It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Senate Votes to Protect Gun Makers From Lawsuits

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I understand the concern and frustration on such matters, however, I also believe that human beings need to take responsiblity for their own actions. To hold a maker of any product accountable for that products use and/or misuse is not logical. Producers of products have to be responsible when the products malfuction and that I would expect. But to blame a gun producer for someone picking up a gun and shooting another person is just not a reasonable policy. If countries were to adopt that postion on guns, it could be applied to just about everything we buy. Should McDonalds and Burger King be held accountable for the numbers of obese people in some countries? I agree that the accessibility to guns needs some type of control or monitoring but that really has nothing to do with the folks that produce the them. I do not see this a political issue by party, I see it as just common sense not to impose a policy that can do more harm than good to business practices.




posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Alright, let's chill and keep to the topic.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Alright, let's chill and keep to the topic.


Isn't the topic our response to whether gun producers should be accountable for how there weapons are used? If not, could you clarify the topic please.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Your attempt at justification is only serving to call both your motives and intelligence into question--in my mind. Drugs are illegal, guns are not. Taking drugs is illegal, using a gun is not. This discussion is ended.


I think if you thought out the analogy it would be quite on topic. Maybe he's trying to say that our definition of "right to bare arms" is as outdated as saying "coc aine's used for nose operations." Now getting into a 2nd amendment argument would be starting a tangent, but I think that's where the difference in opinion is.

I keep on thinking about the Supreme Court's ruling on Grokster; now computer technology companies are liable for damages their products cause. The only difference I see is that a key component in Grokster was the advertising of their software as an alternative to an already then illegal Napster. So the moral is, who cares what the product CAN do just make sure you advertise its legal function.


It isnt the gun manufacturers fault that their high quality, precision weapons somehow find their way into the hand of some crackhead who gets caught stealing a dvd player for his next narcotic fix and shoots the lady of the house.


Similarly, is it the fault of software manufactures that their high quality, precision code gets downloaded by millions to download files that should be duplicates of what they have (legal downloads), but in most cases are illegal files? Both the handgun and the software did it's job quite well in the scenerios, ONLY A WOMAN DIES IN ONE. And the software company is the one slapped with a lawsuit.

*shrug*



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by anniejhops

Originally posted by intrepid
Alright, let's chill and keep to the topic.


Isn't the topic our response to whether gun producers should be accountable for how there weapons are used? If not, could you clarify the topic please.


You are correct, I was refering to the child's play and drug talk on the previous page.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Sigung 86 says:


Interesting little known hook in there is that there is a litle part that makes it mandatory to have trigger locks on guns, so ...


Not really.

Section 5 (c) (1) says


IN GENERAL- Except as provided under paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun to any person other than any person licensed under this chapter, unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device (as defined in section 921(a)(34)) for that handgun.


In other words, when the manufacturer or dealer sells the user the gun it has to have a storage or safety device. There's nothing in the bill that says you have to use it.


CX

posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Just a thought whilst we are on the subject of guns over there in the US, could anyone here let me know roughly what the gun laws are in the US? Are there any? Not meaning to take the mick there but you can understand why i ask the question. Just wondered if there was any link or thread reference gun laws and what individuals were allowed to own. I know that they have changed dramatically over here in the UK, i think a lot of that had to do with the Dunblane shooting, i may be wrong there though?

I just know that a while back i tried phoning around to see what my options were as far as joining a gun club......and all i was offered was airsoft clubs! I can see the reasoning behind it as there are a few too many nutjobs out there, but for peple like me who have spent many a year in competitions and general shooting as a hobby, it was a touch frustrating to say the least.

Thanks,

CX.


cjf

posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   
From the posters original article:


“But Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and other opponents said the gun industry needs no such special protection…”


As in Oldsmobile needed no protection from liability after Chappaquiddick, spot on!

From the posters original article:


“Its opponents, however, say the bill effectively exempts gun manufacturers from liability. They also say dealers sometimes let weapons get into the hands of people the law says shouldn't have them”


This in an enforcement issue, already on the books.

From the posters original article:


"Should those whose actions lead to the death or injury of a child get a free pass?" asked Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., who sponsored one amendment


No, again an enforcement issue already on the books (an a poor jab) under a separate set of penal codes and the 'individual' is entitled to a trial to explain their actions.


.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Common sense in the Senate?

I have to go sit down now. I agree with the above poster if you can sue the Gun Makers if someone uses a gun in a crime you should be able to sue the silverware makers if you get fat.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   
1. I had this on c-span live the other day. No complaints.

2. As I understand it, this would have made gun dealers/manufacturers responsible for crimes committed with their guns. Those politicians I heard for holding sellers/manufacturers accountable kept harping about the DC sniper and the point of sale for those weapons.

The politicians were of the mind that this dealer had been breaking the law until the horrible happened. So, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, if the point of purchase was consistantly breaking a law, then why not just get them on that? Another law because the others aren't apparently being enforced. AND in DC no less? (no surprise there.) What would this encourage beside causing the seller to become an arbitraitor of constitutional rights?

3. Lawsuits can still be brought against negligent points of purchase.

4. The problem with the mcdonald's analogy or smoking, is that the product is inherently bad for us. The commercials show happy thin people eating fries and trans fat products. There is obvious manipulation and deceit involved. (No, hanging a tiny print pamphlet with nutritional information viewable on the WAY OUT of the place doesn't erase any of it.) Older people have a better shot of suing tobacco companies, I think, because when they were young, there weren't any warning labes, etc. There was intent and action to hide that fact back in the day.

I know that the tobacco companies pay for the anti-smoking ads due to a lawsuit or legislation. But it works to their advantage none-the-less. It makes it harder to sue them because it is harder for someone to prove that they "didn't know" smoking is bad for them.

5. Is it just me (I doubt it) who thinks it's weird that liberals seem to favor more gun legislation or even pointless "eradication"? This seems to work for the conservatives benefit.

A position on a direct amendment issue is pretty damn important and can send people running in the opposite direction. In this case, into the arms of the middle-right. Don't believe the hype, only a small amount of gun owners sleep with their first cousins and have subscriptions to Overweight Mommas With Tommy-Guns. E.G., if you don't find anything scary about the Daily Show's agenda, congratulations...you've been mind-controlled.

Not only that (from a left-to-middle-right perspective), illegal guns will never be eliminated. And to do so would require more police-state protection of regular citizens since illegal guns would remain where they are now. Do we really need more government firepower on our streets? Because to me it seems the only ways government can come up with to protect us also require us to prove ourselves INNOCENT more and more. Are we becomming more and more conscious of our appearances and body language in airports? I think that is scary. They are supposed to prove us GUILTY right? So why all the fingerprinting and such...?

And don't think the conservatives don't send people running to the left-middle with all the vague and dark details of the "Patriot (?) act".

I think a lot of this leaves many heads spinning in the middle.

I can respect both sides of this issue in regard to the legislation. Some don't want guns around at all, and some aren't gonna hand all that firepower over to an increasingly nameless and unaccountable jumble of three-letter-government-agencies while altering the constitution.

So, I'm glad that the entire class won't be punished because some snot nosed kid in the back threw a spitball.

Unfortunately, we ARE being punished in other ways because of twenty or so "evil-doers".




[edit on 31-7-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]

[edit on 31-7-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]

[edit on 31-7-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by CX
Just a thought whilst we are on the subject of guns over there in the US, could anyone here let me know roughly what the gun laws are in the US? Are there any? Not meaning to take the mick there but you can understand why i ask the question. Just wondered if there was any link or thread reference gun laws and what individuals were allowed to own.


Yes CX there are gun laws here in the U.S.--about 20,000 of them. First there are the federal gun laws and then each state has their own laws concerning guns and to top it off many individual cities & town & counties have yet more gun laws. I could attempt to summarize some of them for you, but I would be here most of the day trying. If you are truely intrested, your best bet is to first identify where in the states you might be residing/visiting and then google up gun laws for that specific location. Another method would be for you to visit the NRA web site and pose your query there. Sorry if I haven't helped much, but it's the best I can offer at the moment.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I thought such matters as suing belong in the realm of the judicial branch, not the legislative. Does Congress usually pass laws that limit what is able to go before courts? This just seems kind of strange that Congress is able to pass precedents before the courts.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Legislature can make any laws they want. On any subject and for any reason. The courts then rule whether the laws are constitutional or not after someone brings a lawsuit against them.

The two branches are inter-related and serve as a balance against each other.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Montana
The two branches are inter-related and serve as a balance against each other.


Yea, I understand that. But it seems that Congress is explicity trying to tell the courts that gun makers are not breaking the law and that people aren't allowed to sue them. This seems a little bit different from the normal course of law as Congress is essentially telling the courts what to do, or even telling them they aren't allowed to hear such cases as these. And I wouldn't see any reason why telling the judicial branch what to do is constitutional and right.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   
jahuman,

I don't think anyone can't sue. Like any case, on some level your argument is heard but not guaranteed to progress into a full blown case. Few legislative decisions are black and white. For instance, I don't think there'd be much of a problem if say Remington was selling arms to any major gang under the table and you were shot as a direct result.

This legislation isn't supposed to allow people to freely break existing laws.

What it does do, is keep everyone who ever had a friend shot from running into court to sue a manufacturer. A car company is no more responsible for someone run over by one of their cars.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
Like any case, on some level your argument is heard but not guaranteed to progress into a full blown case.


But, isn't it the choice of the court to decide what becomes a full-blown case? I find this strange because Congress is attempting to play Judge and Jury. I can understand if Congress overturns a Supreme Court decision, but I don't understand how Congress can tell Justices what cases they are allowed to hear.

It seems to me the balance between the two is shifting towards Congress. And, like I said, I'm not sure if dictating what cases can be heard has happened in the past. If it hasn't, this might establish a precedent that aims to centralize the power of the government.

For example, what if Congress passed a law that a person detained as a terrorist, or even supervised, under the Patriot Act is not able to sue to force the government to bring evidence against them. Essentially then, there would be no safeguards against the Patriot Act.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Jamuhn - Your observation is correct, it is unusual for this type of legislation to be taken up and passed by congress (even though this issue is not yet finished passing congress since the house has yet to take up the bill). However, this particular issue has been brewing for several years now and there was no end in sight. The gun manufacturers were being sued left, right and center by various groups whose primary purpose was to bankrupt the gun manfacturers by forcing them to defend all those suits. Every case that came to court was tossed out by whatever judge was presiding, but none of the judges ever ruled that the suits were frivolous, thus requiring the ones filing the suits to pay for everything. The legal jockeying, discovery procedures, etc. were forcing the gun manufacturers to hire additional people just to handle all the paperwork, not to mention legal staff to orchestrate and direct it all--and all that was extremely expensive. Anyway, since the judicial branch was doing nothing to penalize the ones filing suit and thus put an end to them, congress got involved at the request of the people to handle the problem themselves.

[edit on 31-7-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Anyway, since the judicial branch was doing nothing to penalize the ones filing suit and thus put an end to them, congress got involved at the request of the people to handle the problem themselves.


Then, why not pass a law stating that the plaintiffs in such cases must pay the legal fees for the defending gun manufacturers in the case that it is thrown out?



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   
BLAH BLAH BLAH!!! It is supposed to protect law abiding manufacturers and sellers huh? BULL#!!! It doesn't matter what you manufacture or sell, you should be lible to the same laws as everybody else. The right wing bullhooey about too many lawsuits is just a cover so their corporate friends can manuipliate the laws under the guise of common sense to free themselves from the onus of the law. If a gun manufacturer or seller has nothing to hide then they don't need protection in the first place, and if they have broken some law then they should be held responsible. Let the legal system decide, that's what it is there for, these extra legal protections are a crime against the people. A great day for America my ample ass.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   
That astute observation is simply to pertinent to be relevant. Seriously, the problem was instigated, perpetuated and funded by some anti-gun groups as a way around the democratic process (they kept getting trounced at the ballot box) and the Constitution. These groups simply couldn't accept the various rejections by the voters of this country and hit upon the lawsuit methodology as a way to circumvent democracy and the Constitution.

If congress had passed a law requiring the suitors to pay for the defendants legal expenses it would have set a very bad precedent for the future and created more problems that it would have solved. Singling out one manufacturing group for special treatment would have been discriminatory and thus illegal under the Constitution and led to other groups suing to either be included in the group or suing to throw the law out for discrimination. And such a suit may yet be filed over this issue (once the house passes the bill and the President signs it). The drafters of the Senate bill are mostly lawyers, so they should know what will pass constitutional muster, but I'll bet this law gets tested in court once it passes.

[edit on 31-7-2005 by Astronomer68]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join