If so, bring it forward. If not, and if you are honorable, withdraw the accusation of corruption.

I disagree with Bernie on this point, but disagreement and corruption are two very different things.

I'm saying that the passage of this law was corruption: an industry that has influential lobbyists got special treatment that isn't available to normal people without connections in DC. I'm not saying that Bernie was bribed.

without implicating him. The inference is direct.

getting special treatment from congress. The doesn't mean that Bernie specifically was taking bribes.

your whole statement in that paragraph was about Bernie and not congress as a whole. You accused him as a person of corruption.

The difference is nobody is stupid enough to sue GM when a person is speeding in a car and kills somebody.

Nobody is going to sue Budweiser if a person gets a DUI and kills somebody.

People were suing gun manufactures in an attempt to put them out of business so this law was passed.

If MADD started suing Budweiser every time there was a DUI, I would support a similar law protecting them, but most people would agree that Budweiser is not responsible.

law absolving them (and only them) of product misuse lawsuits. Product misuse is sometimes, but not always, protection from liability claims. Like the article pointed out, if that boy in Illinois had killed his friend with something other than a gun, the case wouldn't have been thrown out of court in this way.

If you want to argue that all industries should enjoy the same legal immunity as gun manufacturers, be my guest. Like I said, the Koch Brothers will be at your door with bags of money. This is a battle that the right has been fighting for a long time, under the banner of "tort reform".

Bags of money. How big are the bags? And what denominations of money? I don't really want bags of pennies...

Congratulations, you've made an argument that's even more illogical than the NRA (and Bernie) did.

The theory in the article is the gun manufacturer was negligent in selling the gun. Except the gun manufacturer sold the gun to a federally-licensed firearms dealer. Because that's all they can sell to.

Oops. There goes the negligence. And your case. But you got to spend a giant pile of money on lawyers.

Sold "too many" guns? If those federally-licensed dealers are placing orders, there's no legal reason for the manufacturer to think they have sold too many. Ford isn't going to make fewer cars if their dealers are still placing orders, and you would not expect Ford to do so.

So again, you lose. And get to pay your lawyers a giant pile of money.

The SLAPP campaign against gun manufactures was always a terrible and incredibly callous plan designed to exploit the grief of gun victims at an enormous financial cost to those victims.

succeeded or not is both irrelevant and meaningless. Of course, the courts didn't get to decide, because the NRA and the GOP, with an assist from Bernie, decided for them.

And the people behind the SLAPP campaign knew it. They explicitly said their plan was to file nuisance lawsuits in the hope that gun manufacturers would just give up. Nevermind the counter-suits from the manufacturers re-filling their coffers. But hey, if some victims are in hundreds of thousands debt after the suit, they can just move on to the next victim.

Is your hatred of anything not-Clinton so deep you're really supporting fucking over grieving families?

And the NRA thought the lawsuits were dangerous enough to mount an intensive lobbying campaign to get them thrown out, so there's that. Your evidence-free opinion that the lawsuits weren't going to succeed is worth nothing.

Also, the lawsuits were already having an effect. For example, Smith and Wesson agreed to settle one such lawsuit out of court by voluntarily adopting a number of gun safety measures.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/18/us/gun-makers-see-betrayal-in-decision-by-smith-wesson.html

Like I said, the idea that the NRA was trying to "protect" victims of gun violence by forbidding them access to the courts for compensation is one of the dumbest things I've heard in a long time. I guess you think all the gun violence victims who have had their lawsuits thrown out of court since this law passed should thank the NRA and Bernie for denying them access to the legal system. I'm sure they're very thankful.

at his hopeless campaign. How many millions of dollars do you want to bleed from working class families?

is a terrible waste.

Btw, if she actually is inevitable, you wouldn't need to write so many barely-not-lying posts. It kinda demonstrates you don't really believe your own position.

If you were actually concerned about protecting victims by taking away their rights, you should be much more concerned about all the money that Bernie is taking from working class families all for a presidential campaign that has no hope of succeeding.

Obviously, that's silly. People can spend their money and time as they want. If they want to sue gun companies, that's their right (until Bernie and the NRA took it away). If they want to contribute to hopeless causes, that's also their right.

My apologies, I thought it was obvious what I was doing. I guess I have to recalibrate my obviousness meter for this discussion.

what you really ought to do is tell Bernie to stop asking people for donations. We both know he's got no prayer of beating Hillary, and even less chance of winning the GE.

Do you really think it's ethical for him to be taking money from people who, by his own admission, don't have a lot of money to give? It's a bit like selling snake-oil. I think you should write him a letter telling him that, in keeping with his vote to stop people from suing gun companies for their own good, he should also stop people from contributing money to his lost cause.

You already had a reply. You wrote another instead of editing your first because.....?

controlling what people do with their money, you also wanted to enforce your own rules as to how many replies people are allowed to post on DU. But it does make sense now that I think about it. Your utopian vision is becoming more clear.

At least you didn't accidentally refer to Dan in your second post. Might have ruined the act.

Jessica Ghalwi being the victim from the Aurora theatre shooting here in Colorado. The killer's defense just rested, and the case will go to jury by next week.

Her parents sued Bushmaster (I believe - I could be wrong) but lost the case, and court ordered the parents to pay for the legal fees which amounted to about $400,000 - that was a result of the law protecting the manufacturers from a frivolous suit such as this one - and I agree.

Ghalwi's parents should be focusing on owning the assets of Holmes, if he has any.

Some of the lawsuits against gun manufacturers, of course, did succeed. Notably Smith and Wesson, who settled with the Clinton Administration and agreed to implement a number of safety measures. Then Bush got elected, and with Bernie's help, pushed through gun manufacturer immunity.

Even the right to the court is subject to reasonable commonsense restrictions.

You aren't one of those absolutists are you?

And thank you for exampling what I was trying to avoid.

"There should be controls on what kind of guns can be sold"


You say that like there aren't any now.

Is that what you actually believe?

They may not go far enough in some scenarios and may not be enforced in others, but again if I understand your first question you asked if I was an "absolutist" and not really understanding what you meant by that word, I thought I would explain my position on guns and the control of guns.

What do you mean by that word?

But still what do you mean by absoulutionist? I am honestly asking.


I know I fall in a grey area on guns for the status quo of Democrats which seems to ban all guns but I am affected by all the murders of people just trying to get on with their lives.


If you don't want to go into this, cool. It is a lazy Sunday afterall! Have a good one.

The person I originally responded to, and in fact gun control advocates here on DU in general, have long insisted that no right is absolute, when talking about rights where guns are concerned. Beyond that, they accuse those who disagree with their methodology, as being absolutists.

I was just giving that poster a friendly reminder that this particular shoe (no right is absolute) fits perfectly on their feet as well, when it comes to rights to sue.


"Sauce for the goose" as the old saying goes...

mis-use of the product. Manufacturors can avoid liability through warnings (Don't drink and drive ads) or warning labels.
Hillary may have found an area where she can squeeze left of Bernie on some parts of gun control, but Bernie will support practical gun control reform. Bernie's positions on gun control are still Progressive compared to most.
I see this as an insincere, calculating move on Hillary's part since she has not been out front on this issue in her career until now. Despite that, I am glad that whatever the motivation for it that she is doing it.

that subsequently called for the removal, are they "opportunistic"?

And so what? The opportunity is there....take it...like Australia was "opportunistic" after it got sick and tired of another mass murder...and so did what America should do and stop them.

Opportunity knocks, it would be shameful to not answer the door.

designed to bankrupt the manufacturers was the reason it was necessary. They do not make that much in profits to have to defend thousands of lawsuits, some from municipalities with unlimited resources.

to ever get rid of them, but manufacturors are always pushing for no regulation, total immunity, etc. Big Pharma pushed an immunity for all generic drug manufacturors and got it because they bought enough politicians, it has been the same for gun manufacturors and the NRA.

We need rational regulation of guns equivalent to the harm they do. We have age, training and testing requirements to get a license to drive because a car is a dangerous thing if not operated properly, why should guns be any different? In some states they have more regulations to address some of these issues, but we fall far short as a nation in regulating guns. The gun proponents oppose EVERY REGULATION and have had the Lobby to be successful, this is wrong. While regulations won't prevent every instance of gun deaths just like with automobiles, they would go a long way to saving lives.

Responsible gun owners should not be afraid of regulation, they should be out front helping to craft responsible and effective regulations instead of blindly opposing any regulation!

It is up to the states to decide. Some do indeed have higher standards. I do not think there are any federal regulations on who can own or drive a car unlike guns. There are federal regulations for guns, should we treat guns like cars?

If not, what would you propose?

I have no problems and would like UBC as the standard and the check should be free and open to the public to encourage use.
I think existing laws need to be fully enforced and the law enforcement agencies should be fully funded.
I think any straw purchasing should have a very stiff penalty
I think anyone convicted and declared a prohibited person must transfer or turn in their weapons.
I have no problems with magazine restrictions of 20 or less rounds and what will fit in the grip of a handgun, normally 7-16.
I am for safe storage encouragement including tax breaks or subsidies for safes and hand gun safes.
I am against bans for weapons due to cosmetic features.
I do not care for open carry and would prefer concealed carry laws be universal for all states.
I am for weapons training for all people handling firearms.
I think sound suppressors should be removed as an NFA item as they are actually a safety feature and are fully legal in most other countries.

Given more time I will think of more, that is just off the top of my head.
Here is a quick and handy reference on the current regulations.
https://www.atf.gov/file/58686/download

Therefore pretending gun factories and corporations can get special legal treatment is OK...though
highly illogical and inconsistent.

He really has to fix that....Principles are principles, either you stick to them or the resultant hypocrisy will soon appear.

I am aware he is on board on all other gun control issues, but he really has to fix that, because earning an F rating from the cult-like NRA does not take much. Cults are cults for a reason.

in knots trying to defend this horrible law.

I don't agree with Sen. Sanders on this but that doesn't mean I can't understand why the vote. I think the Illinois court was wrong in how this law was applied.

Regardless, you are accusing the Senator of something egregious that is absolutely unbelievable. Yeah, the only candidate not endorsing super pacs and not taking any corporate money for the biggest, most important, campaign he'll ever undertake, would take money for a vote?

Prove it. This is really some bullshit stuff

not going to be in the game.

Back to the legal carve out protecting gun carve outs that Sanders supports...why???

Simple question...why? Can he not be persuaded to evolve in the issue, because he is obviously a very reasonable man, surely he sees the problem as well. Should we all just leave him alone with this inconsistency?

After that phase of his career is done, he has to be reelected in Vermont. Can't offend the gun lovers there. JMHO

Just why would a gun owner be affected by this law either way?

I just don't see it, this completely bypasses the owner and goes directly to the manufacturer. The only thing I can see is perhaps a small increase in the price of a firearm with passage. If anything passage of this law would help the gun owner as anyone suing would go directly to the deeper pockets.

Gun makers are not big businesses - massive legal fees, even if they won, would bankrupt many of them.

On the "not going to be in the game. " Obviously, that is just not true. Sen.Sander is in the game. And he will win it.

Where was it that I said he should be left alone on this point? I don't agree with it. I am a hater when it comes to guns. I want Senator Sanders to go further left on gun control. I'm glad he has voted for some controls, the semi automatics and the background checks

You brought Clinton into this conversation so I'm going there. Why should she be left alone in her vote and her push for the illegal war in Iraq? Every time it's brought up here, it's excused and people who want more from her on it are vilified. Unbelievably, I actually saw someone not just defend her but defend the war!! Here, right on DU!

I responded to the accusation that Senator Sanders was bought and paid for. Bought and paid for by a lobby that is represented by the same group that has given him an "F" rating. I am not in agreement with him. But to accuse him of being bought is bullshit

"Yeah, the only candidate not endorsing super pacs and not taking any corporate money for the biggest, most important, campaign he'll ever undertake, would take money for a vote?"

Wasn't that your comment? The only candidate not endorsing superpacs....so, including candidate Clinton...which is wrong.

Super pacs. But she's also not distancing herself from them or disavowing them. And she sure is taking corporate money.

Which is exactly what he did.

And you are accusing him of being bought. And it's bullshit

special immunity if they didn't have a powerful lobby in DC, and that this is a case of the type of corruption and corporate power over government that Bernie Sanders usually speaks out against.

Do you disagree with that?

You are; again, implying he was bought. Get off it.

Will you answer my question now? Do you think that corporate lobbying is a form of corruption? And do you think that the passage of this law was corruption?

Of course I agree that lobbying is a form of corruption. No, I don't think that this law is corruption in the way you are laying it out. You are trying to make people say that Bernie Sanders is corrupt and I don't believe it for a minute.

15 Democrats in the Senate and 59 Democrats in the House voted for this bill. As much as I hate this bill, it does not allow for defects to be immune from lawsuits or any other torts that other manufacturers are sued for. As I stated, I believe that the law was improperly applied in the Illinois case.

Until something is done about the crazy new interpretation of the Second Amendment, laws like this, and even worse ones to come, I am sure, will pass.

The corruption is that the NRA was allowed to lobby for this bill.

We're going to have to agree to disagree about whether this is corruption. I'm frankly pretty surprised by your answer.

An industry was facing lawsuits it was afraid of losing, so it used its powerful lobby to get congress to pass a special law throwing those lawsuits out. The fact that some Dems crossed the aisle to vote with the GOP/NRA doesn't change that. Neither does the fact that some kinds of lawsuits were exempted from the immunity. This doesn't mean that Bernie or anyone else was paid off. But this is still an (obvious) example of the corrupt corporate lobbying system at work. And I stand by my statement that this is the kind of thing that Bernie Sanders usually speaks against (and good for him for doing that).

What happened in the Illinois case, as far as I understand, is this. One kid shot and killed another kid by accident. The victim's family sued the gun company saying that the gun design lacked safety features and made it too easy to accidentally shoot people. Problem is, the kid who fired the shot got charged with something as a juvenile (manslaughter I think). That meant that it wasn't just an accident, it was "unlawful misuse" and the case got dismissed due to PLCAA.

That probably wasn't the intent of the law, but this is the way the legal system works. The general effect of a law like this is to make it more difficult to sue gun companies period. It puts another arrow in their quiver. A big one.

As I stated, I hate guns and everything about them

I'm disappointed that any Democrat voted for this and I stated so at the time and since. That includes Senator Sanders.

You are obviously you but I am not the only one that reason it as an accusation of Senator Sanders being corrupt. Whether you meant it that way or not, that's how it reads.

I am not defending his vote. I am not defending the law. And I am certainly not defending the NRA. But I don't defend or even understand how anyone votes in any way that furthers the use of guns. If I only supported people based on that, I would have very few people to support.

There is nothing outside of gun control that I disagree with Senator Sanders on..and I do support and am glad for his votes against semi-automatics and background checks.

Unlike how some people excuse the vote for, and championing of, an illegal war, I have no problem stating I think this vote was wrong.

I still like Sanders. A lot. This vote wouldn't stop me from supporting him. I agree with him more than Clinton, and if I thought he was electable, he'd be my top choice. But I do think he has a bit of a blind spot on guns. And I got a little surprised when some Bernie supporters (not you) decided to try and defend this vote instead of just saying what you did.

I agree that there is no excuse for voting for or championing an illegal war. Still, I agree with Clinton about most things. And I don't for a second think that she is going to start another Iraq War, or that she would have lied the nation into war like Bush did if she was president. But she will be more of a hawk than Bernie.

And there are many that have said what you just said in the reply I'm responding to.

Nothing would surprise me with Clinton and wars. Even in Iraq.

If everyone that stated they agree more with Sanders than Clinton, actually supposed Sanders, he would already be ahead in the polls. He soon will be. And he will be the democratic nominee.

Debate requires facts, not false accusations, otherwise it is not debating, it is caterwauling.

and here is the definition that comes up first when you Google "corruption:"

Your first is not

"Fact Checker" gives Senator Sanders (I-VT) two Pinocchios on his explanation of this vote.

Of course, he can "move left" or "evolve" on this issue. No problem for his supporters.

I and others very much disagree with this vote and other of his gun control votes. But the rest of his record is unapproachable.

Funny coming from someone that actually tried to justify the illegal war in Iraq to back Clinton. After that, nothing you say has any merit for me.

Take your rage out on Hillary. And Hillary supporters.

If you defeat her again, you will have more revenge and vindication. You will have your pound of flesh. I understand.

Go ahead, try to twist it. You excused the war. I have never seen that on DU or any liberal site before and I hope I never see it again.

Inexcusable

as excusing the Bush/Cheney/Republican war. I was merely remembering as it was, not what we found out subsequently. When you always expect the worst from government, you often turn out to be quite right.

I understand that is how you feel. I cannot argue with that.

I damn sure don't hate you for it.

I hate guns. I hate war. I am not equating Hillary supporters with excusing the war. I have never done that. Ever. You, however, excused her vote and used the rhetoric, the lies, to excuse the war. It's exactly what you did and the proof is still there. You are the only one I have ever seen do that.

I am done with this. You can't even admit what you did and try to use what you did to attack me with stuff that has never happened

You do.

The argument ends here. This is the irresistible force meeting the immovable object. I understand.

I am not attacking you. I understand how you feel.

then they let people buy dozens of guns at a time with ID's from the places with the gun control, and claim they have no idea why those guns get used in crimes in those areas.

If you think there should be a limit on the number of guns a person can purchase at one time then work to make that change. The problem isn't guns, the problem is the people committing the murders.

this is no different at all than a company that puts out a hazardous chemical and claims it isn't killing people.

They cannot sell directly to the public.

and the guns in the store come from the ether. They know damn well what they are doing.

But you know that.

a gun store in Podunk Indiana, which happens to be 60 minutes from Chicago sells more guns than any other store in the entire state, has guns from that store repeatedly used in crime in Chicago, and the manufacturers filling those orders have no earthly idea what is going on. Either they are the stupidest businessman on earth or they think we are the stupidest people on earth.

Were any laws broken?

when they over serve and not Miller Beer. There should be controls on what kind of guns can be sold, just like there are controls in how much alcohol can be in a serving.

Sometimes people think a person is either For or Against...especially on the topic of Guns. I want to be sure that I am clear in stating that my position is one that lies in the inbetween. I don't want to abolish guns, but I am all for stricter gun control. I am very sure one must be very careful on this site because the more vague one is, the more someone can take the ball and run into a completely different court.

to a bar that they knew was serving drunk customers they damn well should be sued.

is found to prove...exactly what does it prove?..."This is the exact opposite of everything that Bernie claims to stand for"...that is an opinion, not based on fact...

pretty cheaply with posts like this. That's a shame.

a corporate giveaway.

Look, I still like Bernie, despite this vote. It's just one issue, albeit an important one.

But what is a little unsettling is some (not all, but a substantial number) Bernie supporters who are actually defending this vote. I doubt that the same people would defend it if Bernie hadn't voted for it (sure, there are some gun nuts who would, but I'm talking about general progressive Bernie supporters). Let's be clear: legal immunity for the gun industry is a really bad thing.

People make mistakes they later regret...people are imperfect creatures, made more perfect by apology and change...time for Sanders to evolve on this outrageous carve out for gun factories.

She says things along the lines of "If I knew then what I know now...". That's a defense.

She was quite enthused to place that vote. Gave a nice, rousing speech in favor of it. Hasn't ever bothered to explain specifically how she was "fooled". Especially since the Senators who actually bothered to read the NIE weren't fooled.

Golly, I'm sure there's no spin involved when they change the description of what they are doing.

So you want this situation:
-Someone is killed by a gun.
-Victim's family's grief is exploited - "Hey, file a lawsuit against Colt!!"
-Lawsuit is filed. Costs start to pile up.
-Victim's family loses lawsuit, because the gun wasn't defective, and the gun manufacturer sold it to a licensed dealer (they can't sell to anyone else)
-Victim's family now gets to pay a ton of money to lawyers. That'll totally soothe their grief.

The SLAPP campaign against gun manufacturers was always a terrible and incredibly callous idea.

Or however I'm supposed to spell it.

The notion that a manufacturer can be sued for promoting certain attributes is shaky. Car manufacturers show their 600 horsepower monsters burning rubber and going 200 mph in the Nevada desert. Can they be sued for making their cars fast and powerful? What about motorcycles? Any 17 year old kid with $20k can plunk down his money and ride off at 160 mph, with no consideration about his qualifications to pilot that crotch rocket. Firearms are similar to other products that appeal to consumers because of characteristics that make them dangerous, either to the user or to others.

Gun makers should beheld responsible for faulty design. A gun that fires when the safety is on, for example, is a faulty product, and the consumer should have recourse against the manufacturer. Unfortunately, that's not possible because the industry received the blanket immunity you mentioned. Why? Because they were being pelted with bogus lawsuits that were substitutes for gun control legislation. If the suits were targeted (yes, small pun there) at specific models that were unsafe, such as Ralph Nader's campaign against the Corvair, it would make sense. But the lawsuits were just a means to force gun manufacturers out of business by suing every time one of their products was used to kill or injure someone, whether or not it had anything to do with unsafe design, etc.

That suing gun mfg is like suing the mfg of a baseball bat. No! Suing the gun mfg is like suing the tobacco companies. They calluded to mislead and lie to the public to increase sales. It's all about making a buck.

Is that what they lied about to mislead the public about

guns, that without guns people are vulnerable, that 2nd A rights were on the line, that guns were about to be banned...to flood the market with weapons that made mega bucks for manufacturers. That now has the USA leading western civilized nations in gun deaths. We are not safer because there are more guns on the street.

gun mfg cannot be sued...remember?

We are all paying with the lives for children, parents, siblings and friends for the mfg to rake in the profits.

That's what you're claiming is a lie?

Well...I guess you've forgotten about the ban that lasted 10 years, which attempted to ban the most popular rifles in America.


Naw. Nobody wants to ban guns.