NEWS: Senate Votes to Protect Gun Makers From Lawsuits

On a 65-31 vote, the U.S. Senate approved legislation that indemnifies firearms manufacturers, dealers, and importers from lawsuits brought by the victims of gun-based crimes. A similar bill was pulled from consideration by the Senate Republican leadership in 2004 when opponents successfully amended the bill to include an extension of the assault-style weapons ban.



Another day, another legislative victory for the Republicans.

As stated in the story, the bill was passed despite multiple attempts by the Democrats to gut the legislation or, as they had done in the past, attach a poison pill.

A link to the U.S. Senate web page showing how the vote broke down is given below.

Related News Links:
www.senate.gov

[edit on 7/30/2005 by ChemicalLaser]

[edit on 7/30/2005 by ChemicalLaser]

[edit on 30-7-2005 by asala]

This is not a victory for Republicans only, it is a victory for all Americans of every persuasion. The Second Amendment is the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights. Even those who haven't figured out its value benefit from its protection.

The vast majority of gun manufacturers produce high quality products that reliably do exactly what they are designed to do. Holding those manufacturers responsible for the malicious and negligent acts of certain individuals in unfair and idiotic.

Score one for America!

Wow! Our Senate did something logical and good for the economy!

*valhall passes out*

Fabulous decision! Business should not be held responsible for their legal products being misused.

Wow, common sense on capitol hill, its gonna snow tonight for sure. I don't see this as a Democrat defeat or a Republican victory so much as a positive mark for common sense, which isint as common these days.

I'm still not completly clear on what kind of incidents they're now protected from.

If they're protected from people using them in the wrong manner than hooray, the senate did something right! It's good to see that for once the goverment is preserving the consitution instead of spitting on it.

However let's all just remember, theres a loophole to every law. Only a matter of time before somebody finds it.

#1 I dont believe people should have the right to buy guns
#2 If they do then there should be no way someone should be able to sue a gun maker or seller if they are used in a crime.

Its like someone suing a ladder maker if it was used to break into a house or suing a computer maker if that was used in a crime.

Im amazed the US courts actually used common sense, I thought it was absent over there.

Interesting little known hook in there is that there is a litle part that makes it mandatory to have trigger locks on guns, so ... It's not all as bright and intelligent as one would be led to believe on the surface of it.

Still ... A step in the right direction is better than no step at all.

Suing manufacturers has been a backdoor attempt by the gun control lobby to deprive US citizens of their Second Amendment rights, by using civil courts to bankrupt gun manufacturers and deal with the "problem" at the supply end.

It was an attempt to make an end-run around the democratic process and the Constitution, and I'm glad it's being shut down.

Give me a break. Victims of gun-based crimes trying to sue gun manufactures is as stupid as fat people suing McDonalds! Americans and their frivolous lawsuits have become a global laughing stock.

But this is not to say that all lawsuits against big business should be banned. Lets hope we're not biting off more then we can chew.

The U.S. Senate today, approved legislation that indemnifies opium cultivaters, dealers, and importers from lawsuits brought by the victims of drug-based crimes.

Senator Larry Craig, ecstatic at the passage of the bill, said that it was a "great win for Afghanistan and other opium producing nations"

"These people can now go about their bussines of making vast amounts of cash, without fear of legal reprisals from the relatives of persons who have overdosed on heroin" Senator Craig said.

New York drug lord, Frank "The Mallet" Cardoni told reporters that it was a "day to be remembered".
"We have been copping the blame for drug related crimes and deaths on the streets for far too long, it has never been our fault that people buy heroin and then do something stupid with it"

However Emily Whitmore, who's daughter recently died of an overdose after a long and painful heroin adiction, was disappointed. "While I understand that there are legitimate reasons for heroin in medicine and so forth, I don't believe the local street gang that suplied my daughter really cared if she was going to shoot it up" Mrs Whitmore said.

Local street dealer Jack Dude hoped it would lead to similar legislation regarding other drugs. "I do coc aine mostly... the constant threat of crimminal proceedings is a real bummer... sure, I know most of my customers aren't using it for nose operations, but you can't blame me for corrupting America's youth"

thepresidentsbrain - In my humble opinion sir your post was in very poor taste.

Guns in America have a long & proud history and the right to own one is protected by the Constitution. What the Senate voted to do is uphold the Constitution, not let it be trampled by those who would so easily circumvent it because they can't get their way. You, Mr. thepresidentsbrain, on the other hand, are implying by your post that it should be circumvented--you should be ashamed of yourself.

[edit on 31-7-2005 by Astronomer68]

Originally posted by Astronomer68
thepresidentsbrain - In my humble opinion sir your post was in very poor taste.

Please elaborate

I do not believe further elaboration is needed sir.

Astronomer68 . Nowhere in my post did I remotely suggest the US constitution should be circumvented. Nor did I suggest that I disaproved of the bill.

If you can't point to where I have done so, then you might consider retracting your insult.

Actually sir, you did. The implication of your fictious bill was clearly disapproving of the Senate action and the drug bill analogy/story/satire was clearly a ludicrous attempt at depricating, in an amusing way, the logic behind the bills passage. If by some remote chance that was not your intent then your post was totally off topic and not relevant to anything except to show your wit. In either case, it was in poor taste.

[edit on 31-7-2005 by Astronomer68]

Astronomer68

Your insult was off topic

My post on the other hand , contrary to your claims, is a bit of satire to point to what might be large inconsistencies and hypocrisy in the way society views different actions

[edit on 31-7-2005 by thepresidentsbrain]

You may back water all you like sir; however, we both know that what I posted is true. Your attempt at justification is only serving to call both your motives and intelligence into question--in my mind. Drugs are illegal, guns are not. Taking drugs is illegal, using a gun is not. This discussion is ended.



[edit on 31-7-2005 by Astronomer68]

score one for sanity. It isnt the gun manufacturers fault that their high quality, precision weapons somehow find their way into the hand of some crackhead who gets caught stealing a dvd player for his next narcotic fix and shoots the lady of the house.

thanks,
drfunk

I remember a little phrase I saw on another thread awhile back--"If guns kill people then spoons made Rosie O'donnell fat."