Congressman Geoff Davis of Kentucky is an asshole
The U.S. House just passed a bill to give the gun industry -- including gun dealers -- sweeping protection from lawsuits when their negligence causes harm. The Senate already passed this one, so expect GWB to sign it in some sort of gun fetish ceremony with Charlton Heston.
What sort of suits are prohibited by this soon-to-be law?
For instance, the suit against a gun dealer who had such poor inventory control that he "lost" more than 200 semi-automatic assult weapons, one of which was used in the DC sniper attacks, 3 years ago this month. Surviving family members sued and won.
Suits against dealers who make "straw" purchases would be thrown out as well. A "straw" purchase is a transaction in which the actual purchaser, usually prohibited by law from buying a gun, uses someone else to undergo a background check and buy the handgun for him/her.
A June 2003 study by researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles showed more than half of the gun stores surveyed were willing to facilitate illegal "straw" purchases. Protected by law now!
Earlier this year the Oregonian editorialized:
Democrats offered an amendment in committee that would at least allow lawsuits against gun dealers that knowingly sell guns to people on the federal gang or terrorist watch lists. Apparently under this bill -- and this example was even used on the house floor -- a terrorist on the watch list cannot board a plane but can walk into a gun shop, declare, "Hi, I'm a terrorist on the watch list," buy an assault rifle, and the gun dealer is shielded from any liability.
Republicans voted it down on party lines.
Two former ATF directors (one from the Reagan administration) wrote a letter to Congress opposing the bill because it also prohibits ATF administrative actions against negligent gun dealers.
As a group of law professors wrote, "No other industry enjoys or has ever enjoyed such a blanket freedom from responsibility for the foreseeable and preventable consequences of negligent conduct."
Find out more about gun industry immunity and the types of legitimate (and needed) lawsuits that are now prohibited.
Anyway, back to the subject line, why is Geoff Davis an asshole? Consider his line on the floor during the House debate: "I'd like to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the gun industry supplies the men and women of our armed forces."
1. Had someone forgotten this self-evident piece of information? Just who needs reminding of that congressman?
2. Is the implication here that Democrats as a whole are less aware or less concerned about the equipment needs of US troops? Because not only is that a really dick insult to insert into a debate that it has nothing to do with, but the congressman from Kentucky doesn't even have the balls to come out and say it. If that's what you think, make the accusation and back it up.
3. I might point out that it was Rs who voted to allow terrorists to purchase assult weapons, Rs who failed to provide body armor for the troops and then lied and said the production capability didn't exist, and Rs who wasted Congress's time on this giveaway to their contributors instead of debating an exit plan for Iraq.
His number is 202-225-3465, feel free to call him and ask just why Democrats needed his helpful "reminding."
What sort of suits are prohibited by this soon-to-be law?
For instance, the suit against a gun dealer who had such poor inventory control that he "lost" more than 200 semi-automatic assult weapons, one of which was used in the DC sniper attacks, 3 years ago this month. Surviving family members sued and won.
Suits against dealers who make "straw" purchases would be thrown out as well. A "straw" purchase is a transaction in which the actual purchaser, usually prohibited by law from buying a gun, uses someone else to undergo a background check and buy the handgun for him/her.
A June 2003 study by researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles showed more than half of the gun stores surveyed were willing to facilitate illegal "straw" purchases. Protected by law now!
Earlier this year the Oregonian editorialized:
Recently, the Government Accountability Office turned up another appalling example of how gun rights have been allowed to trump every other concern in public life -- a review of FBI and state background-check records found 35 people whose names appeared on terrorism watch lists were permitted to buy guns. You know the gun-rights crowd owns the White House and Congress when even suspected terrorists have a legal right to buy guns in this country.
Democrats offered an amendment in committee that would at least allow lawsuits against gun dealers that knowingly sell guns to people on the federal gang or terrorist watch lists. Apparently under this bill -- and this example was even used on the house floor -- a terrorist on the watch list cannot board a plane but can walk into a gun shop, declare, "Hi, I'm a terrorist on the watch list," buy an assault rifle, and the gun dealer is shielded from any liability.
Republicans voted it down on party lines.
Two former ATF directors (one from the Reagan administration) wrote a letter to Congress opposing the bill because it also prohibits ATF administrative actions against negligent gun dealers.
As a group of law professors wrote, "No other industry enjoys or has ever enjoyed such a blanket freedom from responsibility for the foreseeable and preventable consequences of negligent conduct."
No jurisdiction attempts to legislate standards of care as to every detail of life, even in a regulated industry; and there is no need. Why is there no need? Because general principles of tort law make clear that the mere absence of a specific statutory
prohibition is not carte blanche for unreasonable or dangerous behavior. S. 397 and H.R. 800 would turn this traditional framework on its head; and free those in the firearms industry to behave as carelessly as they would like, so long as the conduct has not been specifically prohibited. If there is no statute against leaving an open truckload of assault rifles on a street corner, or against selling 100s of guns to the same individual, under this bill there could be no tort liability. Again, this represents radical departure from traditional tort principles.
Find out more about gun industry immunity and the types of legitimate (and needed) lawsuits that are now prohibited.
Anyway, back to the subject line, why is Geoff Davis an asshole? Consider his line on the floor during the House debate: "I'd like to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the gun industry supplies the men and women of our armed forces."
1. Had someone forgotten this self-evident piece of information? Just who needs reminding of that congressman?
2. Is the implication here that Democrats as a whole are less aware or less concerned about the equipment needs of US troops? Because not only is that a really dick insult to insert into a debate that it has nothing to do with, but the congressman from Kentucky doesn't even have the balls to come out and say it. If that's what you think, make the accusation and back it up.
3. I might point out that it was Rs who voted to allow terrorists to purchase assult weapons, Rs who failed to provide body armor for the troops and then lied and said the production capability didn't exist, and Rs who wasted Congress's time on this giveaway to their contributors instead of debating an exit plan for Iraq.
His number is 202-225-3465, feel free to call him and ask just why Democrats needed his helpful "reminding."
posted by bda at 10:20 AM
1 Comments:
That's a great story. Waiting for more. »
Post a Comment
<< Home