The common sense efforts at gun control in this country, and certainly any of the proposals that have come before Bernie in the Senate, are anything but extreme. Also dishonest was his rationalization for his vote in 2005 to shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits by gun violence victims like those brought by the families of the victims of the 2012 Aurora, Colorado theater shooter:
"If somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer and the murderer kills somebody with a gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer. That is not what a lawsuit should be about," Sanders said Sunday.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/05/politics/bernie-sanders-gun-control/index.html
That is a very dishonest description of that law...and the victims' lawsuits. The lawsuits don't allege manufacturers should be liable just because a gun"falls into the hands of a murderer." The lawsuits allege manufacturer liability based on the manufacturer knowing they were selling to an irresponsible retailer, or selling a product that is designed for mass killing, as opposed to hunting or self defense. That 2005 law gave special immunity to gun manufacturers that hammer manufacturers do not have. Indeed, no other manufacturers have this immunity. What this immunity does is allow gun manufacturers to continue selling guns to retailers they know or should have reason to know are selling guns to criminals and the mentally ill. Sadly, there are a minority of gun retailers who don't give a shit and are the source for most of the guns used in gun violence. And greedy gun manufacturers are more than happy to keep supplying them. That 2005 law (the PLCAA) allows gun manufacturers to keep doing that with impunity:
Because the PLCAA deals with tort law—not a topic of great interest for most Americans—it didn’t stir much outrage when first passed. But the act’s primary purpose is as simple as it is cold-blooded. Every state imposes liability on manufacturers who are negligent in their production and sale of products. If I crash my Prius because its accelerator malfunctions, I can sue Toyota for negligently manufacturing a faulty pedal. If my child dismembers himself with a blender at Sears, I can sue Sears for negligently leaving that blender within a child’s reach. If I get stabbed by a teenager with a switchblade, I might be able to sue the pawn shop owner who illegally sold a knife to a minor.
Before the PLCAA, most states imposed some form of tort liability on gun makers and sellers. If a gun manufacturer made an assault rifle that could slaughter dozens of people in a few seconds, for instance, one of its victims might sue the company for negligently making a gun that could foreseeably be used for mass murder. If a gun seller sold a gun to a customer without performing any kind of background check—and then the buyer opened fire on the subway—his victims might sue that seller for negligently providing a gun to a mentally unstable person. The standards in each state differed, but the bottom line remained the same: Victims of gun violence and their families could recover financially from the people and companies who negligently enabled gun violence.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
