[GunGoBoom]

Dr. Tom Coburn was on Meet the Press this morning - he is one of the most conservative members of the Repub party in the U.S. Senate. Asked directly whether he agreed with Judge Alito that the Congress lacks the power under the commerce clause (and the 10th amendment) to regulate machine guns, he said unequivocally, no, he disagrees; Congress does have that power, and furthermore, it amounts to *JUDICIAL ACTIVISM* on the part of Alito for a justice to say that Congress does NOT have the power to regulate firearms (the general police power), through the commerce clause. These are our supposed friends? And he's not even a RINO. He's going to get a letter, and no repub will be getting my vote ever again unless they have a PROVEN history of supporting state's rights and the second amendment.

[boofus]

Congress does have the power to regulate MGs if they pass from 1 state to another. They DO NOT have the power to outright ban every single MG for whatever reason. Likewise I don't see how they can require a federal tax paid for MGs and then refuse to accept the tax. Unconstitutional liberal BS.

That's ok wait til we tell the religious right that it's perfectly "constitutional" to require an Abortion Tax. And then they can pass a law saying no abortion taxes will be accepted.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

So GOAs number one priority for the Senate in 2004 isn't pro-gun enough for you?

[MechAg94]

The Repubs are not an RKBA party. Did you really think they were?

That said, I seem to see more pro-gun people in that party than in the Dem party. It did not used to be that way I am sure, but is appears to be now. That is why you should always look at the individuals rather than at the party. That goes for a lot of issues, not just this one.

[saltydog]

Its been 5 years now since the Republicans have had some power and I am still waiting for something related to guns that affects me, Mr. average Joe Blow,to be "reversed". I won't hold my breath.:rolleyes: Please don't use the so called Assault weapon ban sunset as an excuse as the "sunset clause" was inserted in that Bill under Bill Clinton and his Regime. Bush had nothing to do with that.

[boofus]

What about forcing the ATF to destroy records of NICS approvals instead of keeping them indefinitely like Klinton ordered them to do? In essence it was a federal gun registry that the government was barred from creating by the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act. Not to mention keeping the records violated the Brady Bill itself which mandated that the approved sales records not be kept. Billy 'The Cigar and Intern' Klinton blatantly violated both.

[hillbilly]

Saltydog, if you can't see how the recent signing of the lawsuit pre-emption act affects you, Joe-Blow Gunowner, then I can't help it that you're blind.

hillbilly

[Lone_Gunman]

Hillbilly I agree the lawsuit pre-emption bill helps us gun owners, but unfortunately it violates the 7th Amendment.

No one ever remembers the 7th, but it says:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no
fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the
United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


As soon as someone takes this to the Supreme Court, it will be struck down.

It doesn't do us any good for Republicans to pass obviously unconstitional laws.

[shermacman]

Swell, the Republicans aren't perfect.
Here is a interesting fact: the world is not perfect.

If we sit around and whimper about individual details then we will be rewarded with an election driven by the DU, the Deaniacs, Hillary, Jean Fraud Kerry, etc etc. They will be more than happy to vote for us.

[antsi]

Please don't use the so called Assault weapon ban sunset as an excuse as the "sunset clause" was inserted in that Bill under Bill Clinton and his Regime. Bush had nothing to do with that.

So, you're telling me that with a Democrat controlled congress and Kerry or Gore in the White House, the AWB would have been allowed to sunset? Yeah, right :rolleyes:

I don't seem to remember Bill Clinton clamoring for the sunset provision. If Clinton and Fienstein and their ilk had their way, there never would have been a sunset provision in the law in the first place.

Kerry took a day off from his presidential campaign and flew all the way across the country to vote in favor of an AWB extension. The Republicans killed their own gun liability bill, to make sure that the Democrats wouldn't be able to extend the AWB.

Democrat leaders like Kennedy, Schumer, and Fienstein were proposing AWB extension bills that would have massively expanded the definition of an "assault weapon," thus including many more kinds of firearms in the ban.

Under a Democrat controlled congress and Kerry or Gore in the White House, the AWB would have been not just re-enacted, but re-enacted in a much more virulent form.

So don't go telling me that the AWB sunset outcome would have been exactly the same with Democrats in charge. That's just patently untrue.

[Zundfolge]

You have 3 choices.

Vote Democrat

Vote Republican

Vote from the rooftops.


I don't care what the propaganda from the LP, Reform Party, Constitution Party, Green Party et al says, there is no viable 3rd party ... so lets just tear down the GOP and hand the effing country to the Socialists (ie Democrats).
:banghead:


If half of the GOP bashers in this forum would just quit their bitchin' and actually join the RLC and get involved in the struggle going on inside the GOP we might actually have a chance of winning this country back without bloodshed.


The LP types and other "ideologically pure" 3rd party folk out there don't seem to realize that they are pawns of the DNC ... divide an conquer ... its working ... the BS in these forums pretty much proves it.

[Standing Wolf]

Congress does have the power to regulate MGs if they pass from 1 state to another.

If and only if we grand Congress power to regulate anything and everything that passes from one state to another. That may be Congress' view of reality, but it surely isn't mine.

[antsi]

Dr. Tom Coburn was on Meet the Press this morning - he is one of the most conservative members of the Repub party in the U.S. Senate. Asked directly whether he agreed with Judge Alito that the Congress lacks the power under the commerce clause (and the 10th amendment) to regulate machine guns, he said unequivocally, no, he disagrees; Congress does have that power....[snip]... These are our supposed friends?


Okay, so we have:

Republican: thinks congress has the right to regulate machine guns

Democrat: thinks congress should ban all rifle calibers capable of penetrating soft body armor, including .30-30, .30-06, and .223 Rem (Ted Kennedy)

Democrat: thinks congress should ban all magazines over 10 rounds capacity, and thinks that allowing current owners to keep their mags is a "loophole" that needs to be closed (Schumer)

Democrat: thinks congress should ban all guns outright (Feinstein)

I know this is difficult, GunGoBoom, but I think if you read really slowly and carefully and reflect on the above policy proposals of Democrats, you might just possibly be able to detect some subtle differences between them and the Republicans here.

[Chris Rhines]

There are still people out there who think we have a two-party system. Amazing.

- Chris

[el44vaquero]

GOP is still the one for me. :cool:

[Double Naught Spy]

Wow GoGoBoom, you took the singular statement of one person from the Republican party and from that then drew an all inclusive decision that the whole makeup of the Republican party isn't a friend or ally.

So if you won't be giving your vote to Republicans without a PROVEN history of supporting state's rights and the second amendment, then who will you be voting for? I am guessing that you will not be voting for too many local Republican office holders as many of their jobs have virtually nothing to do with states' rights or the Second Amendment.

[Hawkmoon]

No one ever remembers the 7th, but it says:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

As soon as someone takes this to the Supreme Court, it will be struck down.
I think you are reading the provision incorrectly. I believe what it says is that in the event of a civil lawsuit for more than $20 the defendent may insist on a trial by jury rather than a trial by magistrate. I don't believe that provision addresses in any way the power of Congress to spell ot what areas may be off-limits to any suit.

[boofus]

no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States

Actually if you read the last part of the amendment it makes S.397 completely Constitutional. Remember Dix vs Beretta in California and finally the 9th Circus court? Beretta USA suffered TRIPLE jeopardy, those activist judges dredged up that same exact case 2 more times after the initial case was dismissed.

[Zundfolge]

There are still people out there who think we have a two-party system. Amazing.

Snarky sarcasm is cute for the coffeeshop crowd, but it doesn't make for a very substantive argument.

Even if I bought the argument that there is no difference between the GOP and DNC (which I don't), they are still two distinct organizations that are in competition with each other and those elected to high office in this country are going to be one or the other.

The GOP is a part of the existing power structure in this country ... so if you want a more pro-gun, more pro-liberty, more pro-small government, more pro-states rights government you're going to have to get there either via the GOP or the DNC.

I believe the DNC is a lost cause ... they've gone way too far in the Socialist/Statist direction to be redeemed.

However the GOP has many many "small l libertarians" still in it who can rise to power within the party and change its direction if only the libertarian minded at the grass roots level don't "take their ball and go home".



Those who truly believe that the GOP and DNC are two halves of the same party and that there is one party rule in this country, and/or that the GOP is completely unredeemable ... well then you're only left with one option; start killing people.

[3rdpig]

The day someone shows me a third party candidate who is pro gun and has valid poll numbers to suggest that they stand a chance of beating the democrats, that will be the day I'll consider voting for them. Until then I'll keep voting for Republicans and trying to change the party to a more pro gun, small government, stance.

[joab]

So, you're telling me that with a Democrat controlled congress and Kerry or Gore in the White House, the AWB would have been allowed to sunset? Yeah, right Even the Bradys admitted that the ban had little if no effect on crime

So yes I believe that a Kerry/ Gore with a democrat dominated congress backing them up would have let the ban sunset.

About ten minutes after they passed the new and improved version that included armor piecing 30-30s

[GunGoBoom]

Zund and DNS, you miss the point entirely. The point is, THIRD PARTY OR BUST!!! I'd rather bust than vote for one or the other wings of the Republicrat Uni-Party. Of course there's no viable third party. But there WILL BE if people like you, Zund, get on the bandwagon with me and the others and support 3rd P candidates. There won't be if YOU don't. That's the point. We get nothing good from Repubs. Particularly from Shrub, who said he WOULD SIGN the Homeland Defense Rifle Ban and Standard Capacity Magazine Ban if they came to his desk. Meh, we're just in fundamental disagreement.

[Zundfolge]

Zund and DNS, you miss the point entirely. The point is, THIRD PARTY OR BUST!!! I'd rather bust than vote for one or the other wings of the Republicrat Uni-Party.
Then be intelliectually honest and take up arms ... cause you haven't got a snowball's chance in hell if you expect to get your way by voting.

Of course there's no viable third party. But there WILL BE if people like you, Zund, get on the bandwagon with me and the others and support 3rd P candidates. There won't be if YOU don't. That's the point. We get nothing good from Repubs. Particularly from Shrub, who said he WOULD SIGN the Homeland Defense Rifle Ban and Standard Capacity Magazine Ban if they came to his desk. Meh...
I think you miss my point ... there will NEVER be a viable 3rd party because both of the major parties have the game rigged ... I fully agree on that point. The thing is to use that to our advantage. Instead of building a new party from scratch, we need to hijack an existing one. The "Republican Revolution" of '94 was an example of the non-statists Republicans taking charge (the mistake was not acting like winners and still thinking we could get along with Democrats).

All you and the other 3rd party folk do is divide your base thus allowing your opponents to win.

And "Shrub" isn't the be-all-end-all Republican ... there are a metric ton of Republicans who don't like him (I'm part of that group) but "taking your ball and going home" will only strengthen the Democrats.


And thats the real point, it doesn't matter whether you're a Libertarian, a Reform Party member, a Constitution Party member or a Republican the enemy is the Democrats. All this infighting among libertarian/conservative minded folk does is hand power over to those who WILL have us in cattle cars before its all done.


The Libertarian Party is the closest thing this country has to a viable 3rd party ... and their ship sailed long ago ... they've been around for over 3 decades and made it pretty much nowhere. If we wait for them to get their stuff together and actually start winning elections we'll be sitting in deathcamps waiting for nobody to save us.



Hell, I don't know why I keep allowing myself to get sucked into these arguments ... lets face it, we're going to lose to the leftist/statist/Socialists because we're just too damn factionalized and too many of us live by "All or nothing". I guess what they say is true; Organizing libertarian minded individualists is like herding cats.

[K-Romulus]

What about forcing the ATF to destroy records of NICS approvals instead of keeping them indefinitely like Klinton ordered them to do? In essence it was a federal gun registry that the government was barred from creating by the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act. Not to mention keeping the records violated the Brady Bill itself which mandated that the approved sales records not be kept. Billy 'The Cigar and Intern' Klinton blatantly violated both.


Giveth with one hand, and taketh with the other:

(also discussed here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=164492)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501366.html

The FBI's Secret Scrutiny
In Hunt for Terrorists, Bureau Examines Records of Ordinary Americans

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 6, 2005; Page A01

(really L-O-O-N-G article)

****
One thing (former FBI lawyer) Woods did not anticipate was then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft's revision of Justice Department guidelines. On May 30, 2002, and Oct. 31, 2003, Ashcroft rewrote the playbooks for investigations of terrorist crimes and national security threats. He gave overriding priority to preventing attacks by any means available.

Ashcroft remained bound by Executive Order 12333, which requires the use of the "least intrusive means" in domestic intelligence investigations. But his new interpretation came close to upending the mandate. Three times in the new guidelines, Ashcroft wrote that the FBI "should consider . . . less intrusive means" but "should not hesitate to use any lawful techniques . . . even if intrusive" when investigators believe them to be more timely. "This point," he added, "is to be particularly observed in investigations relating to terrorist activities."

***
Ready access to national security letters allows investigators to employ them routinely for "contact chaining."

"Starting with your bad guy and his telephone number and looking at who he's calling, and [then] who they're calling," the number of people surveilled "goes up exponentially," acknowledged Caproni, the FBI's general counsel.

But Caproni said it would not be rational for the bureau to follow the chain too far. "Everybody's connected" if investigators keep tracing calls "far enough away from your targeted bad guy," she said. "What's the point of that?"

One point is to fill government data banks for another investigative technique. That one is called "link analysis," a practice Caproni would neither confirm nor deny.

Two years ago, Ashcroft rescinded a 1995 guideline directing that information obtained through a national security letter about a U.S. citizen or resident "shall be destroyed by the FBI and not further disseminated" if it proves "not relevant to the purposes for which it was collected." Ashcroft's new order was that "the FBI shall retain" all records it collects and "may disseminate" them freely among federal agencies.

Destroy NCIS records? Sure, no problem.

NSL to the relevant FFL, anyone?

The article says that around 30,000 of these NSL's go out each year . . .:what:

[HKGuns]

Snarky sarcasm is cute for the coffeeshop crowd, but it doesn't make for a very substantive argument.

Ha! When I read that post I pictured some pretentious snob dribbling his starbucks late' all over the keyboard. Great quote Zundfolge!

I hope all you libertarians vote libertarian in the next election so we can hear every last one of you whine about the new assault weapons ban in her first 90 days in office. Better still, just don't vote because that darned "electoral college" system ensures you aren't represented anyway!!

When will you learn that politics is a system of compromises?

NOTHING is black and white in politics. It never has been and never shall be. So this forces you to pick the people that most closely represent your beleifs. I find it difficult to believe anyone posting on this board couldn't find it FAR less difficult to vote for a Republican over ANY Democrat they're likely to parade forward. ESPECIALLY if it is Hillary as every seems to be predicting.

Hell, I don't know why I keep allowing myself to get sucked into these arguments ... lets face it, we're going to lose to the leftist/statist/Socialists because we're just too damn factionalized and too many of us live by "All or nothing". I guess what they say is true; Organizing libertarian minded individualists is like herding cats.

Truer words never spoken more plainly. Until this "gun crowd" wakes up to the reality the perfect party or even candidate doesn't exist we'll be in the hands of the social architects. Its pretty amazing how many gun owners see things as being all or nothing.

Either that or we have the truly paranoid posters like the one above who worries about NCIS records and actually reads through the laws to verify his suspicions are correct.

I don't give a flying rip how long they keep the records or if they post them on a website for all to see. Do you really believe if "someone" wanted to do something with those records they'd be able to find them? That is making the huge assumption the person even knows they exist.

I bet you think your mobile phone calls aren't being monitored! They are....and so what?

[saltydog]

Saltydog, if you can't see how the recent signing of the lawsuit pre-emption act affects you, Joe-Blow Gunowner, then I can't help it that you're blind.

hillbilly

With all due respects read my post again. I have no need to sue gun manufacture's so it doesn't affect me. Try again.

[saltydog]

So, you're telling me that with a Democrat controlled congress and Kerry or Gore in the White House, the AWB would have been allowed to sunset? Yeah, right :rolleyes:

With all due respects, read my post again. Its not about the Democrats, we know were they stand.

To all, please don't use the better of 2 evil's BS here as my post is only directed at the republicans and why they have done very little to turn things around with the 2nd Amendment. Come on guys the Republicans are in control!

[Chris Rhines]

Snarky sarcasm is cute for the coffeeshop crowd, but it doesn't make for a very substantive argument. It wasn't really an argument, so much as an expression of surprise that otherwise intelligent individuals can be so politically naive.

Even if I bought the argument that there is no difference between the GOP and DNC (which I don't), they are still two distinct organizations that are in competition with each other... From where I sit, it looks to me like the only competition between the RNC and the DNC is the synchronized liberty toss. Do I really need to start bringing up the Patriot Act, McCain-Feingold, the ever-increasing federal budget - all sterling examples of bipartisanship.

However the GOP has many many "small l libertarians" still in it who can rise to power within the party and change its direction if only the libertarian minded at the grass roots level don't "take their ball and go home". The GOP has had it's chance to move in a pro-liberty direction. It hasn't happened. I'm not going to waste my time listening to empty promises any longer - I've been doing that since 1994.

Those who truly believe that the GOP and DNC are two halves of the same party and that there is one party rule in this country, and/or that the GOP is completely unredeemable ... well then you're only left with one option; start killing people. This is what I mean by politically naive. There are always other options. Maybe I'll list a few after I get home from work.

- Chris

[K-Romulus]

Either that or we have the truly paranoid posters like the one above who worries about NCIS records and actually reads through the laws to verify his suspicions are correct.

I don't give a flying rip how long they keep the records or if they post them on a website for all to see. Do you really believe if "someone" wanted to do something with those records they'd be able to find them? That is making the huge assumption the person even knows they exist.

I bet you think your mobile phone calls aren't being monitored! They are....and so what?

:confused:

[Bartholomew Roberts]

With all due respects read my post again. I have no need to sue gun manufacture's so it doesn't affect me. Try again.

I guess you don't have a need to buy semi-automatic firearms in the future or purchase any firearm at a reasonable price either since you apparently will not benefit from the protection the bill gives to gun manufacturers from D.C.'s ridiculous strict liability standard for semi-automatic manufacturers or the protection it gives to distributors and manufacturers from suits like Grunow ($1.4 million against distributor) or Bushmaster ($2.5 million against Bushmaster and Bullseye).

Further, I don't suppose you have any need to hold on to what guns you do have under a claim of Second Amendment rights either since the bill also restates that Congress finds the Second Amendment to be an individual right and that protecting this right under Article 5 of the 14th Amendment is a valid use of Congressional power. Stuff like that couldn't possibly ever help joe-blow gun owner, could it?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, if the Republican party is not an ocassional ally of gun owners, it was awfully thoughtful of them to do the following for us over the last five years:

1. UN Small Arms Restrictions blocked by US (http://www.iansa.org/oldsite/calendar/2001UN/confnews/change_tone.htm)

2. Attorney General declares Second Amendment is individual right (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/guns_020507.html) - reverses 35 years of previous Justice Department doctrine on the matter.

3. Attorney General refuses to allow legitimate purchase of NICS data to be used for fishing expedition (http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/press/release.asp?Record=368) - Ashcroft stops grabbers from sifting through NICS data of legitimate purchasers to look for "terrorists".

4. Ashcroft changes NICS data holding from 90 days to 1 day (http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/press/release.asp?Record=368) - NICS data on legitimate purchases will now be purged from the system in a single day as the law intended rather than being held onto for 90 days per Clinton policy

5. Bush signs lawsuit preemption bill (http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6719)

6. Bush ends taxpayer funding of useless HUD gun buybacks (http://speakout.com/activism/apstories/9981-1.html)

7. Signs bill closing loophole that prevented cargo pilots from being armed (http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/CC-BushSignsCargoPilots031215.html)

8. Signed the appropriations bill containing the Tiahrt Amendment (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200401270928.asp) that protects gunowner privacy by making item #4 the law of the land.

9. Gets chance to have several things he claims to support (lawsuit preemption, gunshow background checks, semi-auto ban) on a single bill. Bush instead sends letter to Congress asking them to consider only lawsuit preemption.

10. Sponsored a few pro-gun bills in the 109th Congress (http://www.gunowners.org/109anatb.htm).

11. Lawsuit preemption bill declares Second an individual right incorporated under the 14th Amendment (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/10/gun_mfr_liabili.php). Might be useful in front of SCOTUS?

12. House votes for repeal of D.C. gun ban (http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm).

13. Signed exemption for gunsmiths from manufacturing taxes for creating custom firearms (http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ITNDrop=1711-L).

14. Twice "filled the tree" as suggested by GOA on legislation in order to prevent it from being used as a vehicle for an AWB (once in July 2004 on a tort reform bill and again during S.397). I can't find another instance on any bill where the Senate has taken this action for any other group.

15. Bucked public opinion showing 68% of American supported renewal of assault weapons ban (including almost a third of NRA members) (http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_guns_09-06_pr.pdf) to kill ban not once; but three times.

Frankly, we need more non-allies like that if we are going to get anywhere...

[Thumper]

With all due respects read my post again. I have no need to sue gun manufacture's so it doesn't affect me. Try again.

It only affects you if you didn't want the US gun industry sued out of existence.

Hint: The legislation was to protect the gun industry, saltydog.

There have been massive attacks on the manufacturers by some of our more "progressive" cities. This stops those frivolous lawsuits.

No offense, but this was a really big deal. I'm surprised some "politically active" gun owners didn't know about it.

[ReadyontheRight]

Instead of building a new party from scratch, we need to hijack an existing one. The "Republican Revolution" of '94 was an example of the non-statists Republicans taking charge (the mistake was not acting like winners and still thinking we could get along with Democrats).


Amen! Get in and change the party. Ron Paul needs help!

http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.htm

The Ron Paul
FREEDOM PRINCIPLES
Rights belong to individuals, not groups.

Property should be owned by people, not government.

All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.

The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.

Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.

The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.


I for one do not believe in this "Let the Dems win because it's got to get worse before it gets better" cr#p. Did the US need to become a nation of National Socialists before defeating the Nazis?

[boofus]

Either that or we have the truly paranoid posters like the one above who worries about NCIS records and actually reads through the laws to verify his suspicions are correct.

I don't give a flying rip how long they keep the records or if they post them on a website for all to see. Do you really believe if "someone" wanted to do something with those records they'd be able to find them? That is making the huge assumption the person even knows they exist.


The point is the government is blatantly and intentionally BREAKING THEIR OWN LAWS WHENEVER THEY WANT. How'd you like it if they decide the 8th Amendment regarding cruel & unusual punishment doesn't apply any more than the limitations on recordkeeping in the Brady Bill?

[StopTheGrays]

Have the Federal Judges GWB appointed and confirmed by GOP controlled Senate been more pro-gun than anti-gun? Do you believe the Dems would have apppointed and confirmed any pro-gun justices?

[antsi]

please don't use the better of 2 evil's BS here as my post is only directed at the republicans and why they have done very little to turn things around with the 2nd Amendment. Come on guys the Republicans are in control!

Yes, and I'm saying that the Republicans in control is a lot better for gun owners than the Democrats being in control.

If you want to live in a fantasy world where the Full Auto .50 Cal Libertaballistic Party is in control, then go vote with your magic wand. The rest of us are talking about reality here. In the real world, you don't always get everything you want in its ideal form instantaneously. You have to get the best you can get when you can get it.

I don't exactly feel like going to work some mornings. But the alternative is losing my job. Going to work is the better of two evils. That's not BS. It's being a grown up living in reality.

[antsi]

With all due respects read my post again. I have no need to sue gun manufacture's so it doesn't affect me. Try again.

Hello? Earth to saltydog? Is anyone in there?

The anti gun lobby has been attacking the entire gun industry with frivolous class action lawsuits. These are designed to accomplish gun control outside the legislative process by massively increasing the liability for gun dealers and manufacturers and massively increasing the cost of doing business. Minimally, this would cause huge price increases to the consumer. It would also likely affect gun design (manufacturers being forced to design lawyer-proof guns) and could drive many manufacturers and dealers out of business.

The Republicans are putting an end to that threat with the gun lawsuit bill.

If you don't think any of that threat could have affected you, you just aren't paying attention.

[antsi]

No offense, but this was a really big deal. I'm surprised some "politically active" gun owners didn't know about it.

I think it depends on where you live.

When I was living in Chicago, I heard about Mayor Daley's big class-action lawsuit against gun manufacturers on the news every day. He was trying to get the gun manufacturers to foot the bill for ALL the "costs" he attributed to "gun violence," including all the hospital bills of everyone who gets shot in Chicago, the cost of policing the city, the economic costs of high-crime low-income neighborhoods, and on and on and on. It would have run into the billions and billions. He openly admitted he was trying to bankrupt the gun industry, drive dealers out of business, and accomplish gun control in the courts.

Similar lawsuits were in the pipeline in New York, New Jersey, and California. I think that people who live (or used to live) in the big-city blue-state gun control meccas were pretty well aware of the problem. Now that I've moved to a red state, I don't hear much about these kinds of lawsuits.

Which isn't to say they wouldn't still affect me no matter where I live if one of the big-city mayors happened to land his lawsuit in front of a liberal judge and a liberal jury and hit the jackpot.

[Thumper]

I think it depends on where you live.

With respect, I disagree.

Gun owners should make it their business to know these things.

Uninformed gunowners are, in my opinion, becoming more of a problem than the anti's.

[RealGun]

Zund and DNS, you miss the point entirely. The point is, THIRD PARTY OR BUST!!! I'd rather bust than vote for one or the other wings of the Republicrat Uni-Party. Of course there's no viable third party. But there WILL BE if people like you, Zund, get on the bandwagon with me and the others and support 3rd P candidates. There won't be if YOU don't. That's the point. We get nothing good from Repubs. Particularly from Shrub, who said he WOULD SIGN the Homeland Defense Rifle Ban and Standard Capacity Magazine Ban if they came to his desk. Meh, we're just in fundamental disagreement.

Very telling. You should have been more forthcoming in the beginning. Now it's just another ra-ra, everything else sucks, LP thread. Nothing objective about it.

[Lone_Gunman]

Minimally, this would cause huge price increases to the consumer. It would also likely affect gun design (manufacturers being forced to design lawyer-proof guns) and could drive many manufacturers and dealers out of business.

Thats a good argument, despite the fact that it is not based on anything other than supposition.

The cost of guns has not increased beyond normal cost of living. You could buy a Glock for $450 10 yrs ago, and can buy one for dang near that now.

Also, could you please tell me one, just one, gun manufacturer that went out of business because of lawsuits that would have been prevented by this bill?

[antsi]

Also, could you please tell me one, just one, gun manufacturer that went out of business because of lawsuits that would have been prevented by this bill?

Several such lawsuits were/are in progress, and will likely never come to fruition now because the lawsuit protection bill was passed.

That doesn't mean they weren't a threat. Just because a threat hasn't created harm yet doesn't mean it isn't a threat. That's why it's called a THREAT.

If such lawsuits could never have accomplished any gun control goals, why were the VPC and Brady Bunch sinking so much money and support into them?

You tell me: let's imagine a scenario where there has been a multi-billion dollar class action judgement against gun manufacturers. You think this is a good helpful thing for gun owners? Where do you think the money is going to come from to pay that judgement? Who is ultimately going to pay the cost?

It's not just supposition. Look at what's happened to cigarette prices since the tobacco lawsuit was settled. True, no tobacco companies have gone out of business, but tobacco is a much more profitable industry than guns and demand for tobacco is much less elastic (the economics of addiction). Look at what's happened in general aviation, where manufacturers liability costs have priced new planes out of existence and have driven some companies out of the pmarket. Even if you totally discount the threat of gun manufacturers or dealers being driven out of the market, it's kind of hard to argue that a 2-400% increase in the price of guns and ammo would have no effect on gun owners.

You're the one making a dangerous supposition, by supposing that massive multibillion dollar lawsuits against an industry represent no threat to the consumers of that industry. Let's see you back up your supposition.

[antsi]

With respect, I disagree.

Gun owners should make it their business to know these things.

Uninformed gunowners are, in my opinion, becoming more of a problem than the anti's.

You misunderstand me. I agree that all gun owners in the US were under threat because of the lawsuits, and should have known about the lawsuits and should have been concerned.

I'm just saying that gun owners who live in red states far away from the meccas of these lawsuits are less likely to be aware, not that they shouldn't be aware.

[Lone_Gunman]

You tell me: let's imagine a scenario where there has been a multi-billion dollar class action judgement against gun manufacturers. You think this is a good helpful thing for gun owners? Where do you think the money is going to come from to pay that judgement? Who is ultimately going to pay the cost?


You are right, I would have to imagine that scenario, because there has never been one.

If it ever happened, the money would come from consumers of course.

While we are dreaming up scenarios, what would happen if Martians took over Colt, Ruger, Glock, and Smith and Wesson?

Anyway, though, I disagree not with getting rid of frivolous lawsuits. I disagree with using un-constitutional laws to do it.

[ebd10]

While we are dreaming up scenarios, what would happen if Martians took over Colt, Ruger, Glock, and Smith and Wesson?

In Colt's case you might be right. If there is a more inept and market blind company out there, I don't know what it is.

As for 3rd party candidates, unless and until they stop trying to win the brass ring of the white house and start concentrating on grass roots and local elections, they will always be nothing more than an interesting footnote in an encyclopedia. The Libertarians had a chance to make some real inroads during the Klinton regime, and instead they squandered it on internecine fighting.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Anyway, though, I disagree not with getting rid of frivolous lawsuits. I disagree with using un-constitutional laws to do it.

If you believe the Seventh Amendment makes that law unconstitutional then you have a lot of other laws denying access to the courts for controversies exceeding $20 that are on your plate as well (see Federal Arbitration Act for starters).

I would disagree with your interpretation of S.397 as unconstitutional and suggest that it is also likely the courts will uphold S.397 as constitutional as well.

[Thumper]

JUst FYI, the S&W agreement was made with the understanding that they would be protected from lawsuits.

I thought this was common knowledge here.


Please read this...it's dated, but enlightening:

"The anti-gun British magazine The Economist correctly summed the opposition's goals: "The action is likely to be a winner, if not necessarily in court. The suit will hit the gun industry in its wallet, which is not nearly as fat as that of the tobacco industry: It is expensive to mount a defense in any legal case, even one that makes law professors scoff."

The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (a branch of Handgun Control, Inc.) brags of its legal prowess. CPHV's Legal Action Project is indeed energetic, representing 25 of the 33 municipalities who are engaged in suits against manufacturers, and has filed motions in all the rest.

The Legal Action Project offers pro bono legal services, and is actively soliciting individuals to file lawsuits against manufacturers and handgun owners. CPHV will "emphasize" individual lawsuits in the coming years over municipal suits, according to a recent press release."


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_7_47/ai_75287333

[Lone_Gunman]

Bartholomew,

If the Congress can make these gun lawsuits illegal, then couldn't they make all civil suits illegal? I don't see why not. This would effectively eliminate the Judicial Branch of govt.

If this law is constitutional, then it would seem to me that the judicial branch exists only because Congress lets it.

[Henry Bowman]

If this law is constitutional, then it would seem to me that the judicial branch exists only because Congress lets it.Article III, Section 1: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

[antsi]

You are right, I would have to imagine that scenario, because there has never been one.

If it ever happened, the money would come from consumers of course.

While we are dreaming up scenarios, what would happen if Martians took over Colt, Ruger, Glock, and Smith and Wesson?
.

Well, I IMAGINE that if I doused you in gasoline and set you on fire, it might cause some harm to you.

But, since it hasn't actually happened yet, this is all supposition.

Therefore, you shouldn't have any objection if I douse you in gas and throw a match at you. Until you actually get burned, there's no reason whatsoever to assume that this might cause you any harm, right? :rolleyes:

I have given two examples, tobacco and aviation, where lawsuits against an industry had negative effects on the end users of that industry's product. This constitutes reasonable support for the belief that lawsuits against the gun industry could similarly cause negative effects on the end users of the gun industry's products.

Until you point out some relevant difference between the aviation and tobacco industries and the gun industry in virtue of which lawsuits against those industries do harm consumers but lawsuits against the gun industry would not harm consumers my point stands: there is reasonable evidence to believe that the anti-gun lawsuits could have caused harm to gun owners if they had been allowed to go forward.

As for your point about martians, I think that the threat to the gun industry from lawyers was somewhat more plausible than the threat from martians. If you can cite examples of other industries that have been harmed by martian takeovers, and show evidence of actual martian takeover plans against the gun industry, then I will be more concerned.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If the Congress can make these gun lawsuits illegal, then couldn't they make all civil suits illegal?

Congress not only establishes the lesser courts, they write the laws that the courts are enforcing. I don't really have the time to do the research into the constitutional issues surrounding this issue at the moment and give you an informed answer; but if you are interested in that subject you should look at similar legislation that Congress passed protecting the civil aviation industry in the 90s.

That legislation was never found unconstitutional and has been around long enough you can likely google up some law reviews that would answer your question.

[Byron Quick]

Except for the rare individual such as Ron Paul, about the only difference I see betweent the Republican Party and Democratic Party is one of timing. The Democratic Party Platform will be catastrophic for the nation. The Republican Party Platform will be catastrophic for the nation. However, the Republicans will probably take about thirty or forty years longer to reach the catastrophe.

I'm willing to vote for that thirty or forty year delay in catastrophe. It doesn't mean I agree with them. It doesn't mean I don't think the party isn't in the control of statist thugs.

I voted for George Bush in 2000 and 2004. What we got was about what I expected from him. I just expected it to be close and I expectd worse from Gore and Kerry. Basically, my vote for Bush was a vote to keep Gore and Kerry from nominating a Supreme Court Justice.

[antsi]

Basically, my vote for Bush was a vote to keep Gore and Kerry from nominating a Supreme Court Justice.

Agreed - it is mostly marginal differences that make me vote R in most cases. However, sometimes those marginal differences do make a difference.

[HKGuns]

Also, could you please tell me one, just one, gun manufacturer that went out of business because of lawsuits that would have been prevented by this bill?

"Junk" lawsuits hit small gun companies
American Rifleman, Nov/Dec 1999

JUST as their anti-gun backers intended, "junk" lawsuits have forced at least three California makers of affordable handguns to close their doors or seek bankruptcy-court protection, before the first case actually goes to trial.

Sundance Industries, Inc., in Valencia, has filed for bankruptcy-court protection, while Davis Industries, Inc., in Chino, has sought to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, and Lorcin Engineering Co., of Mira Loma, recently ceased operations, reports Paul M. Barrett in The Wall Street Journal.

While it is highly likely that judges across the nation will soon begin throwing out these suits in preliminary proceedings, these small firms were hard pressed to pay the legal bills necessary to defend themselves against multiple suits even in the pre-trial stages.

So far, 14 state legislatures have acted to block such abuses of the tort law system. They are: Alaska, Arizona,, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming.

[Lone_Gunman]

shoudek,

I don't think that lawsuits explain the downfall of those companies, but I appreciate the info anyway.

[antsi]

shoudek,
I don't think that lawsuits explain the downfall of those companies, but I appreciate the info anyway.

I have to ask, Lone Gunman, what is your vested interest in this?

I mean, you're bending over backwards here to insist that lawsuits were never any kind of threat to the gun industry. You're taking that position as axiomatic, and rearranging the entire world to fit that one proposition, and arbitrarily rejecting any evidence to the contrary.

I have cited examples of two other industries where junk lawsuits have had negative effects on the end users. Someone else cited the Smith and Wesson capitulation when they were threatened with lawsuits, and took actions that were very unpopular with gun owners in return for a promise of immunity from lawsuits. And yet a third person cited examples of two gun manufacturers who were driven out of business by junk lawsuits.

And still, without citing any contrary evidence or contrary explanations, you insist that these lawsuits never have had and never would have had any negative effects on the gun industry or gun owners.

Do you happen to be a product liability lawyer with a pending liability suit against a gun manufacturer, by any chance?

[HKGuns]

Ok, I guess the press was wrong on that one? Or you were on the defense team ?

[JohnBT]

Lorcin? I thought we were discussing real gun companies. ;)

www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/interviews/waldorf.html

"Q: What contribution have you made to the gun market in America?

Waldorf: Well, Lorcin Engineering in 1993 had just about half of all the .380 caliber handgun sales in the United States and that's a pretty significant number. And 80 percent of Americans in the United States, that own handguns in the United States own one of our products."

<snort> Maybe they went out of business because somebody was delusional. 80% of handgun owners owned a Lorcin?

"Waldorf: We have a legitimate target purpose for certain of our models as well. And the .380's an excellent target pistol, the 9 millimeter's an excellent target pistol. Basically the gun enthusiast, the one who does target shooting, uses our guns."

I never knew. :banghead:

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Lone Gunman, in looking up restrictions on liability suits, you will also want to consider the NUMEROUS state laws providing restrictions. For example, California's Civil Code Sec. 43.92:

There shall be no monetary liability on the part of, and no cause of action shall arise against, any person who is a psychotherapist as defined in Section 1010 of the evidence code for failing to warn of and protect from a patient's violent behavior

Also, the 7th Amendment doesn't guarantee a right to bring a suit. It merely allows for a jury trial in federal civil trials where the matter at issue exceeds $20. You can read the history and annotations on the amendment here (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment07/01.html#5).

[Lone_Gunman]

Do you happen to be a product liability lawyer with a pending liability suit against a gun manufacturer, by any chance?

No, believe it or not I am a general and vascular surgeon, and I oppose medical tort reform for the same reasons I oppose banning the gun lawsuits. If you think I am in a minority on this forum, you should see me at medical staff meetings. I think "tort reform" is a battle cry of businesses who want to reduce their liability at the public expense. For example, we recently passed a medical "tort reform" in Georgia, which limits the amount of damages a physician has to pay. The biggest medical malpractice insurer in Georgia lobbied long and hard for this, and rallied physicians to support it as well. The insurance company boldly stated they would immediately lower malpractice premiums by 10% as soon as it passed. Well, it passed and our soon-to-be ex-Governor, Sonny Perdue, signed it into law. Guess what. The insurance people didn't lower malpractice rates after all, and say they won't lower them until the law is tested for Constitutionality in a court case. Seems even they are not so sure it is constitutional in GA. So who wins? The doctors? Nope, we are still paying the same rates? Is the cost of medical care going down? No. The only people who have won are insurance companies. Wow.

Also please consider, as I have asked before and gotten no good response from anyone, if Congress can ban this gun liablity lawsuits, then they have the power, at their whim, to ban any other type of civil suit they choose to.

Do we really want to give Congress more power? Do you really think increasing the powers of the federal government is a good thing?

Why not just make it easy, and eliminate the court system all together?

On the surface this gun lawsuit ban seems like a good idea. But there are better ways to stop frivolous lawsuits than this. Lawyers can and should be held to malpractice standards. If a lawyer brings a frivolous case to court, do the same to him that you would do to a doctor committing malpractice. Sue him. Make him pay all court costs. If he brings too many frivolous suits, have him dis-barred. We can clean up frivolous suits that simply, and without increasing federal powers, or limiting an individuals right to sue.

[HKGuns]

On the surface this gun lawsuit ban seems like a good idea. But there are better ways to stop frivolous lawsuits than this. Lawyers can and should be held to malpractice standards. If a lawyer brings a frivolous case to court, do the same to him that you would do to a doctor committing malpractice. Sue him. Make him pay all court costs. If he brings too many frivolous suits, have him dis-barred. We can clean up frivolous suits that simply, and without increasing federal powers, or limiting an individuals right to sue.

On this we can agree Lone.....However, this isn't reality. I'm quite amazed you are against any form of medical tort reform. My family doctor's practice is being ruined by malpractice insurance and I blame our entire health care "crisis" on the frivolous medical lawsuits being brought by get rich quick scammers and their lawyer pals. My family doctor is all for limited liability....and I think I agree with him. There needs to be a higher standard for mal practice than a simple error that doesn't cause a lot of harm. However, common sense and reasonableness doesn't seem to rule the day in any court when money is at stake.

Show me an option and I'll agree with you....however, I've not seen any evidence of even the slightest shred of intellectual honesty in any area of law in over 20 years.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Lawyers can and should be held to malpractice standards. If a lawyer brings a frivolous case to court, do the same to him that you would do to a doctor committing malpractice. Sue him.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure already allow lawyers to be held accountable for lawsuits that do not meet the very low bar established by pleading rules. If they do not withdraw such claims within 21 days of being notified of the problem with them, they can even be sanctioned for it (Congress is currently working to revoke the 21 day rule and reinstate harsher rules from the 80s that would favor monetary sanctions against the losing lawyer in these types of battles).

The problem is that these types of firearms suits fall well within the rules of civil procedure (or did anyway). Nothing in the rules says you can't sue the manufacturer of a product for the criminal actions of a third party. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing that rule expanded to all kinds of products and I think it is entirely within the checks and balances envisioned by the founders to be able to check the expanding power of the courts in this fashion.

Look at the Smith & Wesson case as an excellent example of how the antis sought to use the courts to pass rules as part of a settlement that the majority of Americans had repeatedly refused to support in Congress. When the judiciary begins to usurp the legislative function of Congress in this manner, Congress is perfectly within their rights to reign in that behavior.

[Lone_Gunman]

My family doctor's practice is being ruined by malpractice insurance

Or so you have been told, but I doubt it.

Is your family doctor an internist or family medicine doctor? If so, I believe their rates (in GA) are between 5 and 10 thousand dollars a year, assuming he does not deliver babies. That really isnt too much, considering the overall overhead costs of an average medical practice.

In other words, he would only increase his personal salary by 5 or 10 thousand dollars a year if he had no malpractice insurance. Is this really ruining his practice? If this is the straw that breaks the camels back then he is already not very busy, and his practice is in jeopardy for other reasons.

My malpractice insurance as a surgeon is considerably more than primary care, around 45k per year. Thats a lot of money, but its not but about 10% of operating costs. Its not making or breaking us by any stretch of the imagination.

And do you really believe physicians would actually lower costs to patients even if they didnt have to pay malpractice? Do you really think gun makers will lower costs now that their tort reform bill has passed?

There is nothing wrong with the law as it is currently written. The problem is with the lawyers. Controlling the frivolous lawsuit problem needs to be about controlling unscrupulous lawyers, not about limiting individual rights and increasing federal powers.

[antsi]

assuming he does not deliver babies.

Well, that's a big assumption there, isn't it?

I'm an advanced practice nurse in OB. I used to practice in Illinois. The average OB (physician) annual malpractice premium for in Illinois is $120,000

I saw an indigent care prenatal clinic closed because we couldn't get a physician to back up the APN's. IL medicaid was paying about $600 for a delivery, and the OBs' insurance carriers were charging about $900 per delivery. You do the math.

I personally know a physician whose malpractice rates went up by $30,000 per year just because a lawsuit was filed against him. It is a junk lawsuit. I was there. There was an emergency, through no fault of his, and he handled it brilliantly, both mom and baby are physically fine. The parents are suing him for emotional trauma due to the emergency happening and "disfigurement" due to the episiotomy. This is a total groundless junk lawsuit, and yet, the guy's malpractice rates go up $30,000 per year just because it was filed.

Across the border in Indiana, there has been tort reform. Malpractice claims have to go through a scientific review committee, and there is a limit on pain and suffering awards.

In Indiana, the average OB malpractice annual premium is $10,000

You can't tell me that the lawyers are self-regulating, or that legal malpractice fears dissuade lawyers from filing junk lawsuits. You can't tell me that junk lawsuits don't damage OB practice. And you can't tell me that tort reform doesn't make any difference. I know first hand what I am talking about here.

I'm also concerned about a physician having the cavalier disregard for contrary evidence that you have. Over and over again in this thread people have presented evidence to support their positions, and your response is to arbitrarily dismiss any evidence that doesn't fit in with your preconceived notions. I hope your surgery practice isn't conducted along these same lines.

[Thumper]

How exasperating. Of course lawsuits, the threat of lawsuits, and the requisite insurance rates increase the costs and lowers the availability of good healthcare.

Not germane to the point, though.

The issue of tort reform and the analogous relationship between health care and the gun industry has nothing to do with the point of the thread.

The anti gunners were failing in the legistatures and, as they have stated, tried a different attack.

The purpose of the Republican's Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is to protect the implements of the 2nd Amendment.

...unless, Lone Gunman, you can think of some other hidden, dark reason for enacting the legislation.

[Lone_Gunman]

OB is a special area where lawsuits have been particularly outrageous. I was not addressing OB issues, and in fact excluded them. For the average general practioner who does not deliver babies (and most do not), liability insurance is a non-issue.

If a doctor's insurance went up 30,000 just because a junk lawsuit was filed, then he is just getting screwed by his insurance company. I have been the victim of a couple of frivolous suits that were subsequently dismissed, and my malpractice never changed.

Antsi, the "evidence" you cite that I am disregarding is not really evidence, but simply opinion that has been put forth by insurance companies and medical organizations. I am curious, did the cost of medical care to patients go down in Indiana after tort reform was implemented? I am not familiar with Indiana medicine, but suspect that physician fees remained constant, even after the malpractice rates dropped. From your description, it sounds like Indiana must have enacted a much more stringent tort reform than GA, but I dont know the details. If the cost of care stayed the same, then tort reform did not acheive its goal, which is to lower consumer cost.

In conclusion, let me say again that I agree frivolous lawsuits need to be eliminated, and would support tort reform, but I think we are going about it the wrong way. For some reason people seem to think it is patently impossible for lawyers to be held to the same standards of practice that phyicians are. We need to fix the lawyer problem. There is nothing wrong with the law per se. If lawyers lived in the same fear of bad outcomes that doctors do, then they would bring fewer junk lawsuits to court. Everyone should be allowed to sue everyone for anything, if they can find a lawyer who will take the case. Lawyers should be able to tell the difference between junk and real lawsuits, and not take the bad ones. If they can't do this on their own, then they need to be sued for malpractice and censured by the Bar.

Finally, is no one else concerned that depriving citizens the right to go to court is a major increase in the powers of the federal government?

I suspect this thread has lived its useful life, and will go down hill shortly. You guys seem to be getting a little testy and accusatory, simply because I differ in my opinion on how tort reform should be accomplished. My practice of surgery has even been called into question, despite the fact that it is irrelevant to the discussion. Those comments are baseless and personally insulting. I'd like legitimate discussion on this topic to continue, but that may not be possible.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Everyone should be allowed to sue everyone for anything, if they can find a lawyer who will take the case. Lawyers should be able to tell the difference between junk and real lawsuits, and not take the bad ones. If they can't do this on their own, then they need to be sued for malpractice and censured by the Bar.

So you essentially want to be ruled by an oligarchy of lawyers? Instead of having Congress decide the rules, you want to provide individual lawyers with incentive to select which cases will go forward and which will not? Who is going to take your malpractice case for suing another lawyer in this scenario?

Here are the current rules regarding lawsuits under Rule 11 of Federal Civil Procedure (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm):

(a) Signature.
Every pleading, written motion, and other paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party. Each paper shall state the signer's address and telephone number, if any. Except when otherwise specifically provided by rule or statute, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. An unsigned paper shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly after being called to the attention of attorney or party.

(b) Representations to Court.
By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;

(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.

(c) Sanctions.
If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation.

(1) How Initiated.

(A) By Motion. A motion for sanctions under this rule shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). It shall be served as provided in Rule 5, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion (or such other period as the court may prescribe), the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees.

(B) On Court's Initiative. On its own initiative, the court may enter an order describing the specific conduct that appears to violate subdivision (b) and directing an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why it has not violated subdivision (b) with respect thereto.

(2) Nature of Sanction; Limitations. A sanction imposed for violation of this rule shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. Subject to the limitations in subparagraphs (A) and (B), the sanction may consist of, or include, directives of a nonmonetary nature, an order to pay a penalty into court, or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of some or all of the reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation.

(A) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for a violation of subdivision (b)(2).

(B) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded on the court's initiative unless the court issues its order to show cause before a voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party which is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.

(3) Order. When imposing sanctions, the court shall describe the conduct determined to constitute a violation of this rule and explain the basis for the sanction imposed.

These are the same rules that all the gun lawsuits have been brought under. Under these rules, practically none of those lawsuits were sanctioned or even threatened with sanctions.

Really, you should take a second and do some Google/reading on this subject because it is actually a lot more complex than it appears. The approach you suggest has been advanced several times by varying groups of lawyers - the groups that oppose it every time are public interest groups that have very valid points regarding how it will cut off access to the courts for most citizens. There is a lot of interesting debate on the subject.

[Lone_Gunman]

Everyone should be allowed to sue everyone for anything

I worded that poorly, and left of a qualifying statement. I think people should be able to continue to sue for anything that is already currently allowed. I would let existing rules stand, and go about tort reform by reforming plaintiffs attorneys.


the groups that oppose it every time are public interest groups that have very valid points regarding how it will cut off access to the courts for most citizens

I understand their concern. As I understand it, the thought is that if a lawyer thinks a case might be frivolous, he won't take it, for fear he might be censured or punished. So a certain number of legitimate cases might not be taken for fear that someone might claim they are frivolous and sue the lawyer. This could potentially deny court access for people with legitimate claims.

I don't think that would happen though. By the same logic, a physician would never do any procedure on any patient. Why would a doctor do a $400 procedure on a patient that might result in a $1,000,000 verdict against him? Every procedure I do carries that potential risk. But doctors keep doing what they do.

I think lawyers would become more selective what cases they take, but ultimately they would have to take cases to be able to eat. So I don't think many legitimate cases would be denied.

[RealGun]

Insurance rates would be a valid concern, but the greater damage is done by out of court settlements as an alternative to litigation expenses. Businesses that are unfairly liable for ridiculous suits simply cannot survive.

Can we get back to why Tom Coburn would take his position re interstate commerce jurisdiction of machine gun regulation, while being credited as a pro-gun leader?

[antsi]

[QUOTE=Lone_Gunman]
Antsi, the "evidence" you cite that I am disregarding is not really evidence, but simply opinion that has been put forth by insurance companies and medical organizations.[QUOTE]

In the OB field am citing real-life personal experience and the experience of close colleagues.

If tort reform is not what caused the change, then how do you account for the difference between $120,000/year in Illinois and $10,000/year in Indiana? Coincidence? Random variation?

[QUOTE=Lone_Gunman]
From your description, it sounds like Indiana must have enacted a much more stringent tort reform than GA, but I dont know the details. If the cost of care stayed the same, then tort reform did not acheive its goal, which is to lower consumer cost.[QUOTE]

Junk lawsuits have many effects, not just end user cost. I cited one example: in Illinois it is hard to get physician staff for organizations that serve the Medicaid population. An FQHC I was personally involved with discontinued their prenatal program because physician liability costs exceeded Medicaid revenues. In Indiana, we have a robust multi site FQHC providing quality prenatal care to the Medicaid population with no difficulty recruiting physicians. Another coincidence, I suppose.

[QUOTE=Lone_Gunman]
If lawyers lived in the same fear of bad outcomes that doctors do, then they would bring fewer junk lawsuits to court. Everyone should be allowed to sue everyone for anything, if they can find a lawyer who will take the case. Lawyers should be able to tell the difference between junk and real lawsuits, and not take the bad ones. If they can't do this on their own, then they need to be sued for malpractice and censured by the Bar.
[QUOTE]

I'm all for this, but how are you going to make it happen? Will lawyers sue their own? Who's going to pay the legal fees for lawsuits against lawyers? Are you offering a practical alternative here, or just wishing for things?

[QUOTE=Lone_Gunman]
Finally, is no one else concerned that depriving citizens the right to go to court is a major increase in the powers of the federal government?
[QUOTE]

You're concerned about a very remote and hypothetical scenario where the legislature overthrows the courts, and you accuse me of being hypothetical and speculative when I cite actual examples of problems that are actually occuring?

[QUOTE=Lone_Gunman]
My practice of surgery has even been called into question, despite the fact that it is irrelevant to the discussion. Those comments are baseless and personally insulting. [QUOTE]

That was out of line on my part. I apologize.

[Lone_Gunman]

duplicate

[Lone_Gunman]

Antsi,

First off, apology accepted, enough said about that.

Second, I don't doubt that tort reform accounts for Indiana's decrease in malpractice rates, but I suspect that Indiana's tort reform is much more than Georgia's. We certainly don't have a medical review board to check and see if a case is valid before a case can proceed. I don't know enough about Indiana's review board to comment on it, but I would be suspect of it, if it is only composed of medical doctors. Unfortunately, the medical profession is terrible at policing itself, and doctors are way to lenient when it comes to disciplining physicans who are practicing bad medicine. This contributes to the runaway condition we find ourselves in with malpractice lawsuits. Even at the level of state medical boards, bad doctors are rarely punished. I am not sure how unbiased this board would be in Indiana if it is composed only of other doctors.

An FQHC I was personally involved with discontinued their prenatal program because physician liability costs exceeded Medicaid revenues.

Again, I agree that is a problem, but I would deal with it by correcting bad lawyers, and not limiting everyone's court access. If a physician is high on cocaine and kills a patient, it is a shame that the plaintiffs are limited by the same reforms that limit junk lawsuits.

Will lawyers sue their own? Who's going to pay the legal fees for lawsuits against lawyers? Are you offering a practical alternative here, or just wishing for things?

Yes, I think lawyers would sue each other, if they thought there was money in it. Why wouldn't they? They sue everyone else. The almighty dollar will sway many a lawyer to cannibalize his colleagues.

As for legal fees for lawsuits against lawyers, it would be handled the same way as legal fees for lawsuits against doctors. Make lawyers buy malpractice insurance. When they get sued for bringing a frivolous case, their malpractice insurance pays the legal fees, and if necessary their rates go up. If the legal malpractice company loses too much money, they would drop the lawyers coverage, and he would be out of a job, just like if a physician gets sued too much.

I don't think it is just wishful thinking. This would be easy enough to implement, but it requires thinking about it in a different way.

[Henry Bowman]

Will lawyers sue their own? Who's going to pay the legal fees for lawsuits against lawyers? They do it every day. We have to carry malpractice insurance also. Those rates are rising, too. Insurance costs get passed along in our hourly rates.

[Lone_Gunman]

Henry Bowman,

How much is your malpractice premium?

[The Drew]

You have 3 choices.

Vote Democrat

Vote Republican

Vote from the rooftops.


I don't care what the propaganda from the LP, Reform Party, Constitution Party, Green Party et al says, there is no viable 3rd party ... so lets just tear down the GOP and hand the effing country to the Socialists (ie Democrats).
:banghead:


If half of the GOP bashers in this forum would just quit their bitchin' and actually join the RLC and get involved in the struggle going on inside the GOP we might actually have a chance of winning this country back without bloodshed.


The LP types and other "ideologically pure" 3rd party folk out there don't seem to realize that they are pawns of the DNC ... divide an conquer ... its working ... the BS in these forums pretty much proves it.

Most of the people here who bash the GOP are former members who the party LEFT BEHIND. The party doesn't care about the RKBA, they only care about being reelected... and those who defend them on the basis that "there is no viable 3rd party" are only perpetuating the problem.

If all those people who are fed up with the status quo would actually ACT instead of just bitching... Then there WOULD be a viable 3rd party...

A 3rd party doesn't just appear... It has to be built over time by people who actually will stand up for what they believe in, instead of voting for some jerkwad just because he isn't quite as bad as the other major candidate...

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If all those people who are fed up with the status quo would actually ACT instead of just bitching... Then there WOULD be a viable 3rd party...

That's a popular idea; but where is the evidence to support it? The closest I've ever seen was Perot in 1988 and while he shook up both major parties and encouraged them to stack the deck even more against third parties, he didn't change much. The policies he railed against got passed anyway and by the next election the party he had started went from 19% of the vote in 1992 to 8.4% in 1996 to right off into fringe-land in 2000.

The last party to go from third party to success was the Republican party - who managed to split the Whigs, Democrats, Free-Soilers over the issue of slavery as well as picking up the already abolitionist Know-Nothing party (another third party split). Unlike most modern third parties, the Republicans concentrated on Congress and won 44 seats in their first election in 1854. They lost their first Presidential election in 1856; but picked up more seats and set the stage for civil war with their win in 1860.

Having the opposing party effectively secede from the Union and then defeating them in gave the Republicans a chance to consolidate their gains.

Since then, only once in our history has a third party candidate beat even ONE of the two major parties (Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 - and he got pounded by Wilson, the other major party candidate).

[antsi]

Again, I agree that is a problem, but I would deal with it by correcting bad lawyers, and not limiting everyone's court access. If a physician is high on cocaine and kills a patient, it is a shame that the plaintiffs are limited by the same reforms that limit junk lawsuits.
.

I'm all in favor of it, if it can be made to actually happen. Obviously, the way the system is set up now, it isn't happening... so somewhere, somehow, there has to be some kind of change in law or policy that if this is going to happen on a wide enough scale to actually change lawyer behavior. I am interested to see what legislative or policy changes could be proposed.

I am still skeptical for one reason: studies have demonstrated that the increase in OB malpractice lawsuits has not been associated with an improvement in OB outcomes. It is certainly true that we spend a lot of time and money chasing our tails due to medicolegal fears, but that hasn't translated into any improvement for end users. What I'd like to see on the junk lawsuit front is an actual difference in outcomes, not just a bunch of lawyers running around wasting time and money to lawyer-proof their practice of law.

The lawsuit against Bushmaster was a monstrosity. They paid out a huge sum because criminals abused their product for criminal purposes. I'm not sure I see how lawyers suing lawyers is going to stop that kind of thing from happening. If there's a scheme that will motivate lawyers to police themselves that will actually work, I'm all for it.

I'm not going to be holding my breath, though.

[Lone_Gunman]

I'm not going to be holding my breath, though.

Me neither. From a practical standpoint, banning these lawsuits is probably all we can do right now. I just don't think that is the best way to stop it theoretically.

[RealGun]

The party doesn't care about the RKBA, they only care about being reelected...

They certainly won't care about the RKBA if still in power while all the RKBA type voters drop out and vow not to vote for them. Moveon.org couldn't have planned it better.

[Zundfolge]

Most of the people here who bash the GOP are former members who the party LEFT BEHIND. The party doesn't care about the RKBA, they only care about being reelected... and those who defend them on the basis that "there is no viable 3rd party" are only perpetuating the problem.

The problem with your line of thinking is that you have bought the lie told by the DNC run media that the Republicans are a monolithic group that marches in lock-step with W.

The GOP is not monolithic ... there are at least 5 major factions (Neo-Cons, libertarians/RLC, the so-called "religious right", the Rockefeller/wealthy New England Republicans and "mainstream" conservatives.)

The balance of power in the party has shifted many times and if we ever hope to actually push a pro-gun rights, pro-liberty agenda on a national level we'll have to use one of the existing two parties in power.


If we ever do get to the point where the GOP cannot be pulled back into a more pro-liberty camp then we're screwed because the LP (or any other 3rd party) isn't going to get their crap together in time. The LP has had over 30 years to do it and they've got nada ... I don't see any other 3rd party ever being able to build a large enough base to knock either the GOP or DNC off the top.

The two parties that will be in charge in this country are the Republicans and the Democrats ... the only thing that will change is what those two parties stand for (which has changed a ton in the last 3-4 decades alone). If you think you can push the DNC back toward liberty then I wish you luck, but I believe the evidence shows that the GOP is the only one of the two parties that liberty has a chance in.

No its not a guarantee that the RLC types can retake the party, but they would have a better chance if every Libertarian out there registered as a Republican and got involved in the politics of the party.

Problem is that too many LP folk wouldn't accept total victory if it came at the price of having an R in parenthesis after their names.

[antsi]

Since then, only once in our history has a third party candidate beat even ONE of the two major parties (Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 - and he got pounded by Wilson, the other major party candidate).

Some people relish the idea of a political landscape with more than two parties, but I don't think they fully recognize what that landscape looks like.

In multi-party systems, it is rare that one party takes full control. It can happen, but not often. And with so many Americans in love with welfare, socialized medicine, government-run schools, government-run day care, and a billion and one other socialist programs, the Libertarians are least likely third party to ever take control of the Congress and the White House together.

What happens more often in multiparty systems is that two or more parties have to form a coalition to obtain a majority. In that case, nobody gets 100% of their policy enacted - you wind up with an amalgam policy that reflects a compromise between the parties in the coalition.

Ironic, isn't it? The hard core "no compromise" people, who won't vote for the Republicans because their support for gun rights is only partial rather than total, are all wishing for a political outcome that would probably result in even more compromises than what they're already balking at.

[No_Brakes23]

Please don't use the so called Assault weapon ban sunset as an excuse as the "sunset clause" was inserted in that Bill under Bill Clinton and his Regime. Bush had nothing to do with that. Not only that, but it was Dubya's daddy that got the "Assault Weapon" ban rolling in '89. I was 15 years old then, and I realized two things that were hard for me to take...

1. I would most likely never get to buy the HK91 I really wanted...

and

2. I would probably never be a Republican again.

[RealGun]

Not only that, but it was Dubya's daddy that got the "Assault Weapon" ban rolling in '89. I was 15 years old then, and I realized two things that were hard for me to take...

1. I would most likely never get to buy the HK91 I really wanted...

and

2. I would probably never be a Republican again.

Amazing! Clinton's Gun Ban is Bush's fault. Who knew?

[DRZinn]

To those who dismiss the Libertarian Party because of numbers, I have just two questions: how many pro-liberty Republicans and libertarians are there in the Republican and Denocrat Parties, and what would happen if they suddenly all voted their conscience, instead of the "lesser of two evils?" Think about it.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I have just two questions: how many pro-liberty Republicans and libertarians are there in the Republican and Denocrat Parties

Well based on the platforms of both parties, there aren't enough in either party to signifcantly alter the way both parties do business.

and what would happen if they suddenly all voted their conscience, instead of the "lesser of two evils?"

Extrapolating from past history, I would guess that they would finish with between 5-20% of the vote and one of the two major parties would continue to be in charge and enact a new platform that reflects the total absence of any libertarian thought in the party now.

No third party will ever be successful until it gains a foothold in Congress first. As for multi-party governments, antsi has a valid point. Name one multi-party parliamentary style government anywhere in the world that has adopted even a Libertarian-lite or Republican party style libertariansim as its form of government? The vast majority of parliamentary governments are even more socialist than our own Democratic party.

[RealGun]

To those who dismiss the Libertarian Party because of numbers, I have just two questions: how many pro-liberty Republicans and libertarians are there in the Republican and Denocrat Parties, and what would happen if they suddenly all voted their conscience, instead of the "lesser of two evils?" Think about it.

As long as libertarians are perfectionistic, voting only in the most pure of scenarios, they have no future and should not be taken seriously. During the last convention, the Republican Liberty Caucus went off in their own little corner, got no press coverage, and came out with the same unchanged platform that was Libertarian Party verbatim. Although part of an RLC Internet list, I did not get a single contact, nor was there any post on that list. There is no future in that. They are not, in fact, Republicans. Starting from a position of hostility or separateness will not get from here to there.

Meanwhile the GOP platform committee was off doing their thing, mentioning religion and values about every five minutes. If libertarians want to reclaim the Republican Party, they will have to marginalize religion-based issues or strive to make those issues moot.

[orionengnr]

Quote:
"Unfortunately, the medical profession is terrible at policing itself, and doctors are way to lenient when it comes to disciplining physicans who are practicing bad medicine. This contributes to the runaway condition we find ourselves in with malpractice lawsuits. Even at the level of state medical boards, bad doctors are rarely punished...."

Quote:
"Yes, I think lawyers would sue each other, if they thought there was money in it. Why wouldn't they? They sue everyone else. The almighty dollar will sway many a lawyer to cannibalize his colleagues."

Now, if the medical profession is so bad at policing it's own, is the legal profession any better? Why is tort reform so difficult to enact? Hmmm, could it be that those passing the laws are, for the most part, lawyers...who clearly are even less willing than doctors to regulate their own?

Now, back on topic, I agree that third party is great in theory but somewhat less so in practice. I voted for Perot in 92, and so did at least half a dozen people I know. After the fact we realised that what we accomplished was to elect WJ Clinton. If Perot had not been in the race, those votes would have, in each case, gone to the guy with a (R) next to his name. So voting for any Libertarian or Independent only gets (D)s elected. (Moonbats such as Nader excepted). I won't make that mistake again.

Won't vote for the "lesser of two evils"? By definition, guess what you end up with? :rolleyes:

[No_Brakes23]

Amazing! Clinton's Gun Ban is Bush's fault. Who knew?

Well was Clinton the president in 1989? Nope, the import ban came to us via a Republican. Bush tried to gloss it over as "Protecting American gunmakers" instead of violating 2a rights.

[DRZinn]

based on the platforms of both parties, there aren't enough in either party to signifcantly alter the way both parties do business.Party platforms are based on the beliefs of the "elite" in that party. Libertarians in either party aren't enough to be effective, but I think together with those who are in neither, there'd be a real shot.

Unproveable, yes, I know.

If libertarians want to reclaim the Republican Party, they will have to marginalize religion-based issues or strive to make those issues moot.Why would I want to reclaim the Republican Party? They're statists, and they'll always be. Changing a few details and still ending up with bigger government is no win.

Better, as one member here has said, to "get it on and get it over with."

[RealGun]

Why would I want to reclaim the Republican Party? They're statists, and they'll always be. Changing a few details and still ending up with bigger government is no win.

"They'll always be" is a self fulfilling prophesy, is it not. If you didn't work to change the fundamental structure and nature of government, any third party involvement would be just as bad and every bit as compromised, playing the game by the current rules. A third party's only real function is to heckle from the sidelines, rarely relevant enough to make any difference. The members have already taken themselves out of the game, but like it that way, being fundamentally anti establishment. They actually need something to criticize, since being critical is the desired function. Actually being in charge would be their worst nightmare.

[Byron Quick]

the medical profession is terrible at policing itself

To date, I haven't been involved in a malpractice suit. An attorney deposed me in a personal injury suit. When I told him we needed supplemental oxygen to work on his client due to emission of noxious clouds of alcohol fumes...I wasn't called as a witness for some reason. It's a shame that CRX's attorney never called me:D

I ran a furniture store for fifteen years. I had several lawsuits filed for product liablity. All frivolous. Unfortunately for the lawyers, I wasn't insured for product liability. Thus I got to direct my own defense attorney. When we informed the suing attorney that if he won, we planned to appeal until all of the business's assets were exhausted... In other words, Mr. Attorney, if you lose you get nothing. If you win, you get nothing. The only thing that is sure about this case at this time is that you will get nothing unless you get a fee up front from your client. Every attorney withdrew from the suits for various stated reasons.

There isn't but one way to control attorneys. And that's to rub their noses in getting paid nothing for filing frivolous lawsuits. Give judges and juries the power to rule that the suing attorney has not only lost the case but must pay the defendant's legal costs and for the defendant's time at whatever salary he makes and mental anguish and suffering. Then make that attorney return any fees he collected from his client.

Attorneys understand not getting paid very well. They'd understand being fined for filing idiotic lawsuits even better.

Lone Gunman, physicians might not be all that hot at policing themselves, but they are light years ahead of lawyers policing themselves.

[Zundfolge]

Why would I want to reclaim the Republican Party? They're statists, and they'll always be. Changing a few details and still ending up with bigger government is no win.
Then why aren't you shooting?

If its impossible to reclaim the Republican Party then its impossible to make change via the system.

Isn't that the clear definition of "time to start shooting the bastards"?

[Manedwolf]

I'd respect the Republicans more if they actually still stood for what they used to...small government and FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Instead the bus has been hijacked by the Kristol crowd of neocons, who spend like drunken sailors, swell government bloat immeasurably, and go plunging into wars with iffy intelligence and a strategy that amounted to "We go and shoot at stuff...then what? Uh..dunno?"

Sun Tzu would smack them over the head with 'The Art of War', and every one of the founding fathers would follow with copies of 'The Federalist Papers'.

Myself, I've come to hate both parties, one's greedy and one's a doormat. And neither are serving everyday Americans anymore.

I'm also waiting for the shoe to drop of 'You know, TERRAHISTS could, like, get hold of guns, so we need to control them'...

[RealGun]

Myself, I've come to hate both parties, one's greedy and one's a doormat. And neither are serving everyday Americans anymore.

I believe both are "serving everyday Americans". That's what wrong with them. Like many, I fear that many of those "Americans" lack a clue about government and politics, and don't really know or want to confront what is in their best interest beyond the short term.

Both parties have to be moderate enough to get elected and to remain influential. If you think some purist libertarian utopia should be implemented, you are dreaming. You would first have to either educate or persuade the public or control who could vote. You will never be handed a license to set up the perfect government as you see it. The Founding Fathers made many compromises also.

[HKGuns]

I fear that many of those "Americans" lack a clue about government and politics, and don't really know or want to confront what is in their best interest beyond the short term.


To witness this you need look no futher than the little slice of Americana called "The High Road.org."

[willp58]

Compared to the dum0krauts - the Republicans are about as gun friendly as we're gonna get..

Did you forget about shumer and mizz fine-swine??? Both DEMS....

[DRZinn]

"They'll always be" is a self fulfilling prophesy, is it not.So is "Third parties have no chance."

If its impossible to reclaim the Republican Party then its impossible to make change via the system.

Isn't that the clear definition of "time to start shooting the bastards"?Not quite. It means that there will be a time, not that that time is upon us. We're headed down a very clear path toward that time, and the only thing that may change is the speed with which we travel.

[RealGun]

Fed Up Nation: Is it time for a third major political party? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080261/)

Poll on MSNBC.com. They were talking this up on MSNBCTV yesterday. Result is 71% yes out of 12K votes. The poll is still open. I voted "Yes" BTW, but I was not thinking LP nor any of the other existing third party's.

What I have in mind is Democrats minus the black vote and Republicans minus the religious zealot vote. In both cases I would hope for an abortion neutral stance and a focus on real government. Obviously one of them is going to have to be more conscious of the Constitution, but both would be nice.

[Waitone]

Unfortunately Doc Gunman is on to something. Congress wants the US to get back into the flu vaccine business. Legislation is being introduced which will prohibit lawsuits against drug companies because of failure of vaccines. Furthermore, the legislation would seal drug company record to keep them out of the hands of enterprising lawyers hunting a good suit.

Now while we need to reclaim technology, we don't need blanket immunity for drug companies. If this legislation passes, look ahead to a raft of similar legislation for oh, say, automobile companies and ATV makers and hang glider makers and ski equipment makers and . . . well, you get the idea.

Once again the second amendment leads the way.

[Cosmoline]

The Feds were never supposed to have a general police power. They just assumed one under the auspices of the Commerce Clause and FDR's socialist Supreme Court went along with it.

The only law enforcement the feds have a right to be involved in pertains to customs, enforcement of federal court orders, and the security needed to safeguard the mail service itself and other federal functions. That's all.

But try finding ANYONE of either party in DC willing to give up their power.