Daschle Joins Move to Shoot Down Some Liability of Gun Merchants

The National Rifle Association has found an influential ally in Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), who introduced an amendment to legislation that would protect gun manufacturers and dealers from legal liability when crimes are committed without their knowledge.

"The vast majority of gun owners, manufacturers and sellers are honest and law-abiding," Daschle said of his support for the bill. "It is wrong -- and a misuse of the civil justice system -- to try to punish honest, law-abiding people for illegal acts committed by others without their knowledge or involvement."

Daschle's amendment would, among other things, clarify a product liability exception by providing coverage for reasonably foreseeable uses of a gun that aren't criminal. It would not protect gun makers from claims involving defective products or "straw purchasers," people who buy weapons for felons and others who are legally barred from having guns.

The Senate bill has 55 co-sponsors and could come to the floor at any time. Daschle's involvement drew praise from Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president.

more..................

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50581-2003Oct19.html

Time for Tom to step down if all he's gonna do is be a GOP wannabe.

Why must he support their pet causes?

Is this another one of your genetic fallacy posts, i.e. the NRA supports it ergo it must be bad?

"The legislation is unprecedented in American history. It would serve as a license for recklessness for already reckless businessmen like the owner of Bulls Eye, who let a 16-year-old murderer walk out of his store with a three-foot-long Bushmaster assault rifle.

Earlier this year, Bulls Eye filed a motion to dismiss the civil case against it, and the presiding judge denied the motion. Judge Frank E. Cuthbertson wrote "the facts in the present case indicate that a high degree of risk of harm to plaintiffs was created by Bull's Eye Shooter Supply's allegedly reckless or incompetent conduct in distributing firearms." And he denied manufacturer Bushmaster's motion to dismiss, because the facts alleged by the victims would establish that "Bushmaster Firearms, Inc., knew or should have known that Bull's Eye Shooter Supply was operating its store in a reckless or incompetent manner, creating an unreasonable risk of harm."

There's nothing frivolous about the case against Bulls Eye and Bushmaster, and the gun industry knows it. That's why the NRA is working so hard to get this immunity bill passed. "

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.asp?Record=510

Nothing in the bill would protect gun dealers who break the law. Nothing in the bill would relax BATFE regulations that govern how gun dealers have to conduct their businesses. Nothing in the bill would weaken state or local laws that restrict the behavior of gun dealers.

The case against Bushmaster is completely frivolous. It's a waste of resources and an abuse of the civil justice system.

"The case against Bushmaster is completely frivolous."
Is THAT why the judge in Washington refused to throw it out?

Bushmaster will never be found liable.

"Bushmaster will never be found liable."
Guess the crooked gun industry annd the GOP don't want to take any chances, eh?

"Bushmaster will never be found liable."
Guess the crooked gun industry annd the GOP don't want to take any chances, eh?

Non-sequitur. If the VRWC was really in charge the case would have been dismissed already.

:tinfoilhat:

Answer this---why did Gore lose Tennessee and Arkansas. It was because hard working union members thought he was going to disarm them and small business owners were tired of armed hoodlums robbing and killing their clerks. They equated Gore with the pathetic sarah brady.

Bushmaster, like most gun manufacturers, sells guns to warehouse distributors, who then sell them to individual, legally licensed gun dealers. Here, the person who ran Bulls Eye blatantly violated the law and should obviously be held accountable. However, at the time he sold the gun to the 16-yr old, he still held a valid, legal Federal Firearms License. The fact that a crooked dealer still held an FFL is the fault of the BATF, not the gun manufacturer. How exactly would Bushmaster know he was a crooked dealer, selling to minors, without any BATF involvement? Where did Bushmaster break any laws? Unless you can clearly answer that, then this case WILL be thrown out or overturned on appeal, there is no question about that. Look at the precidents; no lawsuits of this type (as opposed to lawsuits for malfunctioning guns, which this bill has no effect upon) against gun manufacturers have been upheld. Every one that I am aware of has either been thrown out of court or overturned on appeal.

Except for a few makers of primitive firearms who can still sell their products by mail order.

http://www.navyarms.com/html/products.html

What if a gun manufacturer had ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE that a warehouser was selling guns to unlicensed dealers? Are you saying it can continue to sell guns to that warehouser until the government shuts the warehouser down?

What government organization is in charge of tracking down and identifying unlicensed dealers or dealers abusing their licence? The BATF. If the BATF knows about it, they will shut them down. How would the manufacturer know about the illegal activities without BATF involvement? Legally, the burden is on the BATF to do their job, since the gun manufacturers are not required to do double-duty as a policing agency. Most illegal gun dealers are captured by BATF stings and undercover investigations, something which gun manufacturers have neither the means nor legal power to do.

Isn't failure to report a federal felony a federal crime?

That's kind of stupid. Be like trying to sue Ford if somebody ran over and killed your spouse.

But the dealers should be held liable. The two should be seperated.

I think the ultimate responsibility would be the person driving the Ford.

This bill has provisions for dealing with people who allow "strawman" purchases. I believe that is where the dealers liability ends. If there isn't an obvious problem with the sale, and the person has passed the checks, then the dealer should be free of lawsuits.

Say, selling a car to a 10 year old insane kid who said he was going to use it to run over people... :shrug:

Likewise a gun dealer who sold a gun to a man who said he was planning to shoot his wife would be liable. The bill before Congress would not change that.

No other industry needs to hide like this.

The auto industry would be given the same kind of protection in a heartbeat.

If the Gun manufacturers are selling guns on the "black market" then hell YES, they are responsible for the wrong people getting their hands on those guns! However, most times the case is that the Gun manufacturers are dealing with reputable dealers and therefore they cannot be held liable for any damage done and if the dealer sells a gun to, just say a violent criminal then the dealer must be prosecuted, not the manufacturer!!!

He did something right for once. Looks like he wants the Democrats to win an election.

Union yes. Maybe we can get down to work in this country again.

This nonsense about gun contol costs us big time in electionsin the hunting states.

Also with small business owners who are tired of getting robbed by crack addicted armed hoodlums, who shoot and kill them. The store owners need to shoot back.

Reminds me of the kid that jumped off a multi-story building and missed the pool: 'The Matrix made me do it'.

for the criminal conduct of someone who lawfully purchased a gun?

Just curious. I understand that there have been civil suits brought against gun manufacturers and dealers, but as far as I know, all of them have alleged some kind of reckless or deliberate misconduct on the part of the manufacturer or dealer. For instance, some suits have alleged that manufacturers had actual knowledge that a gun dealer was engaged in illegal gun sales, but continued to supply the dealer with a number of weapons far in excess of what the legal market could bear. Would this bill block this kind of lawsuit?

My concern is that this bill is really designed to keep the American public in the dark about how the gun industry actually operates. This is, after all, a time honored tactic of the NRA, which has pushed repeatedly (and often successfully) to block the BFTA from gathering data on how guns wind up in the black market.

And for those who insist that the gun industry has absolutely no culpability here, need I remind you that the tobacco industry repeatedly denied claims that it had deceived the public on the health hazards of tobacco? It if weren't for the discovery process in civil lawsuits, which turned out thousands of incriminating documents, we would never have known the extent of the tobacco industry's wrongdoing.

he's gotta run for reelection next year.

Or would you rather have a Tom Delay wannabe take his place?

Ok, then. I'm glad you understand.

they should have the same law system as every other industry. They do not deserve special rights or protections.

Why stop at this jerk!!

He is a complete phoney!!!

Daschel needs to attack with no fear!!!