Senate moving to protect gun industry

[lovuian]

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/redir.php?jid=7bc3686706ecbc90&cat=c08dd24cec417021

By Joanne Kenen
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The gun industry is likely to win sweeping protection against civil liability lawsuits in the U.S. Senate this month, reflecting a more firearm-friendly Senate after the 2004 elections, lawmakers said on Thursday.

Last year the Republicans killed their own bill, meant to shield gunmakers, gun distributors and gun sellers against many liability suits, after gun opponents attached amendments to it, including an extension of the 1994 ban on assault rifles.

But the November elections left a bigger Republican majority and the Senate is now a more conservative and more pro-gun rights body. Several Democrats, particularly from rural states, also back the immunity measure.

Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig, lead backer of the legal protections bill, said he was confident it would win Senate approval with few if any unpalatable amendments. A vote is likely in the next two weeks.

Even if mostly Democratic gun control advocates do manage to attach some amendments, Craig said the strategy this time would not be to dump the bill but remove anything objectionable in conference with the House (of Representatives).

"We hope we can defeat amendments and keep the bill clean," Craig said in a brief interview.

The liability bill is anathema to gun control groups. They said it wipes out legal rights of victims of gun violence, including police injured in the line of duty or families harmed by attacks like those of the Washington-area sniper in 2002.

The bill is a top priority for the National Rifle Association, the main U.S. gun rights lobby, which says it is needed to protect firearms manufacturers, distributors and sellers from politically motivated and frivolous lawsuits
more...

I just remember michael moore's movie where he got the gun from opening an account at the bank!!!

[r0x0r Mc0wnage]

1. Fear the government that fears your guns.

This is good news, especially for those of us opposed to America's fascist trends.

While it is somewhat hurtful (it supports the Military Industrial Complex), maintaining easy and widespread access to the tools of rebellion is a higher priority.

[gulfcoastliberal]

8. Too bad we can't have howitzers, RPGs, napalm, fuel-air bombs...

tanks, cruise missiles, TOW bazookas, etc. At least then it would be more of a fair fight, but they'd still have their nukes.

[MisterP]

10. funny how * is ENCOURAGING us to blast away madly at one another

it's almost like they're not afraid at all of our boomsticks (but we're not allowed to say that)

[NickB79]

13. Actually, you can own many of those devices

It's the explosive ordinace you can't legally possess to fire from them. I have seen several howitzers, grenade launchers and tanks listed for sale in various gun collector publications.

BTW, the Iraqi insurgents barely have any of the devices you listed, and they are kicking our asses despite all our military hardware.

[Lindacooks]

2. This bill is disgusting, not only because the gun industry

wants it because they KNOW they are liable. If they thought they were doing nothing wrong, they wouldn't need protection against lawsuits, now would they? Not that anybody can get a decent settlement anymore against crooked manufacturers thanks, also, to the Repukes.

[r0x0r Mc0wnage]

4. Zoom out

The prosecution in the Plame-outing case is making a similar argument.

They say that reporters' sources should not be protected unless they are a whistle-blower doing a good deed. They argue that anonymous sources that commit acts of malice by passing along information should not have their confidentiality guaranteed.

However, if this argument is accepted, it will create a situation where whistle-blowers will be accused of libel and be forced to expose themselves.

There are legitimate and necessary reasons to protect anonymous sources, as well as guns.

Eliminate protections for gun manufacturers (who also make tanks and bombs and such), and it will create a situation where every anti-war activist and his lawyer will be filing lawsuits in a legal war of financial attrition. Even if every single lawsuit was lost, the fact that the suits made it to court means the arms dealers will be bled dry from legal fees. The merits of such an outcome can be debated, but IMO there are very good reasons for the 2nd Amendment and they are just as valid and relevant today as they were 200 years ago.

[wuushew]

7. absurd comparison

tobacco is also a legal product as are automobiles. Do you think anything should be subject to civil lawsuits?

Verdicts are only possible given the judgment of juries. If guns are as popular and necessary as you claim then YOU have nothing to fear.

[VegasWolf]

3. Payback fot the Stupids! nt

[mbperrin]

5. Really nice to see that the infant helpless arms industry is finally

getting some protection from all the meanies in the world!
:crazy:

[stepnw1f]

6. Nutcases! nt

[DanCa]

9. Howabout hand grenades more firepower less accuracy :)

In all seriousness as long as I dont have to carry a fire arm I dont care if a person goes to a gun club or has one one for private property or reluctanty hunting. Hell even if Jethro and Clem want to go down to the dump and blow away a rat thats not my buisness. Just allow me to sue if I get hit in the cross fire.

[billyoc]

15. Maybe hand grenades for blind people.

I think I read a short story about that long ago, can't remember the name of it. It was a war between urban pedestrians and suburban car drivers, cool story. :)

[davepc]

11. As long as I have the right to sue Ford or GM

if they knowingly sell a car to an alcoholic or with a history of DWI. And I can sue the sharpie pen company if they knowingly sell a pen to a known autograph forger.

The sharpie pen company aids and abets the autograph forgery business when they their pens to people who mis-use them to create fake celebrity autographs. The manufacture MUST be held accountable for how their products are used, and who uses them.

[pinniped]

12. What other business or industry currently enjoys blanket...

immunity?

Are there any?

[hollowdweller]

14. I'm against this if it is about actually defective guns, HOWEVER if

It is referring to people suing gun companies because of the actions of criminals with guns then I'm against it. There's lots of stuff if abused that can injure folks.