Biden Administration and more gun control, where will it go?

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

There are too many pressing issues to take on Gun reform this year. 

[Boiler 43,799]

1 hour ago, CanAm1980 said:

There are too many pressing issues to take on Gun reform this year. 

Love the use of the term reform

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

17 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Love the use of the term reform

Would you claim that the patchwork of Federal, State and local firearm laws are perfect?

[Boiler 43,799]

2 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

Would you claim that the patchwork of Federal, State and local firearm laws are perfect?

Of course not but we know that is not the intent here. 🤪

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

Of course not but we know that is not the intent here. 🤪

When it's going Nowhere? 

Edited February 14, 2021 by CanAm1980

[Boiler 43,799]

3 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

Nowhere? 

When it comes to fruition we will see, I am pretty certain it will be all negative.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, spookyturtle said:

I’ve also read where they are talking about holding the gun manufacturers responsible for death or damage caused by their products. So if someone gets murdered with a Smith&Wesson,  they are liable. I wonder when they are going to make alcohol manufacturers responsible for drunk driving accidents? Or auto manufacturers? Guy was driving a Toyota Camry drunk, so let’s hold Toyota responsible for the 2 people he killed. We are living in a society where there is no personal responsibility. And that’s just bizarre.

 

  They are not held liable for criminal actions, and the gun industry actually has a specific law shielding them from liability that few other industries have. They certainly should be liable for things like negligence or safety that any other industries are subject to. For example the tobacco industry allowing sales and marketing to kids, or a bartender continuing to serve alcohol to someone who is completely wasted and then has an accident and kills someone.  

[Boiler 43,799]

More fake news:

 

Clinton is wrong that gun companies have zero liability for their goods, but they do have special legal protections against liability that very few other industries enjoy.

To see what she's getting at, you have to back up 10 years. Clinton is talking about a 2005 law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA — a law she wants to repeal as part of her gun control proposals.

Lawmakers passed that law in response to a spate of lawsuits that cities filed against the gun industry in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Those lawsuits often claimed gun-makers or sellers were engaging in "negligent marketing" or creating a "public nuisance."

In 2000, for example, New York City joined 30 counties and cities in suing gun manufacturers, saying manufacturers should have been making their products safer and also better tracking where their products were sold. Manufacturers, one argument at the time went, should stop supplying stores that sell a lot of guns that end up being used in crimes.

In response to these lawsuits, the NRA pushed for the law, which passed in 2005 with support from both Republicans and Democrats. Then-Sen. Clinton voted against it; her current Democratic opponent, Bernie Sanders, voted for it.

The law, however, allows for specific cases in which dealers and manufacturers can be held responsible. So that makes Clinton's statement technically incorrect.

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/06/446348616/fact-check-are-gun-makers-totally-free-of-liability-for-their-behavior

[spookyturtle 9,465]

51 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  They are not held liable for criminal actions, and the gun industry actually has a specific law shielding them from liability that few other industries have. They certainly should be liable for things like negligence or safety that any other industries are subject to. For example the tobacco industry allowing sales and marketing to kids, or a bartender continuing to serve alcohol to someone who is completely wasted and then has an accident and kills someone.  

I think that is the law that is being discussed to change, so that they would be liable for criminal actions. They should certainly be liable for a safety issue with their products. 
 

I don’t see how the tobacco industry could be liable for selling to minors since that is dependent upon the point of sale following the law, just as it is for liquor stores and bars, etc. it’s up to the bartender to card people and not to over serve. 

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Biden and Harris have talked about repealing the Protection of Lawful Arms Act which would open up the firearms manufacturers to frivolous lawsuits intending to bankrupt them, as Boiler has stated above.
 

https://www.nssf.org/icymi-biden-harris-wants-to-repeal-plcaa/

[laylalex 7,265]

51 minutes ago, Boiler said:

More fake news:

 

Clinton is wrong that gun companies have zero liability for their goods, but they do have special legal protections against liability that very few other industries enjoy.

To see what she's getting at, you have to back up 10 years. Clinton is talking about a 2005 law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA — a law she wants to repeal as part of her gun control proposals.

Lawmakers passed that law in response to a spate of lawsuits that cities filed against the gun industry in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Those lawsuits often claimed gun-makers or sellers were engaging in "negligent marketing" or creating a "public nuisance."

In 2000, for example, New York City joined 30 counties and cities in suing gun manufacturers, saying manufacturers should have been making their products safer and also better tracking where their products were sold. Manufacturers, one argument at the time went, should stop supplying stores that sell a lot of guns that end up being used in crimes.

In response to these lawsuits, the NRA pushed for the law, which passed in 2005 with support from both Republicans and Democrats. Then-Sen. Clinton voted against it; her current Democratic opponent, Bernie Sanders, voted for it.

The law, however, allows for specific cases in which dealers and manufacturers can be held responsible. So that makes Clinton's statement technically incorrect.

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/06/446348616/fact-check-are-gun-makers-totally-free-of-liability-for-their-behavior

Is a 2015 article news though? I think we should close the thread, 2015 was 6 years ago.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

58 minutes ago, Boiler said:

More fake news:

 

Clinton is wrong that gun companies have zero liability for their goods, but they do have special legal protections against liability that very few other industries enjoy.

To see what she's getting at, you have to back up 10 years. Clinton is talking about a 2005 law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA — a law she wants to repeal as part of her gun control proposals.

Lawmakers passed that law in response to a spate of lawsuits that cities filed against the gun industry in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Those lawsuits often claimed gun-makers or sellers were engaging in "negligent marketing" or creating a "public nuisance."

In 2000, for example, New York City joined 30 counties and cities in suing gun manufacturers, saying manufacturers should have been making their products safer and also better tracking where their products were sold. Manufacturers, one argument at the time went, should stop supplying stores that sell a lot of guns that end up being used in crimes.

In response to these lawsuits, the NRA pushed for the law, which passed in 2005 with support from both Republicans and Democrats. Then-Sen. Clinton voted against it; her current Democratic opponent, Bernie Sanders, voted for it.

The law, however, allows for specific cases in which dealers and manufacturers can be held responsible. So that makes Clinton's statement technically incorrect.

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/06/446348616/fact-check-are-gun-makers-totally-free-of-liability-for-their-behavior

 

  We are discussing the Biden administration's current policy. Don't think this fit's anywhere in that criteria, although it may help those who haven't had their daily Hillary fix yet.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

39 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

I think that is the law that is being discussed to change, so that they would be liable for criminal actions. They should certainly be liable for a safety issue with their products. 
 

I don’t see how the tobacco industry could be liable for selling to minors since that is dependent upon the point of sale following the law, just as it is for liquor stores and bars, etc. it’s up to the bartender to card people and not to over serve. 

 

  They can't be held liable for criminal actions. There are no legislative changes at this time. The current law prevents litigation. It doesn't determine the outcome of litigation.  

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Just now, Steeleballz said:

 

  They can't be held liable for criminal actions. There are no legislative changes at this time. The current law prevents litigation. It doesn't determine the outcome of litigation.  

This is what Biden and Harris have talked about repealing. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, spookyturtle said:

This is what Biden and Harris have talked about repealing. 

   Right, so that would allow people to sue, but it doesn’t determine the outcome. It was this way prior to 2005.