Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

elleng

(135,864 posts)
Mon Sep 14, 2015, 05:53 PM Sep 2015

Pushing Gun Plan, O’Malley Says ‘Draw Your Own Conclusions’ About Sanders’ Record.

Meeting with East Harlem gun control activists, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley—a dark horse candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination—debuted an aggressive plan to regulate firearms and invited voters to “draw their own conclusions” about rival Sen. Bernie Sanders’ history on the issue.

Mr. O’Malley started the press conference at the Boys & Girls Harbor Education Center by highlighting his own record of passing “comprehensive gun safety legislation” in his home state and rolling out his proposals for new federal rules that he claimed could cut the number of shooting deaths in half by 2025. His national package included universal background checks and fingerprint licensing for all firearms regardless of where they are purchased, a federal gun registry, tough new penalties for violators—and the repeal of the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which prevented people from suing gun makers or sellers when their weapons were used criminally.

The candidate ripped the law, which a Republic Congress passed and which Mr. Sanders—a self-identified independent socialist who caucuses with the Democrats—supported. Mr. O’Malley argued that it was a sell-out to the companies that make guns and lobbying groups like the National Rifle Association which advocate against regulation.

“It wasn’t until 2005 that Congress shielded gun manufacturers from the same sort of product liability responsibility that other products would have. There’s an ability and you can have standards and ways to make your product safer, in order to safeguard human life, you have a duty to do that. And so I believe this was nothing short of the NRA flexing its political muscle to shield the gun manufacturers,” Mr. O’Malley said when asked about the bill.

Asked about Mr. Sanders’ vote, Mr. O’Malley declined to comment.

“No, I’ll let you draw your own conclusions,” he said.

However, he did call upon every Democrat in the field to roll out their own gun control proposals, saying the issue was “past its time.”

“I have said this is strategical for my administration, and important to our nation, of cutting gun deaths in half within the next 10 years. And I hope I’m not the last candidate to present common-sense gun safety legislation in this race. I think people are longing for it,” he said. “So I hope the other candidates might also join me.”

Representing an overwhelmingly white rural state with a strong sportsman culture, Mr. Sanders has historically leaned somewhat to the right of many Democratic colleagues on gun issues even as he has tilted hard to the left on most other matters. Still, his past support for some gun control has earned him a “D-minus” grade from the National Rifle Association.

Nonetheless, some liberal critics have pointed up Mr. Sanders’ past positions on the issue as a sign he is out of touch with urban Democrats and their concerns.

Mr. O’Malley, the former mayor of Baltimore, highlighted that his state has both rural, urban and suburban areas and claimed his state’s regulations enjoyed support from all quarters.

http://observer.com/2015/09/pushing-gun-plan-omalley-says-draw-your-own-conclusions-about-sanders-record/

21 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Pushing Gun Plan, O’Malley Says ‘Draw Your Own Conclusions’ About Sanders’ Record. (Original Post) elleng Sep 2015 OP
Some issues to me will not resumt in my support for a candidate who votes with the NRA and Thinkingabout Sep 2015 #1
Another reason we need more debates. Koinos Sep 2015 #2
Did O'Malley really misrepresent the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act? TeddyR Sep 2015 #3
He did. Remington, for one, has been sued successfully for producing defective guns friendly_iconoclast Sep 2015 #5
Haven't looked into the particulars, elleng Sep 2015 #7
Candidates who try to mislead voters are viewed rather coldly this cycle. nt edgineered Sep 2015 #11
True that. elleng Sep 2015 #12
Making the observance that voters are viewing misleading statements edgineered Sep 2015 #14
No, ed, never thought of it! :laugh: elleng Sep 2015 #15
Reading your downthread post edgineered Sep 2015 #16
HA! elleng Sep 2015 #17
This message was self-deleted by its author pipoman Sep 2015 #21
Very good, Governor. Agnosticsherbet Sep 2015 #4
Boy, I can see "all Democrats" champing at the bit to roll out gun control proposals. Eleanors38 Sep 2015 #6
All Democrats sure as hell should. elleng Sep 2015 #8
Let 'em. Sanders won't lose votes with his stand. Eleanors38 Sep 2015 #9
So? elleng Sep 2015 #10
The Washington Post has an article about the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, elleng Sep 2015 #13
No, pipoman Sep 2015 #18
This is exactly why this law is in place... pipoman Sep 2015 #19
This message was self-deleted by its author pipoman Sep 2015 #20

Koinos

(2,798 posts)
2. Another reason we need more debates.
Mon Sep 14, 2015, 06:14 PM
Sep 2015

The other candidates need to pay attention to what O'Malley is saying about gun control and take some sort of stand beyond the vague and non-committal.

It isn't just the mainstream media that are ignoring O'Malley's major policy statements. The other candidates act as if these statements and even O'Malley himself don't exist.

Someone in the O'Malley camp needs to put all of his policies into a book or booklet form and distribute it widely. Something like the "Humanist Manifesto." Maybe it could be called the "O'Malley Manifesto."

Relying on electronic media just isn't going to be enough.

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
3. Did O'Malley really misrepresent the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act?
Mon Sep 14, 2015, 06:16 PM
Sep 2015

Or am I misreading your post? Because under that Act an individual cannot sue FNH when FNH's product is misused by a criminal, just like you can't sue Ford because a drunk killed someone while driving a Mustang. If FNH produces a defective product then of course you can still sue. Honesty in an argument is something we should all support. And I certainly don't support using lawsuits to force a company out of business because someone misused that company's legal product. UBCs and enforcing existing criminal laws -- I'm all for those. Not a fan of a federal gun registry since I don't see any positive impact. O'Malley should be careful about touting the impact of laws he enacted on Maryland -- I live in NoVa and follow the local news and the gun violence in Baltimore this year is going to far exceed that of past years. Which of course supports the notion that it is criminals/murderers, and not guns, that are the problem.

elleng

(135,864 posts)
7. Haven't looked into the particulars,
Mon Sep 14, 2015, 06:29 PM
Sep 2015

but I suspect the major issue in these cases revolves around the term 'misuse.'

edgineered

(2,101 posts)
14. Making the observance that voters are viewing misleading statements
Mon Sep 14, 2015, 08:30 PM
Sep 2015

by candidates does indicate that I've looked closely enough to have formed an opinion based on those observances, and it never occurred to me that a username like mine would lead others to read it as edsquire. (i don't think that part of your reply was meant for me, was it? )

elleng

(135,864 posts)
15. No, ed, never thought of it! :laugh:
Mon Sep 14, 2015, 08:39 PM
Sep 2015

I AM a lawyer!

See my post below, discussing the law in some detail. NOTHING at all misleading about Governor O'Malley's statement.

edgineered

(2,101 posts)
16. Reading your downthread post
Mon Sep 14, 2015, 08:56 PM
Sep 2015

lets me see it from a different view - a biometric device as a safeguard on a registered device would make sense. The water is starting to get deeper now and I forgot to bring a towel! gn

Response to elleng (Reply #15)

elleng

(135,864 posts)
13. The Washington Post has an article about the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,
Mon Sep 14, 2015, 08:17 PM
Sep 2015

a law which prohibits suits against gun dealers and manufacturers “for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products.” It applies not only to federal courts, but also actions at the state and local levels.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

According to The Washington Post, the law has been used to successfully block lawsuits by families of victims, including suits against gun manufacturers for the way in which the guns are designed. The law will make it difficult for the victims and families of Sandy Hook to make claims against the gun manufacturer. At least one mother of a victim is claiming that the manufacturer of the gun used to kill the victims of Sandy Hook should have installed a safety device, called a biometric lock, which could have prevented the gun from being used by Lanza, since that device would prevent a gun from being fired by anyone other than its licensed owner.

In a press release issued when President George W. Bush signed this law, the NRA indicated that the purpose of the law was ending politically motivated lawsuits designed to bankrupt law-abiding American firearm manufacturers and retailers.

http://www.nra.org/...
And in discussing their efforts to get this law passed, in that same press release the NRA indicated:

"What we witness today is the culmination of a seven-year effort that included a comprehensive legislative and election strategy," stated Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. "We worked hard to change the political landscape to pass this landmark legislation
http://www.nra.org/...
In discussing this law, The Washington Post noted that with this law, the gun industry has protections available to it that are not given to other industries.

The liability exemption sets firearms apart from nearly every other industry. . . . Legal scholars say the breadth of the protections granted to the gun industry is rare for consumer product manufacturers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Whether or not you believe in these types of lawsuits against products, it seems only fair that the gun dealers and gun manufacturers should be held to the same standards that apply to other industries. That they are not is an indication of the tremendous amount of power that the NRA has had in this country.

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

Posted to inform those without knowledge of the law.

from above: Governor O'Malley ripped the law, which a Republic Congress passed and which Mr. Sanders—a self-identified independent socialist who caucuses with the Democrats—supported. Mr. O’Malley argued that it was a sell-out to the companies that make guns and lobbying groups like the National Rifle Association which advocate against regulation.

“It wasn’t until 2005 that Congress shielded gun manufacturers from the same sort of product liability responsibility that other products would have. There’s an ability and you can have standards and ways to make your product safer, in order to safeguard human life, you have a duty to do that. And so I believe this was nothing short of the NRA flexing its political muscle to shield the gun manufacturers,” Mr. O’Malley said when asked about the bill.

 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
18. No,
Wed Sep 16, 2015, 01:28 AM
Sep 2015

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act doesn't make product manufacturers exempt from product liability for defective merchandise.

What product manufacturer of any product is liable for criminal misuse of the product they make?

 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
19. This is exactly why this law is in place...
Wed Sep 16, 2015, 08:37 AM
Sep 2015
At least one mother of a victim is claiming that the manufacturer of the gun used to kill the victims of Sandy Hook should have installed a safety device, called a biometric lock, which could have prevented the gun from being used by Lanza, since that device would prevent a gun from being fired by anyone other than its licensed owner. 

Just FYI....no gun maker sells guns with "biometric locks". Such a lawsuit is a complete waste of the court's time and is frivolous by definition. It is akin to suing a vehicle manufacturer for not installing a breathalyzer on a dwi car...and breathalyzers actually exist....

Are there actually any real liability claims denied because of this, or is it just another non issue to pretend about?

Response to pipoman (Reply #19)

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Martin O'Malley»Pushing Gun Plan, O’Malle...