I sent this proposal to my senators

[LAR-15]

Dear Senator XXXXX,

As your constituent I strongly urge you to support and vote in favor of S. 397, Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act. In the 108th Congress this legislation passed the House on a bipartisan vote of 285-140. It did not pass the Senate due to a number of anti-gun amendments being added to the bill. Frivolous and meaningless lawsuits are bankrupting the gun industry in this country. These need to be stopped.

If S 397 is open to amendment I have a pro gun amendment that should be passed. This updates the definition of ‘antique firearm’ in federal law. This definition has not been updated since the Gun Control Act of 1968. Such guns are used exclusively by hunters, collectors and Civil War re-enactors. None of these guns are used by criminals because they are too old and shoot obsolete ammunition. .

Please consider bringing my amendment up for a vote if S 397 is open for amendment. Please vote to pass S 397 with NO anti-gun amendments attached. I have also faxed a copy of my amendment to Senator XXXX as well.

You or your staff can call me personally at 0-000-000-0000 to speak to me about my amendment and I hope you will if you have any questions. Thank you and have a nice day.

Sincerely,

See below for text

 

[LAR-15]

Proposed Amendment to S 397


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled

An amendment to update the definition of ‘antique firearm‘. These firearms are owned almost exclusively by collectors and not used by criminals.

SECTION 1.

(a) IN GENERAL- Title 18 Chapter 44 Section 921 (16) (A) United States Code is amended by:

Striking ‘1898’ and replacing it with ‘1928’.

(b) Title 18 chapter 44 Section 921 (16) (C) United States Code is amended by:

Striking ‘for purposes’ through ‘combination thereof.’

(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 5845 (g) of Chapter 53 Title 26 United States Code is amended by-

(1) Striking from ‘means’ through ‘commercial trade.’
(2) After the words “antique firearm” inserting the following:

‘shall have the same meaning as in Section 921 (16) Chapter 44 Title 18 US Code.’

 

[DeseoUnTaco]

Nice. It would be tres cool if they would update the meaning of "antique". Time moves forward, and so the date of "antique" should move forward, too.

And you're right about antiques and criminals. Criminals use the same thing they have always used: cheap, small, concealable.

 

[LAR-15]

If Feinstein and McCain are hellbent on bringing up their anti second and anti freedom amendments for a vote, I want my proposal brought up!

DeseoUnTaco,

Could you send this to your senators too?

Thanks

 

[MrTuffPaws]

I don't support this being that I don't support the government protecting any business. Frivolous or not, no company should be protected from being sued. This is about as anti-capitalist as we can get.

If you are concerned about the Frivolous suits, then modify the court procedures, such as if a defendant wins a case, the prosecution must pay the defendant's legal fees. That alone would stop all of the frivolous suits right there.

 

[DeseoUnTaco]

I'm actually with MrTuffPaws on this one. I think the best thing is for the manufacturers to fight these things all the way through the courts. These cases are ridiculous and as far as I know, the plaintifs have crashed and burned in almost every case. It seems like a dead issue to me. Also, I would rather have lots of small manufacturers (who can't effectively be sued) than a few big manufacturers (who could be sued, negotiated with, etc).

As for writing to my senators re: that amendment. I would, but alas, my senators are the ones who keep on adding these anti-human-rights amendments to the bills in the first place. I do write them letters like, "please vote 'yes' on Ron Paul's bill to remove sporting use" or whatever and they write me back saying, "we appreciate hearing from our constituents. You just wasted 37 cents!"

 

[carebear]

I would agree with both of you on not artificially limiting the ability to seek civil redress,

but...

Most of the groups filing or promoting these lawsuits are on record that their intent is not just compensation but rather fiscal harassment and back door elimination of the firms.

The suits are often based on a blatantly false interpretation of "defective" which is, as you say, frequently overturned on appeal. However, just cause it is overturned does not eliminate the harm. The fact that a politicized judge allows the lawsuit with its attendent costs to the defendent to move forward based on faulty legal reasoning still causes harm to the companies, many times with no option for financial redress due to the indigent nature of the plaintiffs.

In a tactical sense, allowing cases to move forward to juries based on faulty legal reasoning statistically results in a "split the difference" award by juries who, while recognizing the defendent is in fact not culpable, still wants to make sure the plaintiff doesn't walk "empty-handed" after losing their beloved ________." (which is why prosecutors overcharge in criminal cases) It isn't their money after all. Even if a judge overturns the decision or lowers the award on appeal, the precedent has still been set and the case law and public perception of "reasonability" of these cases is increased by that small amount.

Nope, if judges can't be trusted to get their (or their communities perceived) personal politics out of the way and apply the true legal definition of "defective" then we need the legislature to step in and remove that discretion.

 

[The_Antibubba]

Emphasis on defective

Frivolous, in this instance, is suing a company because their lawful product did exactly what it was designed to do!

Should someone be allowed to sue Ford because a drunk driver got behind the wheel of an Explorer, started it on the first try, and drove off?