So what you are saying is that you want mandatory registration and the ability to confiscate guns in the interest of public safety? Just curious what your position is.
Hillary Clinton just started a gunfight
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
So what you are saying is that you want mandatory registration and the ability to confiscate guns in the interest of public safety? Just curious what your position is.
This is a Wikipedia summary of the federal law protecting gun manufacterer from some theories of civil liability. I'm in favor of this law. I don't think the immunity from lawsuits based upon criminal use of firearms is unreasonable. "Foreseeability" is a silly standard for liability. Auto makers can certainly count on the use of its products by drunks, get-away-car drivers, robberies, etc. How about about manufacturers and distributors of handcuffs, rope, tasers, ski masks, hoodies, knives, duct tape, violent video games, porn, fertilizer, anhydrous ammonia, Boeing (drones), on and on.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed by the U.S. Senate on July 29, 2005, by a vote of 65-31. On October 20, 2005, it was passed by the House of Representatives 283 in favor and 144 opposed. It was signed into law on October 26, 2005, by President George W. Bush and became Public Law 109-92. The National Rifle Association thanked President Bush for signing the Act, for which it had lobbied, describing it as, "...the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in twenty years into law."[1]
In the years before passage of the act, victims of firearms violence in the United States had successfully sued manufacturers and dealers for negligence on the grounds that they should have foreseen that their products would be diverted to criminal use.[2] The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products(i.e. automobiles, appliances, power tools, etc.) are held responsible.
A similar measure had been rejected by the Senate on March 2, 2004 after it had been combined with an extension to the assault weapons ban into a single piece of legislation.
The final bill passed only after an amendment was added that mandated safety locks on handguns and after the assault weapons ban renewal had been prevented from being added onto the bill.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed by the U.S. Senate on July 29, 2005, by a vote of 65-31. On October 20, 2005, it was passed by the House of Representatives 283 in favor and 144 opposed. It was signed into law on October 26, 2005, by President George W. Bush and became Public Law 109-92. The National Rifle Association thanked President Bush for signing the Act, for which it had lobbied, describing it as, "...the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in twenty years into law."[1]
In the years before passage of the act, victims of firearms violence in the United States had successfully sued manufacturers and dealers for negligence on the grounds that they should have foreseen that their products would be diverted to criminal use.[2] The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products(i.e. automobiles, appliances, power tools, etc.) are held responsible.
A similar measure had been rejected by the Senate on March 2, 2004 after it had been combined with an extension to the assault weapons ban into a single piece of legislation.
The final bill passed only after an amendment was added that mandated safety locks on handguns and after the assault weapons ban renewal had been prevented from being added onto the bill.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act
Why is Stanley still in business?
They clearly are responsible for bringing down the World Trade Center...
Holy Shit!! That's funny right there in a tragic sort of way, but it's an outstanding point.
So Hillary has brought an idea to a gun fight. It's going to end badly for her. This will definitely fire up the Republican base and cross over to the Independents as well.
This has now become a way for the Feds to get their foot in the door and institute confiscation like Obama is now trying through Executive Actions.
This has now become a way for the Feds to get their foot in the door and institute confiscation like Obama is now trying through Executive Actions.
Do you somehow have precise details of Hillary's liability plan that the rest of us don't? I mean you speak with such authority about this. Could you link?
I agree the devil is in the details, but what are those details?
[this is from the link in the OP]
Hold dealers and manufacturers fully accountable if they endanger Americans.
While the vast majority of gun dealers and manufacturers operate safely and responsibly, the select few that do not should be held accountable. However, due to lobbying efforts by the NRA, these bad actors are granted unique protections in our laws, and the country’s law enforcement agencies often face barriers when attempting to hold them accountable. To ensure that the safety of our communities is prioritized over the profits of the gun lobby, Clinton will:
Hold dealers and manufacturers fully accountable if they endanger Americans.
While the vast majority of gun dealers and manufacturers operate safely and responsibly, the select few that do not should be held accountable. However, due to lobbying efforts by the NRA, these bad actors are granted unique protections in our laws, and the country’s law enforcement agencies often face barriers when attempting to hold them accountable. To ensure that the safety of our communities is prioritized over the profits of the gun lobby, Clinton will:
- Repeal the gun industry’s unique immunity protection. The NRA lobbied Congress to pass the so-called “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” a dangerous law which prevents victims of gun violence from holding negligent manufacturers and dealers accountable for violence perpetrated with their guns. It is past time to repeal this law and hold the gun industry accountable just like everyone else. Clinton voted against this law in 2005 and will lead the charge to repeal it as president.
Great news, as this is surely cost her any shot at the nomination. The majority of middle class dems are hunters and support the 2nd Amendment.
Adios Hillary
Adios Hillary
Describe a negligent manufacturer and what should they be accountable for?
Is it "normal" to announce a plan to use executive action during a run for president? Or are we just at a point where it's assume the accepted law making channels won't get anywhere?
Both, apparently. Several GOP candidates have announced things they would do on day 1 - presumably by executive order.
Now of those have announced an executive order that would cause a civil war.
I think you meant "none" and yes that's obvious Americans are not going to war with each other over anything these candidates mutter.
