Gun MFR shield law passed by Congress.

"It is shameful that Republicans in Congress are pushing legislation that guarantees their gun-dealing cronies receive special treatment and are above the law," said Rep. Robert Wexler (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, when did GM, Ford, and Chrysler start getting sued because of drunk drivers killing other people, Mr. Wexler? Oh, that's right, they don't. Somebody needs to retake Logic 101.
 
Mr. Wexler has pointed towards the door for suits against producers of California wines for the misuse of their products. Somebody needs to go through that door. Mr. Wexler would make a good witness for them.
 
"This legislation will make the unregulated gun industry the most pampered industry in America," said Kristen Rand, director of the Violence Policy Center.
Click to expand...

IZinterrogator said for me. When have the auto manufactures been sued for drunk drivers? Of course this may lay the ground work of having to show that you have insurance before you are allowed to purchase a firearm.
 
I read that this is S397 that passed. Does this mean that the bill went through complete with the gun lock ammendment attached?
 
Does this mean that the bill went through complete with the gun lock ammendment attached?
Click to expand...

Yep. Now mandatory for dealers to include gun lock when selling handguns.

Also includes that real fuzzy item about a study to be done in the next 2 years about "armor piercing" ammunition. Gonna have to watch that very carefully.
 
Robert Wexler is the representative for my district in Florida. He also authored a bill to castrate sex offenders. He is trying to stay in the news. It's all a publicity game.
 
House passed S. 397, bill goes to president

That is essentially what I've read in a Citizens Committee Press Release, as well as hearing in a couple of news broadcasts.

According to the latter, House leadership acted to block amendments to the legislation, the nature of these amendments and or by whom they were offered was unstated.

Mention was made of the possibility of legal action to block or overturn this legislation, by anti gun interests. Who knows what the outcome of such action might be.

It does appear that our side has won one, possibly a big one, though questions have been raised about a couple of amendments that were attached in The Senate, one of them by Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, dealing with gun safety locks. Looking at the way legislation gets to be "interpreted", some might describe it as "twisted", this gun locks business is something that we need to keep our eyes on.

On the whole however, it looks like The Good Guys have won one. Some thank you calls and or e-mails to House Members who supported passage might well be appropriate.
 
"This legislation will make the unregulated gun industry the most pampered industry in America," said Kristen Rand, director of the Violence Policy Center.
Click to expand...
I know. I should never be surprised by what these people say. but....

Aaarrrggghhh! Ah, I feel better now...

Unregulated? The firearms industry? sheesh!
 
And yet some folks here say that there is no difference between democrats and republicans. Pretty foolish thing to say now, eh?
 
"This legislation will make the unregulated gun industry the most pampered industry in America," said Kristen Rand, director of the Violence Policy Center.

IZinterrogator said for me. When have the auto manufactures been sued for drunk drivers? Of course this may lay the ground work of having to show that you have insurance before you are allowed to purchase a firearm.
Click to expand...


For that matter, we have already seen the fast food industry get sued for making a product that people got fat from by overindulgence. Of course, there was an article in the paper just yesterday that said that congress had passed a law protecting them. Where are the leftist democrats to complain about the coddling and protection of McDonald's and Wendy's?? :mad:

However, I disagree with your statement that this may show that you should have to have insurance before purchasing a firearm.

One need only have insurance if one plans to register a vehicle to drive on public roadways. AND, the insurance that you get does not protect you if you break the law to harm others, i.e. driving drunk, or deliberately running down pedestrians.

So insurance you might get on your guns would likewise not protect against criminal acts committed with them. Criminality tends to void insurance policies, does it not?

Would you please clarify what line of argument you think would lead to the conclusion that we would end up having to buy gun insurance before we could purchase them?


-blackmind
 
Antipitas said:
Unregulated? The firearms industry? sheesh!
Click to expand...


The American public does not realize what a LIE this is, because it is parrotted again and again and NO ONE is getting up before the public and pointing out how false this really is.

Do you think Ted Koppel is going to do it? Katie Couric? :barf:

What we need is an Andy Rooney of pro-gun-ness. Or even Andy Rooney himself! Could you imagine if, in that voice, the world's biggest cynic were to sarcastically say, "Yeah, this industry that has to put a serial number on every single item they make and then can sell them ONLY to companies that are LICENSED to buy them is 'unregulated.' "


-blackmind
 
Robert Wexler is the representative for my district in Florida. He also authored a bill to castrate sex offenders. He is trying to stay in the news. It's all a publicity game.
Click to expand...

He's from Delray Beach, right?

No wonder he's such an asshat: he represents the old fogeys who have already lost their minds before they moved here. :rolleyes:


I read The Palm Beach Post. He is always in there, spewing some moronic drivel. He is, truly, everything that is despicable and deplorable about a knownothing statist partisan politician. He's a mouthpiece for every bit of claptrap idiotic leftistry legislation to come down the pike.

They gave him the wrong name. It shouldn't have been Wexler. It should have been Shiller. :mad:



-blackmind
 
So insurance you might get on your guns would likewise not protect against criminal acts committed with them. Criminality tends to void insurance policies, does it not?

Would you please clarify what line of argument you think would lead to the conclusion that we would end up having to buy gun insurance before we could purchase them?


-blackmind
Click to expand...

First I didn't say that we "should" have to have insurance. If you read what I said "This could lay the ground work to require insurance". Not for the criminal abuses, but rather for the accidental mishaps, and the civil trials that most certainly follow even a "good" (if there is such a thing) shooting. You have to have vehicle insurance for accidents. If there is not someone to pass the buck onto, I can see how this could get started down the road to requiring insurance. Not my preference, just a forward thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top