HR 4269

[Rmarsh]

What facts do you think im wrong about? Congress did in fact pass a law in 2005 that prevents gun companies from being sued. No other companies have that protection. Im done repeating myself .....
the facts are out there on this one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

What facts do you think im wrong about? Congress did in fact pass a law in 2005 that prevents gun companies from being sued. No other companies have that protection. Im done repeating myself .....
the facts are out there on this one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If your goal is to put gun companies out of business , make a bunch of lawyers rich and make people less responsible for their own actions , then work to repeal the law .
Or maybe you want to make it so that the wealthy are the only ones that can afford firearms , as repealing this law will certainly a sure a huge spike in firearm cost . An interesting strategy , especially if your conclusion is poor people commit most of the gun crimes .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Rmarsh]

Originally Posted by buckman

If your goal is to put gun companies out of business , make a bunch of lawyers rich and make people less responsible for their own actions , then work to repeal the law .
Or maybe you want to make it so that the wealthy are the only ones that can afford firearms , as repealing this law will certainly a sure a huge spike in firearm cost . An interesting strategy , especially if your conclusion is poor people commit most of the gun crimes .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not my goal to do any sort of thing like that. Just pointing out the fact that gun companies have a special privilege. I think a jury should decide accountability just like they do with all other commercial enterprises.
If I'm a contractor and someone gets hurt even through there own stupidity...I can be sued. My son is a bartender, if he serves someone too much alcohol he and the establishment can be sued. Doctor makes a mistake ...he gets sued....not saying it's right but that's how it is for any business.

We can all site studies that support our views I suppose... but a study found that affluent societies with more gun ownership have more homicides.

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

Not my goal to do any sort of thing like that. Just pointing out the fact that gun companies have a special privilege. I think a jury should decide accountability just like they do with all other commercial enterprises.
If I'm a contractor and someone gets hurt even through there own stupidity...I can be sued. My son is a bartender, if he serves someone too much alcohol he and the establishment can be sued. Doctor makes a mistake ...he gets sued....not saying it's right but that's how it is for any business.

We can all site studies that support our views I suppose... but a study found that affluent societies with more gun ownership have more homicides.

When we're the alcohol producers sued for the damage and deaths their product causes....it's the people not the product that are to blame for illegal use.
If I use a hammer to kill someone should the manufacturer be sued for my actions?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

What facts do you think im wrong about? Congress did in fact pass a law in 2005 that prevents gun companies from being sued. No other companies have that protection. I'm done repeating myself .....
the facts are out there on this one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you've got it exactly backwards.....you are complaining as though the firearm manufactures enjoy some special privilege.. read the facts from the 2005 law it's not nearly as simple as you state...the reason for the "exemption" as you call it was because gun manufacturers were being treated "differently" by these cities and counties...these cities would never sue a car manufacturer because drivers misused their cars....the gun manufacturers sought protection....what would you have them do?

let me sum it up


You would like to see all companies held to the same standard as every other manufacturing business in the country. they were before the law suits

Why the exception?. because they weren't, they were being held to a different standard

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

read the facts from the 2005 law it's not nearly as simple as you state...the reason for the "exemption" as you call it was because gun manufacturers were being treated "differently" by these cities and counties...these cities would never sue a car manufacturer because drivers misused their cars....the gun manufacturers sought protection....what would you have them do?

No, the NRA's argument was that the gun manufacturers didn't have the financial resources to respond to the civil lawsuits, which by the way, weren't about liability around the use of the gun as much as the gun makers responsibility (or irresponsibility) for how they market and track sales of weapons.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

No, the NRA's argument was that the gun manufacturers didn't have the financial resources to respond to the civil lawsuits, which by the way, weren't about liability around the use of the gun as much as the gun makers responsibility (or irresponsibility) for how they market and track sales of weapons.

no, the lawsuits were bullying tactics by thugs...comply or we'll put you out of business....I can quote a couple of mayors who said essentially that, in fact...of course that was their argument as destroying them through litigation was the stated goal

[Rmarsh]

Originally Posted by spence

No, the NRA's argument was that the gun manufacturers didn't have the financial resources to respond to the civil lawsuits, which by the way, weren't about liability around the use of the gun as much as the gun makers responsibility (or irresponsibility) for how they market and track sales of weapons.

Gun manufacturers fought hard against a regulation that would require additional sets of serial numbers in hidden locations on guns because it would cost too much.
Trouble is some of the guns used to kill people, including police officers have these serial numbers erased or removed and can't be traced, so killers can't be brought to justice.
Some of these victims families find it irresponsible of gun companies, why deny them the right to be heard in court.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

Gun manufacturers fought hard against a regulation that would require additional sets of serial numbers in hidden locations on guns because it would cost too much.
Trouble is some of the guns used to kill people, including police officers have these serial numbers erased or removed and can't be traced, so killers can't be brought to justice.
Some of these victims families find it irresponsible of gun companies, why deny them the right to be heard in court.

Yea, but that would just make it easier to tell which shops are selling guns that find their way into cop killers hands...

Oh wait.

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by spence

Yea, but that would just make it easier to tell which shops are selling guns that find their way into cop killers hands...

Oh wait.

And how about ghost guns that are made with no serial number or even with a serial number of a legal gun. It's the people who misuse the guns that are to blame. If I use a Bic lighter to set a home on fire killing the people inside should Bic be held responsible?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[tysdad115]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

And how about ghost guns that are made with no serial number or even with a serial number of a legal gun. It's the people who misuse the guns that are to blame. If I use a Bic lighter to set a home on fire killing the people inside should Bic be held responsible?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ed it is required by law that the "ghost gun" be engraved to NFA standards when it is "ready to fire ". The ability for a person to manufacture a firearm is what people who are against firearms call "ghost guns". This is just another whole thread of lets blame the gun, not the criminal who steals it ,or the criminal that illegally removes the serial number or the criminal that uses it to commit murder. Lets blame something other than the person using it.
MA requires a citizen to complete a firearms safety course ,from there the applicant must pass a federal and state background check. Then it is up to the chief of police. After all that you may be issued a license to carry. As for any other useless bull#^&#^&#^&#^&? No thanks, I've passed all of it already. Don't like them ? Don't go near them, end of story. But to fabricate more redundant regulations is foolish.

[nightfighter]

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms.” – James Madison.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

And how about ghost guns that are made with no serial number or even with a serial number of a legal gun. It's the people who misuse the guns that are to blame. If I use a Bic lighter to set a home on fire killing the people inside should Bic be held responsible?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, I am not a gun owner, and am admittedly a bit naive on the process. As a sportsman I have a lot of friends that hunt and support that right, and the right to carry if you feel the need.

What I want to know, and Andy and Ross, educate me. How DO so many guns get into the wrong hands? I don't just mean the mentally ill, but the gang bangers etc.. where do they come from?

Straw purchases (i.e. San Bernadino)?
Illegal imports (i.e. the 'Irish' on Sons of Anarchy)
Stolen? (from where? Homes? Factories?)
Secret manufacturing plants?
The so-called gun show loop holes?

How do we deal with this without restricting your rights?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Yea, but that would just make it easier to tell which shops are selling guns that find their way into cop killers hands...

Oh wait.

I know right...because criminals frequently purchase their guns legally and register them to themselves and then leave them at the scene of the crime so that the police can trace the weapon back them....good grief

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

I know right...because criminals frequently purchase their guns legally and register them to themselves and then leave them at the scene of the crime so that the police can trace the weapon back them....good grief

You didn't do your homework.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

Gun manufacturers fought hard against a regulation that would require additional sets of serial numbers in hidden locations on guns because it would cost too much.
Trouble is some of the guns used to kill people, including police officers have these serial numbers erased or removed and can't be traced, so killers can't be brought to justice.
Some of these victims families find it irresponsible of gun companies, why deny them the right to be heard in court.

How does the serial number on a gun prevent somebody from using it illegally ? The serial number could only be used to locate an owner if the police have that gun in hand. Chances are that gun was not purchased legally anyway .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

How does the serial number on a gun prevent somebody from using it illegally ? The serial number could only be used to locate an owner if the police have that gun in hand. Chances are that gun was not purchased legally anyway .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The serial number isn't to prevent a gun from being used illegally, it's to make it easier to understand the flow of illegal weapons. Odds are a lot are coming from the same group of corrupt dealers and straw purchasers.

Read that link I posted above...

ATF officials say that only about 8% of the nation's 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

What facts do you think im wrong about?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-all-lawsuits/

Clinton is talking about a law that says the gun industry is protected from liability in certain instances, but the law also specifies several situations in which the gun industry is susceptible to lawsuits.

Further, Congress has passed a number of laws that protect a variety of business sectors from lawsuits in certain situations, so the situation is not unique to the gun industry.

We rate Clinton’s claim False.