• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing gun violence/injury thread

One Hundred Ninth Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the fourth day of January, two thousand and five
An Act
To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages,
injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protection of Lawful Commerce
in Arms Act’’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed.
(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who
are not members of a militia or engaged in military service
or training, to keep and bear arms.
(3) Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers,
distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms that operate
as designed and intended, which seek money damages and
other relief for the harm caused by the misuse of firearms
by third parties, including criminals.
(4) The manufacture, importation, possession, sale, and
use of firearms and ammunition in the United States are
heavily regulated by Federal, State, and local laws. Such Federal laws include the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National
Firearms Act, and the Arms Export Control Act.
(5) Businesses in the United States that are engaged in
interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design,
manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale to
the public of firearms or ammunition products that have been
shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are
not, and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those
who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or
ammunition products that function as designed and intended.
(6) The possibility of imposing liability on an entire
industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse
of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our Nation’s
laws, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right
and civil liberty, invites the disassembly and destabilization
of other industries and economic sectors lawfully competingS. 397—2
in the free enterprise system of the United States, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on interstate and foreign commerce of the United States.
(7) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by
the Federal Government, States, municipalities, and private
interest groups and others are based on theories without
foundation in hundreds of years of the common law and jurisprudence of the United States and do not represent a bona
fide expansion of the common law. The possible sustaining
of these actions by a maverick judicial officer or petit jury
would expand civil liability in a manner never contemplated
by the framers of the Constitution, by Congress, or by the
legislatures of the several States. Such an expansion of liability
would constitute a deprivation of the rights, privileges, and
immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States under
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
(8) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by
the Federal Government, States, municipalities, private interest
groups and others attempt to use the judicial branch to circumvent the Legislative branch of government to regulate interstate and foreign commerce through judgments and judicial
decrees thereby threatening the Separation of Powers doctrine
and weakening and undermining important principles of federalism, State sovereignty and comity between the sister States.
(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are as follows:
(1) To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers,
distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition
products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely
caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products
or ammunition products by others when the product functioned
as designed and intended.
(2) To preserve a citizen’s access to a supply of firearms
and ammunition for all lawful purposes, including hunting,
self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational
shooting.
(3) To guarantee a citizen’s rights, privileges, and immunities, as applied to the States, under the Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution, pursuant to section 5 of
that Amendment.
(4) To prevent the use of such lawsuits to impose unreasonable burdens on interstate and foreign commerce.
(5) To protect the right, under the First Amendment to
the Constitution, of manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and
importers of firearms or ammunition products, and trade
associations, to speak freely, to assemble peaceably, and to
petition the Government for a redress of their grievances.
(6) To preserve and protect the Separation of Powers doctrine and important principles of federalism, State sovereignty
and comity between sister States.
(7) To exercise congressional power under article IV, section
1 (the Full Faith and Credit Clause) of the United States
Constitution.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON BRINGING OF QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY
ACTIONS IN FEDERAL OR STATE COURT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified civil liability action may not be
brought in any Federal or State court.S. 397—3
(b) DISMISSAL OF PENDING ACTIONS.—A qualified civil liability
action that is pending on the date of enactment of this Act shall
be immediately dismissed by the court in which the action was
brought or is currently pending.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS.—The term ‘‘engaged in the
business’’ has the meaning given that term in section 921(a)(21)
of title 18, United States Code, and, as applied to a seller
of ammunition, means a person who devotes time, attention,
and labor to the sale of ammunition as a regular course of
trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and
profit through the sale or distribution of ammunition.
(2) MANUFACTURER.—The term ‘‘manufacturer’’ means,
with respect to a qualified product, a person who is engaged
in the business of manufacturing the product in interstate
or foreign commerce and who is licensed to engage in business
as such a manufacturer under chapter 44 of title 18, United
States Code.
(3) PERSON.—The term ‘‘person’’ means any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, joint
stock company, or any other entity, including any governmental
entity.
(4) QUALIFIED PRODUCT.—The term ‘‘qualified product’’
means a firearm (as defined in subparagraph (A) or (B) of
section 921(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code), including
any antique firearm (as defined in section 921(a)(16) of such
title), or ammunition (as defined in section 921(a)(17)(A) of
such title), or a component part of a firearm or ammunition,
that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign
commerce.
(5) QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTION.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘qualified civil liability
action’’ means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association,
for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory
relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other
relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of
a qualified product by the person or a third party, but
shall not include—
(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted
under section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code,
or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a
party directly harmed by the conduct of which the
transferee is so convicted;
(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent
entrustment or negligence per se;
(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller
of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or
Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing
of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause
of the harm for which relief is sought, including—
(I) any case in which the manufacturer or
seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed
to make appropriate entry in, any record requiredS. 397—4
to be kept under Federal or State law with respect
to the qualified product, or aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or
fictitious oral or written statement with respect
to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale
or other disposition of a qualified product; or
(II) any case in which the manufacturer or
seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other
person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified
product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to
believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified
product was prohibited from possessing or
receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United
States Code;
(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty
in connection with the purchase of the product;
(v) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design
or manufacture of the product, when used as intended
or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that
where the discharge of the product was caused by
a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense,
then such act shall be considered the sole proximate
cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or
(vi) an action or proceeding commenced by the
Attorney General to enforce the provisions of chapter
44 of title 18 or chapter 53 of title 26, United States
Code.
(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT.—As used in subparagraph (A)(ii), the term ‘‘negligent entrustment’’ means the
supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by
another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should
know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely
to, and does, use the product in a manner involving
unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.
(C) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—The exceptions enumerated under clauses (i) through (v) of subparagraph (A)
shall be construed so as not to be in conflict, and no
provision of this Act shall be construed to create a public
or private cause of action or remedy.
(D) MINOR CHILD EXCEPTION.—Nothing in this Act shall
be construed to limit the right of a person under 17 years
of age to recover damages authorized under Federal or
State law in a civil action that meets 1 of the requirements
under clauses (i) through (v) of subparagraph (A).
(6) SELLER.—The term ‘‘seller’’ means, with respect to a
qualified product—
(A) an importer (as defined in section 921(a)(9) of title
18, United States Code) who is engaged in the business
as such an importer in interstate or foreign commerce
and who is licensed to engage in business as such an
importer under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code;
(B) a dealer (as defined in section 921(a)(11) of title
18, United States Code) who is engaged in the business
as such a dealer in interstate or foreign commerce andS. 397—5
who is licensed to engage in business as such a dealer
under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code; or
(C) a person engaged in the business of selling
ammunition (as defined in section 921(a)(17)(A) of title
18, United States Code) in interstate or foreign commerce
at the wholesale or retail level.
(7) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ includes each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United
States, and any political subdivision of any such place.
(8) TRADE ASSOCIATION.—The term ‘‘trade association’’
means—
(A) any corporation, unincorporated association, federation, business league, professional or business organization
not organized or operated for profit and no part of the
net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private
shareholder or individual;
(B) that is an organization described in section 501(c)(6)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from
tax under section 501(a) of such Code; and
(C) 2 or more members of which are manufacturers
or sellers of a qualified product.
(9) UNLAWFUL MISUSE.—The term ‘‘unlawful misuse’’ means
conduct that violates a statute, ordinance, or regulation as
it relates to the use of a qualified product.
SEC. 5. CHILD SAFETY LOCKS.
(a) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited as the ‘‘Child
Safety Lock Act of 2005’’.
(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this section are—
(1) to promote the safe storage and use of handguns by
consumers;
(2) to prevent unauthorized persons from gaining access
to or use of a handgun, including children who may not be
in possession of a handgun; and
(3) to avoid hindering industry from supplying firearms
to law abiding citizens for all lawful purposes, including
hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational
shooting.
(c) FIREARMS SAFETY.—
(1) MANDATORY TRANSFER OF SECURE GUN STORAGE OR
SAFETY DEVICE.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by inserting at the end the following:
‘‘(z) SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided under paragraph
(2), it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer
any handgun to any person other than any person licensed
under this chapter, unless the transferee is provided with a
secure gun storage or safety device (as defined in section
921(a)(34)) for that handgun.
‘‘(2) EXCEPTIONS.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—
‘‘(A)(i) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession
by, the United States, a department or agency of the UnitedS. 397—6
States, a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, of a handgun; or
‘‘(ii) the transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement
officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of
a handgun for law enforcement purposes (whether on or
off duty); or
‘‘(B) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police
officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State of
a handgun for purposes of law enforcement (whether on
or off duty);
‘‘(C) the transfer to any person of a handgun listed
as a curio or relic by the Secretary pursuant to section
921(a)(13); or
‘‘(D) the transfer to any person of a handgun for which
a secure gun storage or safety device is temporarily unavailable for the reasons described in the exceptions stated
in section 923(e), if the licensed manufacturer, licensed
importer, or licensed dealer delivers to the transferee
within 10 calendar days from the date of the delivery
of the handgun to the transferee a secure gun storage
or safety device for the handgun.
‘‘(3) LIABILITY FOR USE.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who has lawful possession and control
of a handgun, and who uses a secure gun storage or safety
device with the handgun, shall be entitled to immunity
from a qualified civil liability action.
‘‘(B) PROSPECTIVE ACTIONS.—A qualified civil liability
action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.
‘‘(C) DEFINED TERM.—As used in this paragraph, the
term ‘qualified civil liability action’—
‘‘(i) means a civil action brought by any person
against a person described in subparagraph (A) for
damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful
misuse of the handgun by a third party, if—
‘‘(I) the handgun was accessed by another person who did not have the permission or authorization of the person having lawful possession and
control of the handgun to have access to it; and
‘‘(II) at the time access was gained by the
person not so authorized, the handgun had been
made inoperable by use of a secure gun storage
or safety device; and
‘‘(ii) shall not include an action brought against
the person having lawful possession and control of
the handgun for negligent entrustment or negligence
per se.’’.
(2) CIVIL PENALTIES.—Section 924 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended—
(A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ‘‘or (f)’’ and inserting
‘‘(f), or (p)’’; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(p) PENALTIES RELATING TO SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY
DEVICE.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—S. 397—7
‘‘(A) SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF LICENSE; CIVIL
PENALTIES.—With respect to each violation of section
922(z)(1) by a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer,
or licensed dealer, the Secretary may, after notice and
opportunity for hearing—
‘‘(i) suspend for not more than 6 months, or revoke,
the license issued to the licensee under this chapter
that was used to conduct the firearms transfer; or
‘‘(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty in an
amount equal to not more than $2,500.
‘‘(B) REVIEW.—An action of the Secretary under this
paragraph may be reviewed only as provided under section
923(f).
‘‘(2) ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.—The suspension or revocation of a license or the imposition of a civil penalty under
paragraph (1) shall not preclude any administrative remedy
that is otherwise available to the Secretary.’’.
(3) LIABILITY; EVIDENCE.—
(A) LIABILITY.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to—
(i) create a cause of action against any Federal
firearms licensee or any other person for any civil
liability; or
(ii) establish any standard of care.
(B) EVIDENCE.—Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, evidence regarding compliance or noncompliance
with the amendments made by this section shall not be
admissible as evidence in any proceeding of any court,
agency, board, or other entity, except with respect to an
action relating to section 922(z) of title 18, United States
Code, as added by this subsection.
(C) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to bar a governmental action
to impose a penalty under section 924(p) of title 18, United
States Code, for a failure to comply with section 922(z)
of that title.
(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section and the amendments made
by this section shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment
of this Act.
SEC. 6. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.
(a) UNLAWFUL ACTS.—Section 922(a) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by striking paragraphs (7) and (8) and inserting
the following:
‘‘(7) for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing
ammunition, unless—
‘‘(A) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the
use of the United States, any department or agency of
the United States, any State, or any department, agency,
or political subdivision of a State;
‘‘(B) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the
purpose of exportation; or
‘‘(C) the manufacture or importation of such ammunition is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and
has been authorized by the Attorney General;
‘‘(8) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver
armor piercing ammunition, unless such sale or delivery—S. 397—8
‘‘(A) is for the use of the United States, any department
or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;
‘‘(B) is for the purpose of exportation; or
‘‘(C) is for the purpose of testing or experimentation
and has been authorized by the Attorney General;’’.
(b) PENALTIES.—Section 924(c) of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(5) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence
is otherwise provided under this subsection, or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime
of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence
or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment
if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device)
for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United
States, uses or carries armor piercing ammunition, or who, in
furtherance of any such crime, possesses armor piercing ammunition, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime
of violence or drug trafficking crime or conviction under this
section—
‘‘(A) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less
than 15 years; and
‘‘(B) if death results from the use of such ammunition—
‘‘(i) if the killing is murder (as defined in section 1111),
be punished by death or sentenced to a term of imprisonment for any term of years or for life; and
‘‘(ii) if the killing is manslaughter (as defined in section
1112), be punished as provided in section 1112.’’.
(c) STUDY AND REPORT.—
(1) STUDY.—The Attorney General shall conduct a study
to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of
projectiles against Body Armor is feasible.
(2) ISSUES TO BE STUDIED.—The study conducted under
paragraph (1) shall include—
(A) variations in performance that are related to the
length of the barrel of the handgun or center-fire rifle
from which the projectile is fired; and
(B) the amount of powder used to propel the projectile.
(3) REPORT.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a report
containing the results of the study conducted under this subsection to—
(A) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; andS. 397—9
(B) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
 
Deacon923 said:
I do remember one or two examples of store owners firing shots in defense of their stores during the King riots. As I recall they did so with shotguns or handguns. I don't remember any incidents where a shopkeeper got into a multi-magazine shootout. Maybe you can provide some examples.

As for NO, everybody with anything worth defending got out of New Orleans before the shit hit the fan. I don't remember any stories from NO of home/business owners defending their property with guns, certainly not any multi-magazine shootouts. Again, feel free to provide some examples.

Wayne LaPierre used post-Hurricane Sandy NYC as an example in a recent fundraising letter. There were no reported multi-magazine shootouts there either.

The fact is criminals are greedy cowards. They want loot, not to shoot somebody. 90% (unscientific estimate) are going to split when the homeowner flips on the lights and yells to get out. Another 9.9%(unscientific estimate) will certainly split when the first shot is fired. I suppose there is a 0.1% (unscientific estimate) that are willing to get in a gun battle, but these are the complete psychopath killer types (Christopher Doran comes to mind) - they are bent on killing, and if they want to kill you, they're probably going to plan it ahead of time and you'll be dead before you can get to your AR-15.
Click to expand...


Good reason then to get rid of an enumerated right.
 
elkman92 said:
Good reason then to get rid of an enumerated right.
Click to expand...

Elkman - 1
Strawman - 0

Nobody, including me, is advocating to get rid of the Second Amendment. In fact, I have posted several times on this thread that I think the assault weapons ban is security theater and pointless. By introducing that legislation, Feinstein put tens of thousands more military style rifles on the street due to stockpiling out of fear of the ban.

Nonetheless, I can't stand this strawman constantly set up by the NRA and people like you that anyone *needs* a 30 round magazine AR-15 for home defense. It's ridiculous. Despite my many challenges on this 38 page thread, neither you nor anyone else has been able to post a single news account of a law abiding homeowner getting into a multi-magazine shootout with a criminal, or a news account of a law abiding person getting victimized after running out of bullets.
 
elkman92 said:
Good reason then to get rid of an enumerated right.
Click to expand...

There is no enumerated right to own an expanded magazine.

There is no enumerated right to buy guns at guns shows.

There is no enumerated right not to have to every sale of every gun registered.

There is no enumerated right to to resell guns without a license.

There is enumerated right to shield gun companies from the same liability laws that every one manufacturing company lives with on a daily basis.
 
Deacon923 said:
Elkman - 1
Strawman - 0

Nobody, including me, is advocating to get rid of the Second Amendment. In fact, I have posted several times on this thread that I think the assault weapons ban is security theater and pointless. By introducing that legislation, Feinstein put tens of thousands more military style rifles on the street due to stockpiling out of fear of the ban.

Nonetheless, I can't stand this strawman constantly set up by the NRA and people like you that anyone *needs* a 30 round magazine AR-15 for home defense. It's ridiculous. Despite my many challenges on this 38 page thread, neither you nor anyone else has been able to post a single news account of a law abiding homeowner getting into a multi-magazine shootout with a criminal, or a news account of a law abiding person getting victimized after running out of bullets.
Click to expand...

But isn't this exactly the nuanced line for discussion? We don't want to take away the 2nd Amendment, but we want to use some common sense to draw the line somewhere. Extremists on the one end will say that any part of drawing that line is an infringement on second amendment rights, and extremists on the other will say that anything above a musket is an overreach of the 2nd amendment.
 
Bronson Pinchot said:
But isn't this exactly the nuanced line for discussion? We don't want to take away the 2nd Amendment, but we want to use some common sense to draw the line somewhere. Extremists on the one end will say that any part of drawing that line is an infringement on second amendment rights, and extremists on the other will say that anything above a musket is an overreach of the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is possible to draw a line that means anything between a semi-automatic .223 hunting rifle, like the one I used to plink groundhogs and squirrels as a boy, and a semi-automatic Bushmaster .223 AR-15. One looks scary and the other does not look as scary. That's about it. Furthermore, these weapons are used in a very, very small percentage of crimes (although recently very high profile ones). Finally, pushing these bans just adds fuel to the NRA's "THEY'S COMIN TO TAKE YER GUNZ!!!!1!!!1" narrative.

If we want to try to make a dent in gun violence, we need to spend energy and political capital on policies that will make a real difference and are not such an easy target (pun intended) for the NRA and their allies. For example, I have repeatedly suggested a mandatory insurance program on this thread. Universal background check should also be passed. Widespread gun ownership is a fact, you can't eliminate it, all you can do is enact policies to make it harder for those guns to get into the hands of criminals and crazy people.
 
RJKarl said:
There is no enumerated right to own an expanded magazine.

There is no enumerated right to buy guns at guns shows.

There is no enumerated right not to have to every sale of every gun registered.

There is no enumerated right to to resell guns without a license.

There is enumerated right to shield gun companies from the same liability laws that every one manufacturing company lives with on a daily basis.
Click to expand...


Just because you type statements on a forum does not make them fact.

Private sales at gun shows are covered by federal and state gun laws.

FFL sales at gun shows are covered by federal and state gun laws.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce Act does not protect any manufacturer outside of current law, despite your posts as such.
 
RJKarl said:
There is no enumerated right to own an expanded magazine.

There is no enumerated right to buy guns at guns shows.

There is no enumerated right not to have to every sale of every gun registered.

There is no enumerated right to to resell guns without a license.

There is enumerated right to shield gun companies from the same liability laws that every one manufacturing company lives with on a daily basis.
Click to expand...

I would add that the words "well-regulated" appear verbatim in the Second Amendment.
 
Deacon923 said:
I don't think it is possible to draw a line that means anything between a semi-automatic .223 hunting rifle, like the one I used to plink groundhogs and squirrels as a boy, and a semi-automatic Bushmaster .223 AR-15. One looks scary and the other does not look as scary. That's about it. Furthermore, these weapons are used in a very, very small percentage of crimes (although recently very high profile ones). Finally, pushing these bans just adds fuel to the NRA's "THEY'S COMIN TO TAKE YER GUNZ!!!!1!!!1" narrative.

If we want to try to make a dent in gun violence, we need to spend energy and political capital on policies that will make a real difference and are not such an easy target (pun intended) for the NRA and their allies. For example, I have repeatedly suggested a mandatory insurance program on this thread. Universal background check should also be passed. Widespread gun ownership is a fact, you can't eliminate it, all you can do is enact policies to make it harder for those guns to get into the hands of criminals and crazy people.
Click to expand...

Elkman, do you agree with this, or are you of the mind that politics can't help, only more guns, or better gun education could be in the solution?
 
The Heller case established that private ownership of firearms for self-defense is a fundamental right outside of the "well-regulated militia" context. SCOTUS as currently constituted is going to protect the right to own handguns and most other personal firearms. Arguing over the militia language in the 2nd Amendment is wasted effort at this point.
 
elkman92 said:
Just because you type statements on a forum does not make them fact.

Private sales at gun shows are covered by federal and state gun laws.

FFL sales at gun shows are covered by federal and state gun laws.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce Act does not protect any manufacturer outside of current law, despite your posts as such.
Click to expand...

You 100% wrong about this, but you will never admit regardless of how many independent sources I show you. I've shown three so far.

What you are alleging is ludicrous. If it was the way you state it, there would have been no reason for the law or the NRA and gun manufacturers spending millions of dollars to ensure the law's passage.
 
I have always posted that I should be able to run a background check on a potential buyer, but no pol has ever suggested that...
 
RJKarl said:
You 100% wrong about this, but you will never admit regardless of how many independent sources I show you. I've shown three so far.

What you are alleging is ludicrous. If it was the way you state it, there would have been no reason for the law or the NRA and gun manufacturers spending millions of dollars to ensure the law's passage.
Click to expand...


Then put you money where your mouth resides.
 
Nonsense, that's part of all the Senate bills.

I notice you don't address your nonsensical position that "The Protection of Lawful Commerce Act does not protect any manufacturer outside of current law, despite your posts as such"

Why would gun manufacturers and the NRA spend millions getting this law written if it didn't do anything new? Your statement is preposterous on its face. It's stunning that you'd even propose anything so illogical.
 
RJKarl said:
Nonsense, that's part of all the Senate bills.

I notice you don't address your nonsensical position that "The Protection of Lawful Commerce Act does not protect any manufacturer outside of current law, despite your posts as such"

Why would gun manufacturers and the NRA spend millions getting this law written if it didn't do anything new? Your statement is preposterous on its face. It's stunning that you'd even propose anything so illogical.
Click to expand...

Is this about safety? It cannot be?
 
BS. Why cannot I do a background check at a gun show if i desire?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top