You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Senate Rejects Move to Sue Gun Dealers
2005-07-29
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate sparred Thursday over legislation to shield the firearms industry from some lawsuits, rejecting an argument that gun makers and others are liable if they irresponsibly allowed a criminal to obtain a weapon and use it to kill or wound. ``We should not protect those folks from their own reckless conduct, their own negligence,'' said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.
The gun-ban nuts keep trying to find a wedge to sue, and this would have been a dandy.
Levin's amendment to allow some suits by victims of gun crimes failed 62-37. The bill's supporters said the proposal would undermine the purpose of their legislation: keeping the gun industry out of financial peril from damage suits. ``What this is all about is trying to drive gun manufacturers out of business,'' said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.
'cause if only the government had guns the whole country would be peaceful.
Levin's amendment was one of the few that Republican leaders were letting the Senate vote on. When the Senate considered the same bill a year ago, Democrats succeeded in attaching an amendment that would have extended an expiring assault weapons ban. At the National Rifle Association's request, the bill never had a final vote.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., revived it this week by delaying until the fall final action on a defense bill the Senate was debating. He then used parliamentary maneuvers to block Democrats from getting votes on amendments objectionable to the NRA. ``We're being blocked by the power interests on the other side,'' shouted Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. ``That's the lockhold that the NRA has.''

Democrats did succeed in adding an amendment to require child safety locks to be purchased with every handgun, except those bought by government officials and police officers. Any violation could be punished by the suspension of the dealer's license, a $10,000 fine or both.
Dumb. Anyone who's responsible stores a handgun safely to begin with, and anyone who's irresponsible won't use safety locks, either.
Posted by:Steve White

#14  The bill passed 65 to 31
Posted by: Secret Master   2005-07-29 17:32  

#13  "We're being blocked by the power interests on the other side," shouted Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-runk. "That's the lockhold that the NRA has."

No, Teddy. That's the lockhold that the majority of the voters has.

Posted by: Jackal   2005-07-29 14:41  

#12  "The GFW mantra that manufacturers are responsible for misuse of their products by criminals is simply laughable. What about knife makers?"mojo

Duanne Bobbit Vs. Chicago Cuttlery.???
Posted by: DepotGuy   2005-07-29 12:52  

#11  Didn't know he was a drunk until I saw him sober one day in '87.
Posted by: Shipman   2005-07-29 12:45  

#10  Sobriety's gotta be killin' him...

Notice he's not dead...
Posted by: tu3031   2005-07-29 11:47  

#9  ``We're being blocked by the power interests on the other side,'' shouted Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. ``That's the lockhold that the NRA has.''

Sobriety's gotta be killin' him...
Posted by: Raj   2005-07-29 11:44  

#8  At least they rejected this crap. Forcing child locks, sounds good but is freaken dumb. Kinda like the enviromentaly friendly foam on the shuttle.
Remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and we are well over halfway there.
Posted by: mmurray821   2005-07-29 10:19  

#7  lejislaveshen

I like that one, mucky.
Posted by: too true   2005-07-29 09:47  

#6  yore okay spod. gladn kno ima not em onlee libertareeyan heer. :)
Posted by: muck4doo   2005-07-29 00:55  

#5  'cause if only the government had guns the whole country would be peaceful

It wouldn't stop there either. They'd disarm the government, police, and finally the military.
Posted by: Rafael   2005-07-29 00:46  

#4  I already did years ago Mucky, I also quit the NRA when I found out they were (a)writing the gun laws (b) only supporting Dems and Republicans.

Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom   2005-07-29 00:42  

#3  joyn em libertarayeeans spod. ima did. gotta say kudos tho to thosen stood up.

ima thinken we can alowen thes kinda lejislaveshen wen we can soo car makers for all em deths on teh rode.

aintn it they fawlts for all teh idjits that get beehined teh weel?
Posted by: muck4doo   2005-07-29 00:39  

#2  Even if it stays in, most gun dealers would probably just give you one with eash weapon. And jack the price a little, no doubt, but it wouldn't show.

The GFW mantra that manufacturers are responsible for misuse of their products by criminals is simply laughable. What about knife makers?

"Reductio ad absurdum" is redundant with these mooks.
Posted by: mojo   2005-07-29 00:36  

#1  I have no kids. None of my guns have "saftey locks." Those loicks make my guns useless. Put a lock on Kenedy's stearing wheel (and booze) since his car has kill more people than my guns.

Since when does being the government or it's employee grant you more rights than me? Is the government now the King? I must have the King's permission to defend myself or to purchase goods?
Screw this "government." You are losing your rights people and are doing nothing about it.
Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom   2005-07-29 00:23  

00:00