# No more idiotic gun lawsuits



## KenpoTex (Oct 30, 2005)

*PRESIDENT BUSH SIGNS "PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT"* 
PRESIDENT BUSH SIGNS 
"PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT"
Landmark NRA Victory Now Law 

On Wednesday, President George W. Bush signed into law the NRA-backed "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" (S. 397) to end politically motivated lawsuits designed to bankrupt law-abiding American firearm manufacturers and retailers. S. 397 passed both chambers in Congress with broad bipartisan support.

"This is an historic day for freedom. I would like to thank President Bush for signing the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in twenty years into law. History will show that this law helped save the American firearms industry from collapse under the burden of these ruinous and politically motivated lawsuits," said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.

In late July, the U.S. Senate approved the measure 65-31. Last week, the U.S. House overwhelmingly passed the bill 283-144. The new law is a monumental victory for NRA and its members.

"What we witness today is the culmination of a seven-year effort that included a comprehensive legislative and election strategy," stated NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. "We had to work hard to change the political landscape to allow for passage of this landmark legislation. As always, our members were up to the task. It was key electoral victories in 2000, 2002 and 2004 that helped pave the way for passage of this law.

"The Bush administration was a vital ally during debate on Capitol Hill. I would also like to thank Senators Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Congressmen Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) for doing a yeoman's job as lead co-sponsors of this legislation. In addition, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and Senate Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) ought to be commended for their steadfast leadership during Senate deliberations," added Cox. 

In recent years, 33 states have passed similar legislation outlawing reckless lawsuits intended to bankrupt the gun industry. However, this new law creates judicial uniformity in all courts across the United States.

"This law will help preserve the American firearms industry and also help preserve American manufacturing jobs. American companies will cease to make products if they continue to be sued every time a violent criminal they do not know, have never met, and cannot control, misuses a legal, non-defective product. This is a significant step toward saving millions of manufacturing jobs," concluded LaPierre.
__________________


----------



## Grenadier (Oct 30, 2005)

About darn time.  

The legislation is simple logic.  People should not be suing the liquor companies for a certain Massachusetts senator's rampage, or suing the fast food companies for their kids stuffing their gullets with too many Happy Meals.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 30, 2005)

Awesome news!


----------



## arnisador (Oct 30, 2005)

Gun companies don't kill people...people kill people? Is that what this means?


----------



## Satt (Oct 31, 2005)

SWEEEEEEEEEEEEET!!!!!!! :mp5: :ak47: :2pistols: :zap: :bazook: :uzi: :sniper: :armed: :sig:


----------



## Jerry (Oct 31, 2005)

> On Wednesday, President George W. Bush signed into law the NRA-backed "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" (S. 397) to *end politically motivated lawsuits designed to bankrupt law-abiding American firearm manufacturers and retailers*. S. 397 passed both chambers in Congress with broad bipartisan support.


 I can't quite tell if this is rhetoric, or an attempt to seperate "law abiding American firearm manufacturers" from non-law-abiding and non-American firearm manufacturers. I can't help but wonder why this was passed for a single industry. Why not just a blanket law protecting manufacturers from the improper use of their product?

That said, I can see a couple reasons to litigate against a firearms manufacturer:

Manufacturing defect which causes injury or damage.
Misleading advertizing.
Failure to follow the law resulting in injury or damage.
Acting within the law but with reckless disregard (for example, designing a gun which can be easily modified to full auto with the explicit intention of givng people a way to circumvent the law)
But these could also be held to knife maufacturers, and car manufacturers and most anyone else. Does anyone know why this was passed for only the firearms industry?


----------



## dearnis.com (Oct 31, 2005)

No other industry was being target by junk lawsuits by various big cities.  The  in-thing had become suing  gun manufacturers for the criminal mis-use of their products whether lawfully-obtained or,as was most often the case, not. 
The suits made as much sense as suing Ford and Chrysler over DUI crashes.


----------



## Grenadier (Oct 31, 2005)

Jerry said:
			
		

> I can't quite tell if this is rhetoric, or an attempt to seperate "law abiding American firearm manufacturers" from non-law-abiding and non-American firearm manufacturers. I can't help but wonder why this was passed for a single industry. Why not just a blanket law protecting manufacturers from the improper use of their product?
> 
> But these could also be held to knife maufacturers, and car manufacturers and most anyone else. Does anyone know why this was passed for only the firearms industry?


 
Good question.  The answer is a bit complicated.  

First of all, as dearnis stated, the trial lawyers and a good number of leftist groups aren't out to get the other industrial areas.  They wouldn't get nearly as much emotional support when making their assertions.  Their method of trying to link criminals' use of firearms to that of the law abiding is simply fallacious, but it does work, especially since it can appeal to the emotional side of someone who is ignorant.  

It wasn't unusual for various anti-gun cities that were trying to sue the manufacturers, to bring in sobbing victims of various deceased people killed by criminals, to try to elicit a sympathetic response from the jury.  This was absolutely wrong, and the lawyers and cities knew it, but they went ahead anyways, since playing mind games can make the difference.  




> That said, I can see a couple reasons to litigate against a firearms manufacturer:
> 
> Manufacturing defect which causes injury or damage.
> Misleading advertizing.
> ...


----------



## Jerry (Oct 31, 2005)

> As for following the law, the companies have no choice; they would be shut down by the BATF in a heartbeat if they were in consistent violation of the laws. The same holds true for those who try to advertise that their guns can be easily converted to full auto; that's like painting a bullseye on your chest in enemy territory; it simply isn't done.


 I'm not sure it isn't. Certainly, no fireamrs manufacturer has a magazine add stating that; but we know that the cigarette manufacturers have based their marketing on what would get underage people to start; as have some alcholol commercials. 

I'm not saying a firearms manufacturer has indeed made a firearm specifically to appel to those with illicit intent; but I think there's prescedent in other industries to say "it's possible".

I'm not supporting the suits being discussed against the firearms industry; I just become concerned when *any* special interest enacts targeted laws.


----------



## tellner (Nov 18, 2005)

You'll notice that, as usual, the legislation protects big business. It doesn't do diddly for the rights of regular people. The Republicans have had both houses of the Legislature and the Presidency for almost six years. They haven't rolled back a single restriction, much less pushed forward on that important civil right. The most they've done is allow a bad law to expire on schedule.

Where's the reversal of the new Class III weapons ban? Why is the Clinton era harrassment of small FFLs still going on? Why is the ATF still (illegally) photocopying 4473s at gun shops? How about (gasp) national carry?

Face it, a gun owner is to the GOP what a union worker is to the Democrats - someone who is useful at election time but can be ignored the rest of the time.


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 18, 2005)

tellner said:
			
		

> You'll notice that, as usual, the legislation protects big business. It doesn't do diddly for the rights of regular people. The Republicans have had both houses of the Legislature and the Presidency for almost six years. They haven't rolled back a single restriction, much less pushed forward on that important civil right. The most they've done is allow a bad law to expire on schedule.
> 
> Where's the reversal of the new Class III weapons ban? Why is the Clinton era harrassment of small FFLs still going on? Why is the ATF still (illegally) photocopying 4473s at gun shops? How about (gasp) national carry?
> 
> Face it, a gun owner is to the GOP what a union worker is to the Democrats - someone who is useful at election time but can be ignored the rest of the time.


I do agree with most of what you said. I definately wish that they were a little more zealous when it comes to getting rid of some of these restrictions. However, every little bit helps. In addition to the AWB sunset, they also passed the national reciprocity for law-enforcment officers, and of course, the lawsuit bill. As far as this one goes, yeah, it protects big business. However, if the gun companies were constantly subjected to these lawsuits the costs of defending themselves would result in huge price increases that we, the consumers, would have to absorb (which was the whole strategy of the gun-grabbers).

So, while there is definately room for improvement, I'm not going to complain about what we've gotten thus far.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 19, 2005)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> No other industry was being target by junk lawsuits by various big cities. The in-thing had become suing gun manufacturers for the criminal mis-use of their products whether lawfully-obtained or,as was most often the case, not.
> The suits made as much sense as suing Ford and Chrysler over DUI crashes.


 
Exactly! I wish CRIMINALS somehow had no access to firearms and that law-abiding gunowners were more careful; however, my thoughts on gun control (whether by legislation or lawsuit) has done a complete 180 degree u-turn in recent years. I used to be very heavily for strict gun control and at that time I probably would have cheered these lawsuits (perhaps not, though, because they're illogical), but now they frighten me (for three reasons: first, they eliminate PERSONAL responsibility, second they go after the wrong people (the firearm misusers), third they have the potential to restrict my personal right to protection at a reasonable cost.


----------



## tellner (Nov 19, 2005)

I don't see the law enforcement reciprocity legislation as a step forward. Far from it. It gives the police a special perk that regular citizens don't have. It doesn't even have to be connected with their jobs. They can be retired and still get a free pass to carry anywhere. The message is clear. The enforcers get privileges that the little people don't.

Someone will pipe up "But cops are pro-RKBA!"

A lot of them are. But they haven't done diddly for us. The FOP has never seen a gun control measure it didn't like. Most police officers are perfectly happy to "get guns off the streets" or at least only in their hands.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 19, 2005)

tellner said:
			
		

> A lot of them are. But they haven't done diddly for us. The FOP has never seen a gun control measure it didn't like. Most police officers are perfectly happy to "get guns off the streets" or at least only in their hands.


 
Perhaps, but there is a difference between an "official view" and the personal views of individual officers - and the two views aren't always the same.

Welcome to Martia Talk, Tellner.


----------



## tellner (Nov 21, 2005)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but there is a difference between an "official view" and the personal views of individual officers - and the two views aren't always the same.
> 
> Welcome to Martia Talk, Tellner.



Hi there!

The FOP is a union which is supposedly responsible to its members. It speaks out on a whole host of political issues. Frankly, they've had way too many chances to say something, anything supportive of RKBA or even self defense by mere "civilians". They're 0 for many. The bland assurances were worn threadbare decades ago. Until they or any police organization makes even the tiniest effort on our behalf I can only go with the evidence of my eyes and ears.


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 21, 2005)

tellner said:
			
		

> Hi there!
> 
> The FOP is a union which is supposedly responsible to its members. It speaks out on a whole host of political issues. Frankly, they've had way too many chances to say something, anything supportive of RKBA or even self defense by mere "civilians". They're 0 for many. The bland assurances were worn threadbare decades ago. Until they or any police organization makes even the tiniest effort on our behalf I can only go with the evidence of my eyes and ears.


 
I think it's more of which locality of the FOP we're discussing.  Note, that I'm not referring to the rank and file membership of the FOP in each case, but rather, the leadership.  

I know for certain, that the leadership of the FOP in Ohio is virulently anti-gun, and had attempted to sabotage the concealed carry bill, even convincing the weak governor Taft, into putting all sorts of concessions that really gutted the bill.  

On the other hand, the leadership of the FOP in Alabama has been fairly friendly towards gun owners.  

Such inconsistencies make it difficult for me to completely support the FOP as an entity, which is why the LEAA gets my donation instead.


----------

