Conversely, if you want off my ping-list, let me know.
And my apologies for any redundant pings.
Posted on 03/15/2005 6:06:23 PM PST by Dan from Michigan
Senators likely to OK gun-maker shield
JESSE J. HOLLAND
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Republicans, their ranks expanded in the Senate with the help of the National Rifle Association, may be close to gaining legislation to shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits claiming they put weapons into criminal hands.
The Republican-controlled House passed the legislation during the previous Congress, and GOP senators would have done the same if Democrats hadn't attached to it a reauthorization of an assault weapons ban.
With seven new Republicans in the chamber, Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, thinks he has the votes to get the legislation through without any detrimental Democratic amendments. Gun control groups already are fighting to head off the effort.
Dennis Henigan, director of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence's legal action project, said federal lawmakers' first move should be placing tighter controls on guns, given the fatal shootings of a federal judge's family in Chicago, a state judge and three others in Atlanta, and seven churchgoers inside a Wisconsin hotel.
Instead, "it is to hold hearings on a bill that would protect from legal accountability the most reckless gun sellers in America," Henigan told a House Judiciary subcommittee on Tuesday.
Republicans, gun manufacturers and gun advocates have argued that gun companies cannot be held responsible for the crimes of gun users.
"Holding gun makers liable for the criminal misuse of our products is akin to holding Ford, Chevy or Honda responsible for the illegal actions of a drunk driver, or holding Kodak responsible for the use of their film in the vile world of child pornography," said Bradley Beckman, lawyer for firearm manufacturer North American Arms.
And don't blame the recent wave of crimes on lack of gun-control laws, Craig said.
"A lot of these shootings have occurred in areas where there are tight gun bans and gun controls today," Craig said. "It's the same old game. Don't rush to judgment because you have a criminal element out there."
Craig had the 60 votes last year to ensure the bill's passage, but Democrats succeeded in persuading a few Republicans to help them attach a renewal of the assault weapons ban onto the legislation. Republicans - at the NRA's urging - then killed the legislation.
The NRA's political action committee spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on ads, postcards and other publicity calling for the election of the new GOP senators or the defeat of their Democratic opponents.
For example, the NRA Political Victory Fund spent at least $526,911 in support of Florida's Mel Martinez. Other freshmen benefiting from the gun-rights group's independent spending were North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, at least $468,376; South Dakota's John Thune, at least $349,120; Jim DeMint of South Carolina, at least $176,833; and Georgia's Johnny Isakson, at least $68,109.
Senators plan to bring the legislation straight to the chamber floor for approval after the Easter recess, Craig said.
Supporters of renewing the assault weapons ban aren't giving up. They reintroduced the bill on Monday and are touting their ability to attach that legislation to the gun liability bill last year.
"We voted for its renewal in the Senate last year. Yet, it was allowed to expire," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. "This failure will have deadly consequences on the streets of America. It is time to re-establish the ban and help make our communities safer."
The gun liability legislation would prohibit lawsuits from being brought against gun and ammunition manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers for damages resulting from purported misuse of their product.
The bill would bar local governments, private individuals or groups from bringing cases against gun makers.
This amendment should be expanded to shield caterpillar Diesel from lawsuits against running over people stupid enough to stand in front of their bulldozers.
I hope Feinstein doesn't try to sneak her assualt weapon ban onto this bill.
Conversely, if you want off my ping-list, let me know.
And my apologies for any redundant pings.
Not two weeks ago, a jury in Zavala county Texas found Ford liable for 31 million dollars in damages over an accident in which two people were ejected in a crash and killed. The underage driver had been drinking, the vehicle was speeding, and noone was wearing a seatbelt.
Don't let a few obvious facts get in the way of $31 million.
BTTT
bump
I don't doubt that she'll try. It was a close vote last year (52-47?) and after last November's elections a few anti-gunners were sent home, and a few pro-gunners were elected. So, hopefully she doesn't have the votes this time to get it passed.
I have said the same thing over and over and I have written my senators, too. Why not expand the legislation to protect ALL manufacturers and dealers of legal, non-defective products from the criminal misuse of their product?
"I hope Feinstein doesn't try to sneak her assualt weapon ban onto this bill."
"I don't doubt that she'll try. It was a close vote last year (52-47?) and after last November's elections a few anti-gunners were sent home, and a few pro-gunners were elected. So, hopefully she doesn't have the votes this time to get it passed."
The old hag has just proposed another AWB: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1363628/posts
The only good thing is that it is a separate bill. It should live or die on its own merits, without affecting the lawsuit protection legislation. Of course, this IS the Senate that we're talking about, so who knows?
Given today's 51-49 vote in favor of drilling ANWR, I am cautiously hopeful that the Senate doesn't have the votes to attach poison pills to this legislation. Recall in prior years the Senate vote was just as close in opposing ANWR drilling. The new Republican Senators who were elected last November are making a difference.
No problem. Any time she tries it, add language outlawing abortion to her bill.
Turn about is fair play...
Excellent!! I will write my Congressman and Senators about this right away! Good idea!
my concern too.
The solution is more republicans in 2006.
There is actuall a concepte in law called "intervening supervening criminal act." There is also proximate cause.
(ie you don't sue the maker of a car used in a bank robery)
These gun lawsuits are specific to induce a nusance based settlement. They also depend on the leftist leaning and ignorance of juries.
If you can get this type of tort reform through the senate, it can be later expanded.
its all one step at a time.
((perhaps we should consider professional jurrors?))
The concept that you call "intervening supervening criminal act" (I am not a lawyer and have no knowledge of this term) seems to require that a person use common sense and that a judge would dismiss with prejudice any lawyer who would dare to file such a frivilous lawsuit. However, we all know that there are activist judges out there who will allow such stupid lawsuits to go forward WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE that the primary reasons for this lawsuit are publicity and the hope that they can use lawyers fees to destroy the gun industry.
What is to stop that same judge from allowing a lawsuit against GM and Anhauser-Busch because their dealers sold booze and a car to a "known drunken driving offender" who then got drunk and plowed into a group of kindergarteners?
The problem is that this concept is a taught if first year law school but it is disregarded by judges when considering dismissal motions.
Before a case gets to the jury, the procedural motions regarding evidence and surviving dismissal motions and summary judgment motions. Some Judges have a very sincere consideration that a criminal act by a person should be a fact for the jury to decide. HOWEVER, I can VERY comfortably say these suits are not intended to reach the jury. They are intended to force a party to mediation. That ALONE should be grounds for dimissal. If a case is not brought with the intention of going to the jury, then the lawyer should be sanctioned.
The civil trial courts are not there to force negotiations they are there to make decisions of fact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.