Pay Legal Fees To Gun Companies That Sold Arms To Aurora Shooter

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/01/bernie-sanders-second-amendment-socialist/

Bernie Sanders, Second Amendment Socialist?

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent who has announced he will run to the left of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries, was first elected to Congress with the help of the National Rifle Association.

In 1990, Sanders — then the mayor of Burlington — challenged Vermont Republican Rep. Peter Smith. It was a rematch of the 1988 congressional race, which Smith won. Despite previously promising to oppose gun control, Smith came out for a so-called assault weapons ban.

"What the NRA was buying with their support for Bernie Sanders was a closed mind,” the defeated Republican Smith later told the Vermont Times. “What they want is people who won’t think carefully about a problem.”

“Bernie’s response,” a Sanders spokesman said in response to critics of his boss’ reluctance to support gun control, “is that he doesn’t just represent liberals and progressives. He was sent to Washington to represent all Vermonters.”

The title of the Vermont Times article was “Who’s Afraid of the NRA? Vermont’s Congressmen, That’s Who.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/01/bernie-sanders-second-amendment-socialist/#ixzz3c673QCfm

Voted YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains.

Congressional Summary:AMENDMENT PURPOSE: To ensure that law abiding Amtrak passengers are allowed to securely transport firearms in their checked baggage.
On page 37, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following: "Allowing Amtrak Passengers to Securely Transport Firearms on Passenger Trains.--None of amounts made available in the reserve fund authorized under this section may be used to provide financial assistance for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) unless Amtrak passengers are allowed to securely transport firearms in their checked baggage.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. ROGER WICKER (R, MS). This amendment aims to ensure that gun owners and sportsmen are able to transport securely firearms aboard Amtrak trains in checked baggage, a practice that is done thousands of times a day at airports across the country. I emphasize that this amendment deals with checked, secured baggage only. It would return Amtrak to a pre-9/11 practice. It does not deal with carry-on baggage. Unlike the airline industry, Amtrak does not allow the transport of firearms in checked bags. This means that sportsmen who wish to use Amtrak trains for hunting trips cannot do so because they are not allowed to check safely a firearm.
Opponent's argument to vote No:Sen. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D, NJ): I object to this disruptive amendment offered by the Senator from Mississippi. He wants to enable the carrying of weapons, guns, in checked baggage. One doesn't have to be very much concerned about what we are doing when they look at the history of attacks on railroads in Spain and the UK and such places. This amendment has no place here interrupting the budgetary procedure. The pending amendment is not germane and, therefore, I raise a point of order that the amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Reference: Wicker Amendment; Bill S.Amdt.798 to S.Con.Res.13 ; vote number 2009-S145 on Apr 2, 2009
Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership.

Amendment SA 2774 to H.R. 2764, the Department of State's International Aid bill: To prohibit the use of funds by international organizations, agencies, and entities (including the United Nations) that require the registration of, or taxes guns owned by citizens of the United States.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. VITTER: This is a straight funding limitation amendment. Many folks who haven't followed the proceedings on this in the U.N. may ask: What is this all about? Unfortunately, it is about an effort in the United Nations to bring gun control to various countries through that international organization. Unfortunately, that has been an ongoing effort which poses a real threat, back to 1995. In 2001, the UN General Assembly adopted a program of action designed to infringe on second amendment rights. The Vitter amendment simply says we are not going to support any international organization that requires a registration of US citizens' guns or taxes US citizens' guns. If other folks in this Chamber think that is not happening, that it is never going to happen, my reply is simple and straightforward: Great, then this language has no effect. It is no harm to pass it as a failsafe. It has no impact. But, in fact, related efforts have been going on in the U.N. since at least 1995. I hope this can get very wide, bipartisan support, and I urge all my colleagues to support this very fundamental, straightforward amendment.
No opponents spoke against the bill.
Reference: Vitter Amendment to State Dept. Appropriations Bill; Bill S.Amdt. 2774 to H.R. 2764 ; vote number 2007-321 on Sep 6, 2007

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/19/why-isnt-the-media-discussing-the-unprecedented/191910
Why Isn't The Media Discussing The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/10/bernie-sanders-misleading-characterization-of-a-controversial-gun-law/
Bernie Sanders’s misleading characterization of a controversial gun law

http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/24/why-is-congress-protecting-the-gun-industry/
Why Is Congress Protecting the Gun Industry?
Gun manufacturers and dealers enjoy broad legal immunity, even though lawsuits against them would help improve safety

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/01/1183784/-2005-Law-Gives-Gun-Manufacturers-and-Dealers-Protection-From-Lawsuits-Not-Given-to-Other-Industries#
2005 Law Gives Gun Manufacturers and Dealers Protection From Lawsuits Not Given to Other Industries

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/politics/congress-passes-new-legal-shield-for-gun-industry.html?_r=0
Congress Passes New Legal Shield for Gun Industry