Bernie Sanders supports controversial gun law

[Sousuke 1,214]

"Is there is evidence that manufacturers, 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?” Sanders said. “So, can we take another look at that liability issue? Yes.”

But as recently as this summer, Sanders had stood behind his support for the legislation. His rationale, despite criticism from gun-control advocates: Don't blame the messenger.

"If somebody sells you a baseball bat and you hit somebody over the head, you're not going to sue the baseball bat manufacturer," Sanders said at a town hall event July. "I don't apologize for that vote."

But Sanders' explanation for his support of the law doesn't necessarily square with its reality. As Slate's Mark Joseph Stern has reported, the legislation eliminated gun companies' responsibility for violent gun use across the country, superseding state laws which held companies responsible to varying degrees.

"If I crash my Prius because its accelerator malfunctions, I can sue Toyota for negligently manufacturing a faulty pedal," he wrote. "If my child dismembers himself with a blender at Sears, I can sue Sears for negligently leaving that blender within a child’s reach. If I get stabbed by a teenager with a switchblade, I might be able to sue the pawn shop owner who illegally sold a knife to a minor."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-bernie-sanders-explains-support-210900771.html

I was reading this article because I've found Sander's stance interesting in that he departs some from his party members. Then I got to the bottom and saw Stern's comments which are ignorant.

Using the Toyota example, you can legally sue a firearms company for a defective part. You can sue a gun store if something was stored negligently and you can sue a gun store if a transfer was done illegally.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Sousuke

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I don't think gun manufacturers and sellers deserve unimpeded protection from lawsuits. If they have lobbied successfully for such laws then they must feel a need for such protection. Why?

[Sousuke 1,214]

I don't think gun manufacturers and sellers deserve unimpeded protection from lawsuits. If they have lobbied successfully for such laws then they must feel a need for such protection. Why?

First thing, its not unimpeded protection from lawsuits. You can sue a manufacturer for any number of things. What you can't sue them for is if a third party misuses a fully functioning product in a criminal act.