Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

elleng

(140,187 posts)
13. The Washington Post has an article about the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,
Mon Sep 14, 2015, 09:17 PM
Sep 2015

a law which prohibits suits against gun dealers and manufacturers “for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products.” It applies not only to federal courts, but also actions at the state and local levels.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

According to The Washington Post, the law has been used to successfully block lawsuits by families of victims, including suits against gun manufacturers for the way in which the guns are designed. The law will make it difficult for the victims and families of Sandy Hook to make claims against the gun manufacturer. At least one mother of a victim is claiming that the manufacturer of the gun used to kill the victims of Sandy Hook should have installed a safety device, called a biometric lock, which could have prevented the gun from being used by Lanza, since that device would prevent a gun from being fired by anyone other than its licensed owner.

In a press release issued when President George W. Bush signed this law, the NRA indicated that the purpose of the law was ending politically motivated lawsuits designed to bankrupt law-abiding American firearm manufacturers and retailers.

http://www.nra.org/...
And in discussing their efforts to get this law passed, in that same press release the NRA indicated:

"What we witness today is the culmination of a seven-year effort that included a comprehensive legislative and election strategy," stated Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. "We worked hard to change the political landscape to pass this landmark legislation
http://www.nra.org/...
In discussing this law, The Washington Post noted that with this law, the gun industry has protections available to it that are not given to other industries.

The liability exemption sets firearms apart from nearly every other industry. . . . Legal scholars say the breadth of the protections granted to the gun industry is rare for consumer product manufacturers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Whether or not you believe in these types of lawsuits against products, it seems only fair that the gun dealers and gun manufacturers should be held to the same standards that apply to other industries. That they are not is an indication of the tremendous amount of power that the NRA has had in this country.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/01/1183784/-2005-Law-Gives-Gun-Manufacturers-and-Dealers-Protection-From-Lawsuits-Not-Given-to-Other-Industries

Posted to inform those without knowledge of the law.

from above: Governor O'Malley ripped the law, which a Republic Congress passed and which Mr. Sanders—a self-identified independent socialist who caucuses with the Democrats—supported. Mr. O’Malley argued that it was a sell-out to the companies that make guns and lobbying groups like the National Rifle Association which advocate against regulation.

“It wasn’t until 2005 that Congress shielded gun manufacturers from the same sort of product liability responsibility that other products would have. There’s an ability and you can have standards and ways to make your product safer, in order to safeguard human life, you have a duty to do that. And so I believe this was nothing short of the NRA flexing its political muscle to shield the gun manufacturers,” Mr. O’Malley said when asked about the bill.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Some issues to me will not resumt in my support for a candidate who votes with the NRA and Thinkingabout Sep 2015 #1
Another reason we need more debates. Koinos Sep 2015 #2
Did O'Malley really misrepresent the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act? TeddyR Sep 2015 #3
He did. Remington, for one, has been sued successfully for producing defective guns friendly_iconoclast Sep 2015 #5
Haven't looked into the particulars, elleng Sep 2015 #7
Candidates who try to mislead voters are viewed rather coldly this cycle. nt edgineered Sep 2015 #11
True that. elleng Sep 2015 #12
Making the observance that voters are viewing misleading statements edgineered Sep 2015 #14
No, ed, never thought of it! :laugh: elleng Sep 2015 #15
Reading your downthread post edgineered Sep 2015 #16
HA! elleng Sep 2015 #17
This message was self-deleted by its author pipoman Sep 2015 #21
Very good, Governor. Agnosticsherbet Sep 2015 #4
Boy, I can see "all Democrats" champing at the bit to roll out gun control proposals. Eleanors38 Sep 2015 #6
All Democrats sure as hell should. elleng Sep 2015 #8
Let 'em. Sanders won't lose votes with his stand. Eleanors38 Sep 2015 #9
So? elleng Sep 2015 #10
The Washington Post has an article about the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, elleng Sep 2015 #13
No, pipoman Sep 2015 #18
This is exactly why this law is in place... pipoman Sep 2015 #19
This message was self-deleted by its author pipoman Sep 2015 #20
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Martin O'Malley»Pushing Gun Plan, O’Malle...»Reply #13