Advocates Fight Gun-Immunity

[whitefeather]

Advocates Fight Gun-Immunity Bill
5/27/2003



Arguing against a gun-immunity bill now before the U.S. Senate, gun-control advocates say its passage would hurt victims of violence such as those in last fall's Washington, D.C. area sniper shootings, the St. Joseph News-Press reported May 15.

The bill, which is backed by President Bush and the National Rifle Association (NRA), would protect gun manufacturers and sellers from lawsuits stemming from the criminal or unlawful use of their products.

Senate Democrats are trying to delay the legislation, which has 52 cosponsors in the Senate. Several of the bill's cosponsors, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, have received substantial campaign contributions during the last election from the NRA and other gun-rights organizations.

For instance, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) received $8,950, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) received $3,500, Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.) received $9,900, and Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.) received $1,000.

Sixty votes would be needed to block a Democratic filibuster. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), who is against the bill, said Democrats may also try to add amendments that would close the gun show waiting-period loophole, include safety-lock language, and tighten criminal background checks.

"I just hope this Congress doesn't bow down to the raw political power the NRA exhibits," Reed said.

The bill has already passed in the U.S. House of Representatives by a 285-140 vote.


Why does everyone have to be hating the NRA :D

Free will

[SouthernMoss]

This kind of legislation is sorely needed, and not just for gun manufacturers. Too many Americans think that the world owes them something, and look for any excuse to sue. Here in Mississippi, we are working desperately for tort reform, especially in the medical area, where many physicians have had to leave the state because the big settlements that have been awarded here make the cost of maintaining a medical practice prohibitive.

[wuzzagrunt]

We know these law suits are not about public safety. They are nothing more than an attempt to cripple an industry that tends to support Republicans and Conservatives. This is the same reason they go after the tobacco industry. If the issue had any relation to just compensation for victims of irresponsible behavior on the part of organizations which cause them injury--law makers would not immunize themselves from civil suits. But, they always do!

(4) Pursuant to New York City Administrative Code § 10-311(c), any
person who applies for and obtains authorization to purchase, or otherwise lawfully
obtains, a handgun shall be required to purchase or obtain a safety locking device at the
time s/he purchases or obtains the handgun.

(5) Pursuant to New York City Administrative Code § 10-311(d), the City
of New York and its agencies, officers or employees shall not be liable to any party by
reason of any incident involving, or the use or misuse of a safety locking device that may
have been purchased in compliance with these rules.

So if, while you are fumbling with the mandated safety lock on your handgun, an intruder guts you like a fish--your survivors cant sue the people who insist that you must not be allowed to defend yourself.