saltydog
Member
hillbilly said:
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.
So if ANYONE still thinks the Repub party is a friend or even an ally, wrong!
- Thread starter GunGoBoom
- Start date
- Status
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
Member
antsi said: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
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
Member
It wasn't really an argument, so much as an expression of surprise that otherwise intelligent individuals can be so politically naive.
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.
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.
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
Member
this MUST be sarcasm . . .
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
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
Member
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
2. Attorney General declares Second Amendment is individual right - 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 - 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 - 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
6. Bush ends taxpayer funding of useless HUD gun buybacks
7. Signs bill closing loophole that prevented cargo pilots from being armed
8. Signed the appropriations bill containing the Tiahrt Amendment 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.
11. Lawsuit preemption bill declares Second an individual right incorporated under the 14th Amendment. Might be useful in front of SCOTUS?
12. House votes for repeal of D.C. gun ban.
13. Signed exemption for gunsmiths from manufacturing taxes for creating custom firearms.
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) to kill ban not once; but three times.
Frankly, we need more non-allies like that if we are going to get anywhere...
1. UN Small Arms Restrictions blocked by US
2. Attorney General declares Second Amendment is individual right - 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 - 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 - 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
6. Bush ends taxpayer funding of useless HUD gun buybacks
7. Signs bill closing loophole that prevented cargo pilots from being armed
8. Signed the appropriations bill containing the Tiahrt Amendment 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.
11. Lawsuit preemption bill declares Second an individual right incorporated under the 14th Amendment. Might be useful in front of SCOTUS?
12. House votes for repeal of D.C. gun ban.
13. Signed exemption for gunsmiths from manufacturing taxes for creating custom firearms.
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) to kill ban not once; but three times.
Frankly, we need more non-allies like that if we are going to get anywhere...
Thumper
Member
saltydog said:
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
Member
Amen! Get in and change the party. Ron Paul needs help!
http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.htm
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?
B
boofus
Guest
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
Member
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?
saltydog said:
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.
Last edited:
saltydog said:
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.
Thumper said:
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
Member
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
Member
GunGoBoom said:
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
Member
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?
Lone_Gunman said:
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.
Thumper said:
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
Member
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
Member
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
Member
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
Member
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
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
Member
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.
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
Senior Member
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.
Lone_Gunman said:
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?
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.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked