Bernie Sanders Switches Sides on Gun Manufacturer Liability
104 replies, posted
[quote]DES MOINES -- Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders said Saturday that he would support changing the law to allow gun manufacturers who “act irresponsibly” to be held liable when crimes are committed with their products, ending a legal protection they were granted in legislation he supported a decade ago.
The Vermont senator’s comments followed fresh criticism this week from Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton about Sanders’s 2005 vote to shield firearms manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits under such circumstances -- a vote Clinton says is an important difference between the two candidates.
“I think we should take another look at that legislation and get rid of those provisions which allow gun manufacturers to act irresponsibly,” Sanders told a crowd of nearly 1,600 gathered on the Iowa State Fairgrounds for an evening rally in the nation’s first caucus state.[/quote]
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/09/sanders-tells-iowa-crowd-he-supports-changes-to-gun-manufacturers-liability-law/[/url]
what is a gun manufacturer acting irresponsibly? Is it just building guns? because that's all any gun manufacturer does.
this isn't even trying to disguise that he wants to legislate gun manufacturers out of existence without actually doing so
So then can I sue Ford if a drunk driver in an F150 puts me in a wheelchair? After all, they "acted irresponsibly" by making the car and allowing a drunk driver to buy it. The companies who make these guns have no idea who's going to ultimately buy them, and forcing them to assume liability when a psychopath gets their hands on one is ridiculous. They sold that gun to a licensed dealer first off, they don't deal in direct-to-consumer sales, and second the person who would use it maliciously could still potentially acquire it through all legal means, passing all requisite background checks because they're simply not on the radar. What the hell is the manufacturer, now removed from the purchaser by at least one level, that being the dealer, supposed to do to stop someone that nobody knows is intent on using this gun maliciously from getting it?
[quote]“gun manufacturers do know that they’re selling a whole lot of guns in an area that really should not be buying that many guns, that many of those guns are going to other areas, probably for criminal purposes.”[/quote]
And referencing the article and the above quote, how in the fuck is it the manufacturer's fault, again? They sell to a licensed FFL, security firm, or police force. How in the fuck is the manufacturer "selling guns where they know they'll end up in criminals' hands" when they're not the one who sells the fucking gun to the end user? Are they going to sue the FFL in the area too that the manufacturer sold to for the same reason? This is a crock of bullshit no matter what way you look at it. The manufacturer has no liability for the way the end user uses its products, since they have no control whatsoever over that user.
[QUOTE=butre;49497853]what is a gun manufacturer acting irresponsibly? Is it just building guns? because that's all any gun manufacturer does.
this isn't even trying to disguise that he wants to legislate gun manufacturers out of existence without actually doing so[/QUOTE]No, no it isn't at all. What a moronic thing to say. He has been incredibly lax about gun control issues and towards manufacturers, how has he done anything to legislate them out of existence?
A meaningless statement until it's qualified.
ford doesn't get sued when some drunkard in an F150 sideswipes a car, snap on doesn't get sued if someone gets stabbed with a screwdriver, etc., so why should a firearms manufacturer get the shaft on this?
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;49497867]So then can I sue Ford if a drunk driver in an F150 puts me in a wheelchair? After all, they "acted irresponsibly" by making the car and allowing a drunk driver to buy it. The companies who make these guns have no idea who's going to ultimately buy them, and forcing them to assume liability when a psychopath gets their hands on one is ridiculous. They sold that gun to a licensed dealer first off, they don't deal in direct-to-consumer sales, and second the person who would use it maliciously could still potentially acquire it through all legal means, passing all requisite background checks because they're simply not on the radar. What the hell is the manufacturer, now removed from the purchaser by at least one level, that being the dealer, supposed to do to stop someone that nobody knows is intent on using this gun maliciously from getting it?[/QUOTE]
Exactly. If you're going to decide that guns are legal for sale then it's ridiculous to hold the merchants responsible for how their wares are used. If the sellers are knowingly participating in straw purchases, circumventing background checks, etc., then they're already breaking the law.
To be honest, it's probably less "Oh no, your gun was used by a murderer, you get sued!" and more of "You sold your guns at a discount to someone who shipped them out to ISIS". It's more of a slap on a wrist to selling to dangerous middlemen, than any dangerous infraction.
[QUOTE=butre;49497853]what is a gun manufacturer acting irresponsibly? Is it just building guns? because that's all any gun manufacturer does.
this isn't even trying to disguise that he wants to legislate gun manufacturers out of existence without actually doing so[/QUOTE]
I think he's referencing the situation that had occurred at Stag Arms Inc. where some guns were found by Federal Agents without serial numbers and some had just mysteriously disappeared, but all that happened in terms of punishment was just a fine and the owner just had to sell the company to some one else with no other charges.
I mean. If the gun manufacturer was directly selling guns to known criminals or children. Then yeah. But I don't understand what this is applying to? If he says that he is in favor of gun companies being responsible for crimes committed with their products. Then he's really not being reasonable. Are we going to start holding car manufacturers responsible for people who kill someone while drinking and driving??
Manufacturers can't control what you do with their products. Especially when the user is knowingly using it in a improper/dangerous manner.
Edit: Although hopefully I am just not reading it right.
[QUOTE=gufu;49497906]To be honest, it's probably less "Oh no, your gun was used by a murderer, you get sued!" and more of "You sold your guns at a discount to someone who shipped them out to ISIS". It's more of a slap on a wrist to selling to dangerous middlemen, than any dangerous infraction.[/QUOTE]
Except that's not how this has been attempted in the past. Remember the Sandy Hook lawsuit against Bushmaster? Regardless, selling weapons to ISIS is already illegal so what exactly would new legislation accomplish? Don't try to pretend that this wouldn't affect currently legal sales.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;49497870]No, no it isn't at all. What a moronic thing to say. He has been incredibly lax about gun control issues and towards manufacturers, how has he done anything to legislate them out of existence?[/QUOTE]
He's a little more sensible than Clinton or Feinstein (who both want them gone entirely, except from their personal guard of course) but he voted yes on the 1993 AWB and has voted to outright ban semiautomatic firearms
[editline]10th January 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=gjsdeath;49497913]I mean. If the gun manufacturer was directly selling guns to known criminals or children. Then yeah. But I don't understand what this is applying to? If he says that he is in favor of gun companies being responsible for crimes committed with their products. Then he's really not being reasonable. Are we going to start holding car manufacturers responsible for people who kill someone while drinking and driving??
Manufacturers can't control what you do with their products. Especially when the user is knowingly using it in a improper/dangerous manner.
Edit: Although hopefully I am just not reading it right.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=gufu;49497906]To be honest, it's probably less "Oh no, your gun was used by a murderer, you get sued!" and more of "You sold your guns at a discount to someone who shipped them out to ISIS". It's more of a slap on a wrist to selling to dangerous middlemen, than any dangerous infraction.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=gjsdeath;49497913]I mean. If the gun manufacturer was directly selling guns to known criminals or children. Then yeah. But I don't understand what this is applying to? If he says that he is in favor of gun companies being responsible for crimes committed with their products. Then he's really not being reasonable. Are we going to start holding car manufacturers responsible for people who kill someone while drinking and driving??
Manufacturers can't control what you do with their products. Especially when the user is knowingly using it in a improper/dangerous manner.
Edit: Although hopefully I am just not reading it right.[/QUOTE]
gun manufacturers can only sell to FFL holding distributors though. the ATF has to approve each and every person who wants to buy directly from a gun manufacturer.
He's likely just talking out of his ass trying to get a few more supporters. I'm all for him being president, but honestly this seems like a redundant issue to bring up. It's already illegal for a manufacturer to knowingly sell to a party that is not legally allowed to purchase guns (illegals, smugglers, felons, enemies of the state), and it's an absolutely asinine concept to allow Bushmaster to get sued because John Doe shot up his grocery store with one of their rifles.
[QUOTE=butre;49497876]ford doesn't get sued when some drunkard in an F150 sideswipes a car, snap on doesn't get sued if someone gets stabbed with a screwdriver, etc., so why should a firearms manufacturer get the shaft on this?[/QUOTE]
Ford vehicles were not designed with the express intent of ending life, whether it's hunting or people. Were ford to willingly sell a product that they knew was going into the hands of people who were going to use it irresponsibly, people would surely try to hold them accountable. Gun owner or not (I'm in the process of obtaining my own atm) you should be all for holding people accountable [i]when it makes sense[/i], literally nobody ever is saying you should sue a gun manufacturer for all damage caused by their products
[QUOTE=Elspin;49497949]Ford vehicles were not designed with the express intent of ending life, whether it's hunting or people. Were ford to willingly sell a product that they knew was going into the hands of people who were going to use it irresponsibly, people would surely try to hold them accountable. Gun owner or not (I'm in the process of obtaining my own atm) you should be all for holding people accountable [I]when it makes sense[/I], literally nobody ever is saying you should sue a gun manufacturer for all damage caused by their products[/QUOTE]
Once again, this is already illegal.
This is like saying "we need to prevent car dealers from selling to unlicensed people" even though that's already illegal.
[QUOTE=lolo;49497911]I think he's referencing the situation that had occurred at Stag Arms Inc. where some guns were found by Federal Agents without serial numbers and some had just mysteriously disappeared, but all that happened in terms of punishment was just a fine and the owner just had to sell the company to some one else with no other charges.[/QUOTE]
Stag arms were raided by the ATF for being incompetent morons, not for running a big criminal enterprise. those lowers all had Stag's logo and name plastered on the side, if any of them were ever used in any crime ever it would lead right back to Stag's doorstep.
it wasn't even a sensible raid as there's no required timeframe for serializing a manufactured lower. they were still being held at the manufacturing facility for assembly. a receiver doesn't need to be serialized until it's transferred.
[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49497956]Once again, this is already illegal.
This is like saying "we need to prevent car dealers from selling to unlicensed people" even though that's already illegal.[/QUOTE]
I'd counter by saying yeah no shit it's illegal but it's still happening, hell illegally obtained drivers licenses were a huge problem in the city where I grew up, just making something illegal is different from pursuing direct action to properly enforce those laws. That shouldn't worry responsible gun owners
[QUOTE=Elspin;49497984]I'd counter by saying yeah no shit it's illegal but it's still happening, hell illegally obtained drivers licenses were a huge problem in the city where I grew up, just making something illegal is different from pursuing direct action to properly enforce those laws. That shouldn't worry responsible gun owners[/QUOTE]
If strengthening existing laws about illegal sales is what Bernie meant by this then I don't think he'll find a single detractor.
That's not the legislation that's in question. It would allow manufacturers to be held accountable for crimes committed with their weapons.
[quote]If you are a gun shop owner in Vermont and you sell somebody a gun and that person flips out and then kills somebody, I don’t think it’s really fair to hold that person responsible, the gun shop owner,” Sanders said.[/quote]
I think it's perfectly fair. A common theme with gun violence in the U.S. is that a lot of the guns involved in those shootings were legally acquired. When you create risk for the gun shop owner, they have to practice discretion with who they sell to. If it's Bob the redneck who has been a regular customer for twenty years and has never had problems with the law, you'll know it's safe to sell to them. If it's some stranger who you've never seen before and they're just 'passing through town', you won't take the risk of selling to them. Not before you build a relationship with that customer so you can make an informed guess on whether they're going to be using a gun to shoot pests and feral animals or to shoot children in a school.
With that strategy, governments don't need to mandate background checks or 'assault weapons bans'. The 99% of law-abiding gun owners will be happy, happier than now. There is no better person than the person who deals the guns, for stopping potential mass shootings. Therefore it's important to override the economic incentive to sell as many guns as possible, with a strategy which forces gun dealers to practice discretion and manage their risk with untrustworthy customers.
People saying "they just want to stop gun manufacturers selling to ISIS/convicted criminals/doing straw purchases/etc." are either uninformed or intentionally misleading you in order to sneak in completely different legislation.
[editline]10th January 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Antdawg;49498006]I think it's perfectly fair. A common theme with gun violence in the U.S. is that a lot of the guns involved in those shootings were legally acquired. When you create risk for the gun shop owner, they have to practice discretion with who they sell to. If it's Bob the redneck who has been a regular customer for twenty years and has never had problems with the law, you'll know it's safe to sell to them. If it's some stranger who you've never seen before and they're just 'passing through town', you won't take the risk of selling to them. Not before you build a relationship with that customer so you can make an informed guess on whether they're going to be using a gun to shoot feral animals or to shoot children in a school.
With that strategy, governments don't need to mandate background checks or 'assault weapons bans'. The 99% of law-abiding gun owners will be happy, happier than now. There is no better person that the person who deals the guns, for stopping potential mass shootings. Therefore it's important to override the economic incentive to sell as many guns as possible, with a strategy which forces gun dealers to practice discretion and manage their risk with untrustworthy customers.[/QUOTE]
This effectively ends gun sales.
It's an interesting strategy to ban guns without saying that's what you're doing. Why not have the courage of your convictions?
I would imagine it's for basic security things. Say if you are shipping a bunch of guns out and they get stolen because you left them in an insecure place without anyone watching them. This isn't going to be oh a guy got killed by a gun made by X, sue the shit out of X.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;49498006]I think it's perfectly fair. A common theme with gun violence in the U.S. is that a lot of the guns involved in those shootings were legally acquired. When you create risk for the gun shop owner, they have to practice discretion with who they sell to. If it's Bob the redneck who has been a regular customer for twenty years and has never had problems with the law, you'll know it's safe to sell to them. If it's some stranger who you've never seen before and they're just 'passing through town', you won't take the risk of selling to them. Not before you build a relationship with that customer so you can make an informed guess on whether they're going to be using a gun to shoot pests and feral animals or to shoot children in a school.
With that strategy, governments don't need to mandate background checks or 'assault weapons bans'. The 99% of law-abiding gun owners will be happy, happier than now. There is no better person that the person who deals the guns, for stopping potential mass shootings. Therefore it's important to override the economic incentive to sell as many guns as possible, with a strategy which forces gun dealers to practice discretion and manage their risk with untrustworthy customers.[/QUOTE]
except the government does a background check on EVERY SINGLE PERSON buying from a licensed FFL dealer, so if the government says they are OK To buy the gun, the dealer has no reason to not sell. It is no fault of the dealer that the government background check did not signal a red flag for the buyer.
[QUOTE=bisousbisous;49498055]except the government does a background check on EVERY SINGLE PERSON buying from a licensed FFL dealer, so if the government says they are OK To buy the gun, the dealer has no reason to not sell. It is no fault of the dealer that the government background check did not signal a red flag for the buyer.[/QUOTE]
He's not talking about background checks, he said that he thinks sellers should have to do their own, clairvoyant checks on people so they know that they absolutely won't commit a crime any time in the future. He says:
[quote]Therefore it's important to override the economic incentive to sell as many guns as possible, with a strategy which forces gun dealers to practice discretion and manage their risk with untrustworthy customers.[/quote]
So Antdawg thinks that gun manufacturers should practice an entirely unique business model that guarantees failure.
I think it's important to note that the legislation would allow people to sue the manufacturer of a weapons even if they weren't they ones who sold it to the perpetrator. If a gun store sells a Colt weapon to someone and it's used in a crime then Colt is to blame and they can be sued.
Why not have an optional gun certificate that you can get from the government that says "this guy can safely handle a gun and is not likely to be a criminal"? Whenever a gun shop owner sees that, he can then proceed with that sale with more peace of mind.
Here, here, Bernie Sanders is a politician! Read all about it! No one but Sanders hardliners are surprised.
He knows his base is against guns. So he had to switch. It's one of the few issues were he wasn't left of Hillary.
Nothing new here tbh. Liberals hate guns (unless they are for them or the people who protect them). But instead of changing the amendment that allows gun ownership they try to make owning them as inconvenient and expensive as possible. This time they want to try to shut down manufacturers. Good luck- IMO they're just handing the election to the republicans.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;49498006]I think it's perfectly fair. A common theme with gun violence in the U.S. is that a lot of the guns involved in those shootings were legally acquired. When you create risk for the gun shop owner, they have to practice discretion with who they sell to. If it's Bob the redneck who has been a regular customer for twenty years and has never had problems with the law, you'll know it's safe to sell to them. If it's some stranger who you've never seen before and they're just 'passing through town', you won't take the risk of selling to them. Not before you build a relationship with that customer so you can make an informed guess on whether they're going to be using a gun to shoot pests and feral animals or to shoot children in a school.
With that strategy, governments don't need to mandate background checks or 'assault weapons bans'. The 99% of law-abiding gun owners will be happy, happier than now. There is no better person than the person who deals the guns, for stopping potential mass shootings. Therefore it's important to override the economic incentive to sell as many guns as possible, with a strategy which forces gun dealers to practice discretion and manage their risk with untrustworthy customers.[/QUOTE]
How do you get a regular customer when customers can't buy from you in the first place?
[QUOTE=sgman91;49498378]Here, here, Bernie Sanders is a politician! Read all about it! No one but Sanders hardliners are surprised.
He knows his base is against guns. So he had to switch. It's one of the few issues were he wasn't left of Hillary.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but it doesn't make any sense to hold gun manufacturers liable for gun crime in the same way you don't hold a car manufacturer liable if a guy decides to swerve into the sidewalk and mow down pedestrians. They're made to kill, sure- but in the end, it's just a tool.
Like if somebody dies from a malfunction, sure.
[QUOTE=Simplemac3;49498634]Yeah but it doesn't make any sense to hold gun manufacturers liable for gun crime in the same way you don't hold a car manufacturer liable if a guy decides to swerve into the sidewalk and mow down pedestrians. They're made to kill, sure- but in the end, it's just a tool.
Like if somebody dies from a malfunction, sure.[/QUOTE]
I agree, it's ridiculously stupid, but for some reason democrats have embraced it as a good idea.
[QUOTE=gufu;49497906]To be honest, it's probably less "Oh no, your gun was used by a murderer, you get sued!" and more of "You sold your guns at a discount to someone who shipped them out to ISIS". It's more of a slap on a wrist to selling to dangerous middlemen, than any dangerous infraction.[/QUOTE]
This makes more sense.
What also makes sense is if gun manufacturers are selling to merchants who routinely violate the law in their own transactions, the manufacturers who are knowingly doing business with those merchants should have some sort of incentive to not do that. And that's what the article makes this sound like.
It also gives gun merchants an incentive to not sell guns illegally, since they'd risk losing their suppliers and going out of business.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.