NRA's bill they SLIPPED through the House

[pottermamma]

On the last page of this past weeks News Week is an article from Anna Quindlen about a bill that the NRA has pushed through the House and is on its way to the Senate called the "Reckless Lawsuit Premption Legislation" ~ it takes ALL Liability away from gun dealers and prevents them from being sued, period. Now, I understand this as long as the gun dealers have followed the established rules prior to handing the gun over to the individual, how can they control what an individual does with said gun in every situation, HOWEVER, in the case of the Washington sniper (as just one example), the gun dealer that sold them the gun still sold it to them "even though they were legally banned form buying guns" The store also can't account for more that 200 guns that were supposed to be on the premesis during a recent audit. Now, why shouldn't this store be held responsible in some way??? Isn't this the reason for background checks??? And for any entity to be completely exempt from being held accountable by a lawsuit??? Why and How is that OK??????
I am also unable to understand (well I can but I guess I don't want to) why I haven't heard about this and it has been able to go through so silently. I mean, I'm not the biggest news watcher in the world, but you would think something like this would receive a bit more attention:

[amy mama]

did you know that gun manufacturers are the ONLY manufacturers in America exempt from product liability litigation AND consumer safety standards? Many gun fatalities each year are caused by faulty, shoddily made guns, and the manufacturers are completely exempt from any tye of action. Your child's teddy bear passes more safety tests and inspections than any gun madein America.

[Marlena]

Dunno about other papers, but there's been a fair amount of press concerning it in the Washington Post.

[Delilah]

Where can I go?

Most newspapers I've read in Texas are only covering the war, politics, and the Dixie Chicks.

The war has been a monumental distraction so the citizens won't realize that Congress is busy screwing them.

[Marlena]

That's why I read newspapers on line. I can read the Guardian, the Washington Post, Le Monde or any other paper with a decent website, regardless of where I live.

[JessicaS]

That is just shocking. They infuriate me more and more. If they are *not* held liable then what would motivate them to follow the laws about backgound checks. The laws are not being enforced strictly enough IMO, and in my opinion this will only result in more weapons being sold under the counter.

[pottermamma]

ITA ~ it is soooo unfortunate that this is going on, and the NRA is such a huge force, what a shame.
Anyone hear of any opposition to this legislation???????

[amy mama]

Oh please. Leave the freakin nazi comparisons out of this. That is very insulting to those of us who lost family in the Holocaust. Not to mention how irrational and illogical the comparison is.

[JessicaS]

Because there are _federal_ _criminal_ penalties for knowingly selling to a prohibited person -- meaning that if BATF can make it stick, someone gets to go to Leavenworth.

These laws are not sticking. The store that sold the weapon to the sniper has not accounted for 200 plus guns missing from their inventory.

Many of the people wishing for more regulation are not "anti-gun" as you put it at all. I just want more regulation and harsher penalties for not following the law.

http://www.gunlawsuits.org/features/...asp?Record=446

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...sniper05.shtml

After the rifle found in Muhammad's car was traced to the Bull's Eye shop, officials confirmed that during an audit two years ago, 150 guns at the store had been found unaccounted for

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/...555049,00.html

Under federal law, gun dealers are required to report a stolen or lost gun within 48 hours. The law also requires receipts from gun sales to be kept for 30 years

This CLEARLY isn't happening. I didn't see anyone at Leavenworth for violating these laws previously. Should then the Federal government be held liable for not prosecuting for these previous missing weapons not being reported??

The National Rifle Association (NRA) said that if Bull's Eye intentionally broke the law, the dealer should face prosecution. But Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, also blasted gun-control advocates for using the sniper case for political reasons.

"Here we go again: another tragedy, and lurking around the corner are these gun-ban groups who are trying to twist it to their agenda," LaPierre said.

This is the sort of thing I find incredible. Gun advocates having little argument in the face of an obviously flawed system have little else to say but sneer at those seeking regulation and mutter about "agendas" and the Bradys.

When tragedy strikes because of ineffeciant laws the NRA continues to be blind to the obvious holes in the system. I would respect the NRA far more if they would agree to work with those trying to create gun control laws rather than fight kicking and screaming at even reasonable attempts at regulation.

[merpk]

... by abimommy
... Many of the people wishing for more regulation are not "anti-gun" as you put it at all. I just want more regulation and harsher penalties for not following the law ...

... When tragedy strikes because of ineffeciant laws the NRA continues to be blind to the obvious holes in the system. I would respect the NRA far more if they would agree to work with those trying to create gun control laws rather than fight kicking and screaming at even reasonable attempts at regulation.

Uh huh. What she said.





And their fighting against every little tiny piece of legislation ... like outlawing dumdum bullets is going to mean the end of freedom as we know it : ... is what makes reasonably moderate sympathy-for-the-sportsmen types like I used to be change into rabid get-rid-of-their-guns fanatics like I am now.

[Els' 3 Ones]

Ditto
and
Ditto


El

[3boys4us]

I would respect the NRA far more if they would agree to work with those trying to create gun control laws rather than fight kicking and screaming at even reasonable attempts at regulation.

ITA abi!

I am not anti-gun. However it appears to me (as a non-gun owner) that the NRA targets white middle class Americans at the expense of the thousands of minority deaths that occur each years due to gun violence. Now to me that would make the Nazi analogy more correct.

[amy mama]

ummm, I'm guessing they kill people. And fast.

[amy mama]

I don't know how anthrax is made or where it comes from, or how it's dispersed, but I'm fairly certain I don't want my neighbor having it.

And when I think of the NRA, the first thing that springs to mind is how racially diverse they are. Yup, that's the NRA-always standing up for blacks and other people of color.

[amy mama]

tell me, in that infamous nra doublespeak-how all those bills you mentioned were "compromises". The NRA bitterly fought each and every one of them. Still does.

[amy mama]

I just did a little research on dum dum bullets. And guess what? I'm still in favor of banning them. And so is any other caring person with common sense. They have serve no legitimate purpose other than to grievously wound people.

[pottermamma]

For me ~ I am actually not anti gun ~ my father is a card carrying member of the NRA and has taught me well about guns, their safe use and the need for them, especially where I live (30 miles from anyone who would care if someone broke into my home and attempted to assault my family) ~ that said ~ I have a problem with what I know/heard about this most recent bill because, as unfortunate as it is ~ lawsuits are often the only recourse some have when their rights/situation/etc is ignored ~ and for any one entity to be completely exempt from a lawsuit (however frivilous someone else may feel it is) is wrong in my mind, it takes my voice away in some small way and that isn't OK ~ especially when it keeps getting smaller and softer with the assistance of my government, but that is another subject entirely.
One of the other things that struck me about the responses here is the historical perspective you shared dhtolotusdeb about gun control being racist ~ I just can't fathom (and forgive me but my own historical education seems much more limited than your own) that this is true. I understand what you are saying about the situation in the south and how the white folks were"anti-gun" in relation to black folks having them ~ but I just can't see that this is where current anti gun legislation and individual points of view are coming from. What about the children killing children, children killing themselves, underground rings of gun sales, and irresponsible gun toters in general. To me, gun control is about making things safer, not trying to take away anyone's right to carry a gun, or any one race's right to carry a gun, simply to make others more responsible and therefore safer. I also don't agree that "People who can afford and often have armed bodyguards advocating gun control because they care about inner city youth". Gun control advocates come from all backgrounds (just as NRA members) and some even own guns .

[mimie]

I don't think I would call myself anti-car, but I sure am glad that we require:[list=1][*]A driver's license for every car operator[*]Registration, and a license for every car[*]Training, and a test of skills and knowledge for every driver's license holder[*]Safety checks, emission checks and other tests of proper functioning for renewal of every car registration[/list=1]

Cars are deadly if used incorrectly. So are guns. Why can't we apply the same standards that we use for cars/car operators to guns/gun operators?

That's not anti-car and it is not anti-gun.

[pottermamma]

Great point Mimie

[mimie]

I guess I don't know how to respond to that. Guns aren't like cars; cars are designed to safely transport people, guns are designed to kill or injure people (even if you are killing the "bad guy" you are still killing a person). No one is suggesting that *society as a whole* should treat them the same. What I am suggesting, however, is that guns and gun operators be controlled as a matter of public safety in much the same way cars and drivers are.

If we can do it for cars without unduly restricting people's right to travel, we can do it for guns without unduly restricting people's right to bear arms. It is a matter of balancing public safety and private rights.

Do gun-rights folks have objections to applying the same licensing standards to guns that apply to cars? From that link (albeit tongue-in-cheek), it seems like they think it would be a great idea. So why isn't it done?