2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie's defense re gun votes.
Last edited Wed Apr 6, 2016, 05:03 PM - Edit history (1)
Something that hasn't been mentioned nearly often enough is that Bernie did not vote against "people suing gun manufacters for a crime committed with a legal gun." Bernie voted against the possibility of bringing lawsuits about an unlimited variety of things (not including defective manufacture). Only when an individual suit is brought do we know whether or not it has merit. For instance, the Sandy Hook suit has to do with marketing practices. If the suit is frivolous, presumably a judge will notice. The link below describes a couple of specific law suits that are relevant.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1662319
CentralCoaster
(1,163 posts)Try again.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The actual terms of the law provide for the following rather broad exceptions to immunity:
(1) an action brought against someone convicted of knowingly transfering a firearm, knowing that such firearm will be used to commit a crime of violence by someone directly harmed by such unlawful conduct;
(2) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;
(3) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought;
(4) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product;
(5) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or
(6) an action commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act
LAS14
(13,783 posts).... Bernie behaves/speaks as if he was preventing only simple-minded suits blaming the gun manufacturers for crimes committed by guns. That's not the kind of law suits that are being contemplated and stopped.
salinsky
(1,065 posts).... Bernie's supporters have been misrepresenting this issue.
Thanks for an accurate and concise clarification.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)And easily disproved
hedda_foil
(16,375 posts)salinsky
(1,065 posts)... is laughable.
So, Bernie didn't want to eliminate the liability exposure of gun manufacturers entirely, he just wanted to roll back that exposure to 1980's levels.
Yay, Bernie!
Oh well, I guess the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of kindergarteners.
hedda_foil
(16,375 posts)Bybye saul
salinsky
(1,065 posts)... the point remains the same.
Bernie bros sure love to run and hide.
Bye, bye now ...
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)If you haven't even bothered to read what the legislation in question actually does, you have no business posting about it. Do your goddamn due diligence...
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Look up the legislation.
Gun manufacturers are not protected from lawsuits due to defective or malfunctioning guns .
Why are you lying?
LAS14
(13,783 posts)I should have refined my statement.
You should have said I was mistaken instead of "lying."
I didn't mean to imply that gun manufacturers were protected against defective manufacture. See #9. I'll edit the post.
robbedvoter
(28,290 posts)One day before opposing gun manufacturers liability, he voted for McDonald's. So... rationalize away.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)You must think people are really really really stupid, huh?
Hanging around Camp Weathervane does leave one with that impression.