Log in

View Full Version : Congress OKs Gun Industry Lawsuit Shield



sickdiscobiscuit
23rd October 2005, 03:05
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
Thu Oct 20,11:03 PM ET



WASHINGTON - Congress gave the gun lobby its top legislative priority Thursday, passing a bill protecting the firearms industry from massive crime-victim lawsuits. President Bush said he will sign it.

ADVERTISEMENT

"Our laws should punish criminals who use guns to commit crimes, not law-abiding manufacturers of lawful products," Bush said in a statement.

The House voted 283-144 to send the bill to the president after supporters, led by the National Rifle Association, proclaimed it vital to protect the industry from being bankrupted by huge jury awards. Opponents, waging a tough battle against growing public support for the legislation, called it proof of the gun lobby's power over the Republican-controlled Congress.

"This legislation will make the unregulated gun industry the most pampered industry in America," said Kristen Rand, director of the Violence Policy Center.

Under the measure, a half-dozen pending lawsuits by local governments against the industry would be dismissed. Anti-gun groups say some lawsuits filed by individuals could be thrown out, too.

The Senate passed the bill in July.

The bill's passage was the NRA's top legislative priority and would give Bush and his Republican allies on Capitol Hill a rare victory at a time when some top GOP leaders are under indictment or investigation.

"Lawsuits seeking to hold the firearms industry responsible for the criminal and unlawful use of its products are brazen attempts to accomplish through litigation what has not been achieved by legislation and the democratic process," House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., told his colleagues.

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, did not vote. He is in Texas in connection with his indictment in an alleged scheme to violate state election law.

Propelled by GOP election gains and the incidents of lawlessness associated with the passing of Hurricane Katrina, support for the bill has grown since a similar measure passed the House last year and was killed in the Senate.

Horrific images of people without the protection of public safety in New Orleans made a particular impression on viewers who had never before felt unsafe, according to the gun lobby.

"Americans saw a complete collapse of the government's ability to protect them," said Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president.

"That burnt in, those pictures of people standing there defending their lives and defending their property and their family," he added, "where the one source of comfort was a firearm."

With support from four new Republicans this session of Congress, the bill passed the Senate for the first time in July. House passage never was in doubt because it had 257 co-sponsors, far more than the 218 needed to pass.

The bill's authors say it still would allow civil suits against individual parties who have been found guilty of criminal wrongdoing by the courts.

Opponents say the strength of the bill's support is testament to the influence of the gun lobby. If the bill had been law when the relatives of six victims of convicted Washington-area snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo sued the gun dealer from which they obtained their rifle, the dealer would not have agreed to pay the families and victims $2.5 million.

"It is shameful that Republicans in Congress are pushing legislation that guarantees their gun-dealing cronies receive special treatment and are above the law," said Rep. Robert Wexler (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla.

Bush has said he supports the bill, which would prohibit lawsuits against the firearms industry for damages resulting from the unlawful use of a firearm or ammunition. Gun makers and dealers still would be subject to product liability, negligence or breach of contract suits, the bill's authors say.

Democrats and Republicans alike court the NRA at election time, and the bill has garnered bipartisan support. But the firearms industry still gave 88 percent of its campaign contributions, or $1.2 million, to Republicans in the 2004 election cycle.

Gun control advocates, meanwhile, gave 98 percent of their contributions, or $93,700, to Democrats that cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

___

The bill is S. 397.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What do you all as "revolutionaries" think about this?

Personally I think this is BUSHit.

"Our laws should punish criminals who use guns to commit crimes, not law-abiding manufacturers of lawful products," Bush said in a statement."

- Why does the public need automatic weapons/ automatic rifles? Or armor piercing bullets? The firearms needs to be held accountable for these. I watched the debate in the house of representatives and the republicans (being for the bill) compared the issue to how car companies aren't held accountable for when a drunk driver kills someone with a car. This is a totally bogus stand. Car companies don't create WEAPONS THAT KILL PEOPLE.




Are you gonna shoot a deer with armor piercing bullets from a M16?

Ownthink
23rd October 2005, 03:22
Are you gonna shoot a deer with armor piercing bullets from a M16?

No, but I am going to shoot a defender (or defenders) of Capitalism when the time comes.

This moron is actually shooting himself in the foot by letting people have these kind of weapons. We deserve them. Remember, the right to bear arms was put into the constituiton as a way for citizens of the coutnry to safeguard and defend themselves against an oppressive government, and that time has come.

Militant
23rd October 2005, 03:35
I dislike capitalism as much as the next guy, but saying a company is responsible for shootings is insane. People are responsible for their actions, not some nameless entity. It's like the tobacco lawsuits. Who the hell doesn't know that pulling smoke into your lungs is unhealthy? Look at your chimney or car exhaust pipe for god's sake! I smoke, and if I get cancer, it's my own fault.

And you answered your own question. We need automatic rifles and armor piercing rounds because we are "revolutionaries". Paraphrasing Stalin, "they will sell us the rope we hang them with".

bcbm
23rd October 2005, 04:44
I've never understood understand how so-called revolutionaries can support gun control measures.

Why do we need armor piercing rounds? Because the fuckers on the other side have armor.

Chuck
23rd October 2005, 04:49
Revolutionaries get guns, and the otherside already has missle launchers.

JKP
23rd October 2005, 04:54
"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the
symbol of democracy." -George Orwell

Remember all those workers and farmers during the spanish civil war?

Each of them carried a rifle.

http://lacucaracha.info/scw/diary/1937/march/no_pasaran.jpg

Any aspiring revolutionary should recognize the need to arm the working class, not disarm it. If a movment can minimize bloodshed, fine. But you must be prepared to kill, for they wont hesitate to line you up against the wall.

YoUnG192
23rd October 2005, 19:03
Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 23 2005, 04:28 AM
Why do we need armor piercing rounds? Because the fuckers on the other side have armor.
Exactly.

sickdiscobiscuit
24th October 2005, 17:11
So bush is supporting the revolution unknowingly. But if revolutionaries aimed for the head, you wouldn't need armor piercing bullets.

bcbm
24th October 2005, 19:02
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 10:55 AM
So bush is supporting the revolution unknowingly. But if revolutionaries aimed for the head, you wouldn't need armor piercing bullets.
Modern soldiers generally wear kevlar helmets, and aiming for the head in a combat situation is not really advisable. The torso is a much larger target.

YoUnG192
25th October 2005, 02:04
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 04:55 PM
So bush is supporting the revolution unknowingly. But if revolutionaries aimed for the head, you wouldn't need armor piercing bullets.
I hope your joking. Imagine a war with the revolutionaries just aiming for the head because they don't have the proper bullets. :unsure:

Anarchist Freedom
25th October 2005, 03:29
This sounds kinda good because gun companies are getting dogged on by people because of stupid human tricks.

Nothing Human Is Alien
25th October 2005, 04:41
On a similar note, there's some town in Utah where it's actually the law that every male over 18 must own a gun.

And, I believe there is a similar policy in Switzerland.

TheReadMenace
25th October 2005, 04:57
The thing with gun control, though, is that if we have just small weapons - rifles, handguns, shotguns, et cetera - if we were quick enough, we could raid armories (much like the IRA did on several occasions). Wrest the weapons from the enemy's hand right under his nose.

But I agree that it would come in handy to have some heavy artillery. I'm talking Frank Castle Punisher style.

andrew