POLITICS: House passes gun shield legislation

Today, the U.S. House passed a gun lawsuit legislation shield by a vote of 283-144. The shield would give gun makers, dealers, and distributors some level of immunity from lawsuits filed by cities and municipalities. The bill, if enacted into law, will also make it more difficult for private individuals to sue gun makers, dealers, and distributors for being harmed by gun violence. President Bush has indicated he will sign the bill.




NRA is thrilled. The Brady folks are undoubtedly upset.

I am for some sorts of shield laws. Perhaps caps on damages would be better than blanket immunities, though.

Where are you?

On a related note, the House also just passed a similar shield law for the fast food industry.

Related News Links:
www.newsday.com
www.voanews.com
www.latimes.com

Related ATS Threads:
Cheeseburger Shield Thread

[edit on 20-10-2005 by Hamburglar]

[edit on 20-10-2005 by Hamburglar]

I don't see anything wrong for trying to protect the gun makers, but still if somebody get shot the person that did the shooting is at fault not the people that made the gun.

If a child shots him or herself from a gun that their parents or parent keeps in their house is the parents fault not the gun makers.

So trying to get where the money is what is making all the law suits go straight to the manufacturers.

Now for the food industry I don't like the fast food and what it does to the people that consume it, but if you don't want to become over weight then don't eat it or eat it with moderation.

That is the key, nobody is forcing anybody to eat that is a choice.

Originally posted by Marg6043
Now for the food industry I don't like the fast food and what it does to the people that consume it, but if you don't want to become over weight then don't eat it or eat it with moderation.

That is the key, nobody is forcing anybody to eat that is a choice.

Let's just say hypothetically that you are a homeless person and you generally get between $1 and $10 a day from people giving you money. Do you spend that money at the local organic food store on a healthy, non-genetically modified, organically fertilized, $10 salad? Or do you spend it on 10 double cheeseburgers from the dollar menu which are much less nutritious but much more efficient as far as meeting your body's raw calorie needs.

The situation gets even more complicated when you figure in getting a $5 bottle of wine or $7 5th of liquor because you're an alcoholic, and when you're homeless the best thing to do is just forget about everything.

I'm not arguing for one side or another, and I do agree with you that what you eat is a choice. But I think that we also need to look at what factors influence that choice, such as money (or the lack thereof).

Originally posted by marg6043
but still if somebody get shot the person that did the shooting is at fault not the people that made the gun.

I too am a firm proponent of the "personal responsibility" mindset. As long as the product itself is legal, I think manufacturers should not be liable for harm caused by their misuse or illegal use.

This one sticks in my craw a bit though. The alleged purpose is to prevent "out of control" punitive awards. Perhaps we could just cap them at some reasonable number?

Or perhaps it is right that we go after the offender, not those who are, at best, tangentially involved.

Actually most of the over weight in America are not homeless but people with a good stove and kitchen that can make a very nice meal themselves.

Many people here in the south can not pay bills, but they sure have enough money to stop in their favorite fast food place and get a happy meal to their kids.

The lines at the restaurants with buffet are a record braking on Fridays.



[edit on 20-10-2005 by marg6043]

Originally posted by Marg6043
Actually most of the over weight in America are not homeless...

Yes, I know that. I was just trying to point out that even in this type of debate there are still grey areas.

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir
Let's just say hypothetically that you are a homeless person and you generally get between $1 and $10 a day from people giving you money.

I get where you are going with this, and I'd say you are correct in the hypothetical assertion you are trying to make. But, you are wrong in the big picture.

A majority of the McD's customers aren't homeless. In fact, the homeless are not likely even a large minority of the McD's customer base. So, while your hypothetical may be true, in the grand scheme of things, this notion of some ridiculously small number of the population having "no choice" is a non-issue.

Speaking of non-issue, how about we get back on topic here. If you'd like to discuss cheeseburgers, I invite you to check out the similar Cheeseburger Bill thread. You will find it linked above.

For the rest of you, does anybody feel strongly about this at all? Do we have any NRA folks for Anti-Gun folks out there who'd like to weigh in? I’m frankly astonished at the lack of interest in such a often hot-button issue.

[edit on 21-10-2005 by Hamburglar]

Maybe the problem is with the litigious society. If the judges were allowed to throw out frivolous law suits you wouldnt need legal shields. Now what happens if there is some substantial case against a gun manufacturer? Can they be sued? No. How will that benefit society?

Originally posted by subz
If the judges were allowed to throw out frivolous law suits you wouldnt need legal shields.

Judges can't throw out lawsuits? Since when? Or do they just choose not to? I'm not arguing, just asking. I really don't know.

Originally posted by Hamburglar
Judges can't throw out lawsuits? Since when? Or do they just choose not to? I'm not arguing, just asking. I really don't know.

Then the judges need chastising for allowing these cases. If thats not the case then perhaps gun manufacturers really need to be bankrupted.

Originally posted by subz
If thats not the case then perhaps gun manufacturers really need to be bankrupted.

Explain please. Why would they need to be bankrupted? Are you saying you believe they are responsible, and moreover, culpable?

[edit on 21-10-2005 by Hamburglar]

No im saying the US legal system is broken. You cant give whole industries immunity from legal action for christ sake. Either the judges shouldnt allow these cases or the judges are doing their job. Either the judges are allowing frivolous law suits or they are allowing the public to seek rightful compensation.

Blocking the public from suing a whole industry is not the answer.

This leglislation is not to protect the gun manufacturers from individuals who have a legitimate reason to sue them. This leglislation is to protect the manufacturers and others from the idiotic lawsuits that have been filied around the country by cities such as Chicago and New Orleans, claiming that the gun manfucturers, distributors, et al are responsible for their high murder rates and other crimes where a gun is used is the commission of that crime. These lawsuits were a blatent attempt by the anti-gun groups to drive the manufacturers bankrupt and thus get through the courts the victories they could not get at the polls. Even though just about every case has been thrown out by the court where it was filed, the cases were costing the gun manufacturers a fortune to defend against them. This is good leglislation and will force mayors, like Nagin of New Orleans, to face up to their own problems and stop blaming others. Moreover, this will stop the end run the anti-gun groups were trying to make around the democratic process.

[edit on 21-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

Its my understanding that all this legislation does is disallow class-action lawsuits for product liability from becoming a defacto form of gun control.

Far as I know it has no affect on individuals from bringing fourth a suit based on defects in the product.

Amen Astronomer!

I gave you the vote.

But i'll never give one to the new Orleans mayor- i changed my residency to Wyoming a place where nearly everyone has more than one gun and crime rates are LOW.