response to S.659 letter

[Tag]

well... what can ya do


-----------

Thank you for contacting me about the “Protection of Lawful Commerce
in Arms Act� (S.659). I appreciate hearing your views on this matter.


S.659 would weaken the legal rights of gun violence victims by
terminating a wide range of pending and prospective civil cases against
members of the gun industry. The bill would rewrite well-accepted
principles of liability law to provide the gun industry with legal
protections no other industry enjoys. Proponents claim that this bill
would prevent frivolous lawsuits and protect firearms manufacturers,
dealers, and distributors from being held responsible for the actions of
criminals. While most gun dealers and manufacturers conduct their business
responsibly, this bill would shield negligent and reckless gun dealers and
manufacturers from legitimate civil lawsuits.


I believe this bill would set the wrong precedent by giving a single
industry broad immunity from civil liability, depriving victims with
legitimate cases of their day in court. If this legislation is enacted,
other industries will almost certainly line up for similar protections.


Thanks again for writing.



Sincerely,
Carl Levin

----------

oh well

 

[GigaBuist]

Gaahhhh! That's my home state too and that [I won't say it] ticks me off to no end.

I saw a Levin bumperstick on somebody's car as I walked into the house for a Superbowl get together... first words outta me mouth when I can in was, "OK, who's the tree-hugging-hippy freak with the Levin bumper sticker?"

Who was it running against this guy? Rocky, wasn't it?

 

[Tag]

at least Levin bothers to send somthing back, even if it is totally against whatever issue I happen to be adressing.