compare / contrast : Daschle Cosponsoring Bill To End "Junk Lawsuits"

[gun-fucious]

NSSF Special Edition September 25, 2003

Bipartisan Support Grows for Federal Legislation To End "Junk
Lawsuits" Against Firearms Makers

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle Joins Republican Leadership in
Cosponsoring Bill to Protect America's Firearms Industry

NEWTOWN, Conn. - Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD)
announced today that he was joining with Senate Majority Leader Bill
Frist (R-TN) and Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in
cosponsoring legislation to protect firearms manufacturers and dealers
against "junk" lawsuits that have been filed across the country seeking
to blame them for the criminal misuse of their products.

Senator Daschle becomes the 55th senator to cosponsor the
legislation. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed the
House in April by an overwhelming and bipartisan margin (285-to-140).
The bill enjoys the support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the
National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of
Wholesaler-Distributors, as well as organized labor members working in
the firearm industry.

In a statement released today announcing his support, Daschle
said, "It is wrong -- and it is a misuse of the civil justice system --
to try to punish honest, law-abiding people for illegal acts committed
by others without their knowledge or involvement. That's not the way we
do things in America. We don't hold innocent people responsible for
acts they are not involved in and over which they have no control."

The bill does not prevent truly injured parties with legitimate
claims from having their day in court. For example, persons injured by
defective or illegally sold guns would still be able to sue gun makers
and dealers for their injuries.

More than 30 states have already enacted similar legislation, but a
reform to federal law is needed prevent frivolous, politically
motivated lawsuits filed by municipalities and special interest groups
from bankrupting responsible companies by blaming them for the actions
of criminals.

"We welcome Senator Daschle's support of this important, common
sense legislation to end the abuse of our legal system," said Doug
Painter, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Painter
called upon the Senate to act swiftly to pass the bill.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), since 1961 the
trade association for the makers and sellers of firearms, ammunition
and related hunting and recreational shooting products, has been named
as a defendant in some of the groundless suits brought against the
industry.

Learn more about NSSF's safety programs and the promotion of the
safe and responsible use of its members' products by visiting the
Foundation's web site at www.nssf.org. To find out more about S. 659,
see www.heritagefund.org.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

BRADY CAMPAIGN:
Senator Daschle Signs on to Dangerous Immunity Legislation

Senator Tom Daschle (D-ND) has cosponsored S.659, the appalling bill that would give unprecedented legal immunity to the gun industry and bar gun violence victims from suing reckless gun dealers and manufacturers who supply the illegal gun market.

Senator Daschle agreed to support the bill after working with the NRA on an amendment that will make a few minor changes to the bill. But the NRA/Daschle amendment, if it eventually becomes part of the bill, will do nothing to protect the rights of gun violence victims. The legislation would still protect reckless gun sellers like Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, the gun shop where the DC-area snipers got their gun.

We must stop this legislation or the court doors will be slammed shut to gun violence victims and they will never have their day in court.

Victims like the families who lost loved ones in the Washington, DC area sniper attacks, and the two New Jersey police officers, Ken McGuire and David Lemongello, who are seeking to hold a negligent West Virginia pawnshop responsible for its role in fueling the illegal gun market in New Jersey.

How You Can Help:

TAKE ACTION:

PLEASE CALL OR WRITE YOUR SENATORS.

URGE THEM TO:

1) Oppose S. 659 and

2) Support a filibuster of the bill.

E-MAIL your Senators by clicking here:
http://capwiz.com/brady/issues/alert/?alertid=230291&type=CO

WRITE or FAX your Senators by clicking here:
http://capwiz.com/brady/dbq/officials/.

CALL your Senators via the Capitol Switchboard at: 202-224-3121.

Please contact your Senator today. And help us keep the rights of gun violence victims intact!

MAKE A DONATION TO THE BRADY CAMPAIGN:

Our ability to fight this dangerous bill depends on the generous support of activists like you! With your help, we can run ads to educate the public about this dangerous bill, and send our activists to the Hill to tell their Senators in person NOT to support legal immunity for the gun industry.

Please go to the link below and click on the Give Online button to make a donation to the Brady Campaign today!

http://www.bradycampaign.com/donate/index.asp

We need all the help we can get. Take a moment to forward this e-mail on to your friends and family so that they too can help prevent this bill from passing.

Keep watching for more updates and ways you can help. United, we can beat this dangerous bill!

"Thumbs up to all of you for your generous support! Together, we will build a safer America." - Jim "The BEAR" Brady

September 26, 2003

 

[Standing Wolf]

We don't hold innocent people responsible for acts they are not involved in and over which they have no control."

Unless, of course, we're representatives of the Democratic (sic) party and think we can get away with it.

Seriously: Daschle seems belatedly to have realized antagonizing America's firearms owners isn't going to do him a speck of good in the polls. Leftists are always too little, too late.

 

[jimpeel]

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD)
announced today that he was joining with Senate Majority Leader Bill
Frist (R-TN) and Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in
cosponsoring legislation to protect firearms manufacturers and dealers
against "junk" lawsuits that have been filed across the country seeking
to blame them for the criminal misuse of their products.

 

[Zedicus]

To me, Sueing the Manufacturer or Reseller of a product for someone elses misuse of the product only "cheapens" the entire leagal and judicial system.

It is not only Illogical, but also defys all Common Sence.

 

[Mark Tyson]

Good lord! What is the world coming to? Gasp! What's next, holding people responsible for their actions? Heavens!

The children! The children! The chiiiiiilllldreeeeeennnn . . .

[passes out]

 

[Geech]

Ha! Good stuff.

 

[greyhound]

Gotta give credit where credit is due: Thank you Sen. Daschle.

Personally, I was shocked, SHOCKED!, to hear that a leftist was supporting this legislation.....

Mark Tyson, that was friggin hilarious!

Before we all pass out, how do you feel about the AWB, Sen. Daschle?

 

[Cellar Dweller]

The really scary part:

Senator Daschle agreed to support the bill after working with the NRA on an amendment that will make a few minor changes to the bill.

I don't trust Daschle and I don't trust the compromisers of the NRA. What are the changes? What's in it for Daschle? What's in it for the NRA?

Daschle supports Junk Lawsuits Bill in exchange for NRA supporting new, "compromised" and expanded AWB, perhaps?

 

[Billll]

quote:
Senator Daschle agreed to support the bill after working with the NRA on an amendment that will make a few minor changes to the bill.

Exactly what was the "minor" change? As I remember it, but cannot locate the source, it was the ability to sue a manufacturer or distridutor if their guns were sold or delivered to anyone who shouldn't have had them in the first place, effectively gutting the bill.

Keep looking folks: What exactly is the Daschle/NRA amendment?

Caveat emptor!!!

 

[Leatherneck]

Daschle is as shrill a leftist as there ever was. Most likely, he realized that the logic behind this bill was enough to convince his constituents, and its passage was inevitable anyway, so it was a no-cost way for him to later point to his support for the shooting community. and double

TC
TFL Survivor

 

[gun-fucious]

http://www.newsday.com/news/politic...,3082919.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

WASHINGTON -- Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle says he will back legislation to protect gun makers from lawsuits arising from criminal use of the weapons, as long as it is changed to ensure legitimate claims can go forward.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course, that's exactly the point in contention, what constitutes a "reasonable claim". I'd really like to see the text of that amendment.

 

[gun-fucious]

consider the source:
http://www.bradycampaign.com/xshare/0903/092903-rel.html


The Daschle-Craig-Baucus Amendment to S. 659

The changes in the amendment would do nothing to protect the legal rights of gun violence victims with cases pending in our courts. Here's why.

* The first change deletes "knowingly and willfully" from the exception allowing cases against manufacturers or sellers who violate the law. It does not, however, eliminate the bill's basic problem. With any other business or product, a seller or manufacturer can be liable if it is negligent. This change still allows negligent gun dealers and manufacturers to get off the hook unless they also violated a criminal law. It merely lowers the criminal standard somewhat. For example:

* The judge in Washington state presiding over the case brought by the D.C.-area snipers has twice ruled that the dealer, Bull's Eye Shooters Supply, and manufacturer, Bushmaster Firearms, may be liable in negligence for enabling the snipers to obtain their gun. But even with the proposed changes to S. 659, the sniper victims would be thrown out of court, as there is no evidence that either the negligent dealer or manufacturer violated a criminal law.
* A Massachusetts court has ruled that gun manufacturer Kahr Arms may be liable for negligently hiring drug-addicted criminals and enabling them to stroll out the plant door with unmarked guns to be sold to criminals. But with the proposed changes, the case against Kahr Arms would be dismissed, for its conduct, even though outrageous, violated no law.
* A West Virginia court has ruled that former police officers Lemongello and McGuire have a legitimate case against the dealer and manufacturer whose negligence supplied a gun trafficker with 12 guns. But with the proposed changes they would be thrown out of court unless they could prove that the gun dealer violated a law - even though it has never even been charged with a crime.

* The second change adds exceptions for making false record entries, not making required entries, or aiding, abetting or conspiring in certain sales to prohibited buyers. In none of the cases mentioned above is there any evidence that would support any of these exceptions. Even Bull's Eye, the snipers' gun dealer, was not required to make any entries regarding the snipers' "lost" gun because there is no evidence it was aware the gun was missing.
* The third change adds "reasonably foreseeable" language to the existing product liability exception, but then takes away any benefit that language might have by stating that it does not allow actions involving criminal acts "other than possessory offenses." However, in every case in which someone is shot, there will likely be a crime other than a "possessory offense," such as "reckless endangerment," "manslaughter," or "negligent homicide." Even unintentional shootings by adolescents that could have been prevented by feasible safety features usually result in such charges. So this change simply takes away with one hand what it gives with the other.
* The fourth change switches "and" to "or." No case of which we are aware would be saved by this negligent entrustment exception under this change. For example, the sniper case does not involve negligent entrustment under this definition because the gun was apparently obtained by the snipers due to negligent security, not negligent entrustment.
* The fifth change makes the bill even worse than it was by stating that the exceptions will not create a federal right of action.
* The sixth change simply tinkers with the words regarding ammunition sellers. As no existing case of which we aware is against an ammunition seller, this does nothing.
* The seventh, eighth and ninth changes add a requirement that a "trade association" must be "involved in promoting the business interests of its members." This may eliminate protection for gangs and terrorist groups whose interests are not financial, who could have been protected under the earlier bill. However, even this minor improvement is written in a way that could maintain protection for, e.g., terrorist-supporters or drug gangs who are motivated by business interests and have two licensed dealers. It does not save any active case that would otherwise be barred by the bill. In other words, the NRA's bill continues to give the NRA broad civil immunity.
* The last change defines "unlawful misuse." This is a cosmetic improvement, however, as it merely states that negligent misuse cannot be deemed "unlawful." It would not, however, save any active case that would otherwise have been barred by S. 659. For example, the sniper case, McGuire-Lemongello, the Dixes, and Kahr Arms involve misuse that would still be unlawful under this definition, for the shootings violated "a statute, ordinance, or regulation."

 

[emc]

Damn it, Mark! How could you? (He says, as he thinks "I wish I had posted that response first!")