Brady Campaign endorses Hillary Clinton, hailing her opposition to gun industry

[riversedge]

Source: nydaily




Brady Campaign endorses Hillary Clinton, hailing her opposition to gun industry
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/brady-campaign-endorses-hillary-clinton-article-1.2494040

BY Stephen Rex Brown

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Tuesday, January 12, 2016, 11:55 AM


http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2494039.1452617431!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_400/brady-center-recognize-hillary-clinton-lifelong-effor.jpg
Brady Campaign President Dan Gross and Hllary Clinton. Jennifer Mitchell


One of the country’s most influential gun reform advocacy groups endorsed Hillary Clinton for President Tuesday, saying her record on the issue had been more consistent than that of her opponent, Bernie Sanders.

The Brady Campaign hailed Clinton’s previous support as First Lady of the Brady Bill, which mandated federal background checks on firearm buyers. The group also cited her opposition to a bill, signed into law in 2005, that protects the gun industry from liability.

“Hillary Clinton is the only candidate who, as a member of Congress and national leader, has consistently put the safety of the American public ahead of the interests of the corporate gun lobby,” the Brady Campaign said in a release.
.....................

The Brady Campaign noted that Sanders had voted in favor of protecting the gun industry from liability, a bill it called “one of the ugliest pieces of special interest legislation in the last 20 years.”..................

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/brady-campaign-endorses-hillary-clinton-article-1.2494040

---

GRAND endorsement. Congrats to Hillary and her team

[stonecutter357]

1. K&R!

[Thinkingabout]

2. It is time to stop the gun violence, either the NRA gets with getting the gun violence

or they remain as the lobbyists they are. it is time to reverse the gun laws they have advocated to put in place. Target those who do not listen to the majority but support the gun lobbyists.

[pnwmom]

3. Makes sense, since she's the leading candidate who voted for the Brady bill, not Sanders.

[riversedge]

19. PLUS

[Blue_Adept]

4. I want to see how their membership was polled

[SunSeeker]

5. You think Brady Campaign members might have wanted the guy who voted AGAINST the Brady Bill 5 times?

[Beacool]

8. Good point........

[shawn703]

9. Because Brady Campaign members are obviously single issue voters, right?

[SunSeeker]

6. Bernie STILL won't admit his vote for the PLCAA was a mistake.

Nor will he admit his FIVE votes against the Brady Bill was a mistake.

Easy call for the Brady Campaign.

[Dawson Leery]

13. +1,000,000

[Lizzie Poppet]

16. Good for him.

The Brady Bill was and is security theater. The only actual progressive in the race remains Bernie.

[GGJohn]

24. Why would he admit the vote for the PLCAA was a mistake

when it wasn't?

[Beacool]

7. Very good endorsement.

Thank you!!!

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

10. I'm sorry, but I don't understand this "protecting the gun industry from liability" thing.

If the gun industry is doing nothing illegal, what is the reason to sue them? Once the gun is bought by a dealer, store, etc., they no longer have any responsibility for what happens with that gun.

I can see suing over a defective product, but the fact it killed someone means it wasn't defective - it worked as designed - and sold legally.

Please someone give me the counter argument - but be nice - I would change my mind about this if I could be swayed by some facts.

And I say this as someone that absolutely abhors guns.

[Qutzupalotl]

12. I would like to hear the counterargument as well.

I will be checking replies to your post. Thanks in advance.

To me, it seems like an overreach to sue gun manufacturers for making a working product. We'd be better off focusing on banning automatic weapons or limiting magazine capacity. I believe that would not violate the 2nd Amendment, since people would still have the right to own handguns. I might be wrong.

[anigbrowl]

15. I have a problem with their marketing

Like this example:


I post fairly often about this but am not in the mood for a gun debate today, to be honest. I'll leave a prediction instead: nothing will happen for a while, like several years, until someone successfully challenges industry immunity in court on 14th amendment grounds, following which there will be a settlement with the states much like the one with the tobacco companies. I think we are approaching a cultural tipping point; although gun sales remain strong and are increasing, the trend of gun ownership is firmly downward, now at about 22% of the population whereas it used to be about 30%. The more fetishized gun ownership becomes (ie acquiring lots of guns because of a belief in government tyranny rather than pragmatic needs like hunting or home defense) the less credibility the NRA will have. One reason that I have my fingers crossed for Hillary is her willingness to call the NRA's bluff - if she is elected President it will deal the organization a massive blow.

http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf

[GGJohn]

26. The PLCAA has already been challenged, the SCOTUS upheld it as constitutional. eom.

[Hoyt]

28. The right wing Supreme Court.

[GGJohn]

30. No, the Supreme Court of the United States.

For your reading pleasure.

http://www.biggamehunt.net/news/plcaa-upheld-us-supreme-court

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed Beretta U.S.A. and the firearms industry another victory by rejecting the Brady Center's appeal of Adames v. Beretta U.S.A. Corporation challenging the constitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

The PLCAA is the 2005 federal law passed by Congress in response to the flood of reckless lawsuits brought by the Brady Center on behalf of anti-gun mayors seeking to hold members of the firearms industry liable for the criminal or unlawful misuse of their products.

This is now the third time this year the Supreme Court has denied a challenge to the PLCAA backed by the Brady Center. In March 2009, the Brady Center was also involved in the appeals of Lawson v. Beretta and City of New York v. Beretta, both of which the Supreme Court refused to hear. Monday's Supreme Court decision in the Adames case is another stinging setback to the Brady Center's failed anti-gun political agenda to destroy the individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms -- a right the Supreme Court declared last year in Heller was protected by the Second Amendment.

The Adames lawsuit was filed by the Brady Center on behalf of a family seeking to hold Beretta responsible for the tragic shooting death of their son, caused solely by the criminal acts of a teenage boy who gained unauthorized access to his father's unsecured service pistol. The case was originally dismissed by a Chicago trial court, subsequently reinstated in part by the Illinois Court of Appeals, and then ultimately found to be barred under the PLCAA by the Illinois Supreme Court. By its decision yesterday, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to consider the Illinois Supreme Court's well-reasoned decision that held the PLCAA was both constitutional and clearly applicable to this lawsuit.

Notice it was upheld by the Illinois Supreme Court, hardly a RW court, as constitutional.

[anigbrowl]

53. I know this. I anticipate that SCOTUS will reverse itself in the not-too-distant future

as it has on other decisions in the past.

[GGJohn]

54. LOL, the SCOTUS has not reversed itself very often,

justices are loath to reverse settled law, which this is, case in point, the SCOTUS, with it's RW bent, hasn't reversed Roe v Wade, so don't hang your hat on this being reversed, the SCOTUS has refused to take up the PLCAA on at least 3 occasions.

[GGJohn]

37. There is no reliable way to know if firearm ownership is dropping,

it's just as likely, no, more likely that fewer and fewer people are admitting to owning firearms.
Case in point, in Illinois, new applications and renewals for FOID cards were overwhelming the State Police.

http://www.sj-r.com/article/20090503/NEWS/305039921

An unexpected backlog in Illinois FOID card requests and renewals that began in October has been dramatically reduced, officials with the Illinois State Police said last week.

Col. Michael Snyders, deputy director of information technology command for the state police, said the agency typically receives between 1,000 and 1,500 Firearm Owner Identification applications -- either new ones or renewal requests -- each day.

In October, however, the agency began to be inundated with applications -- 2,500 to 3,000 a day -- and the pace hasn’t slowed down. It was a trend the agency did not anticipate, Snyders said.

“When we speak to the public, they have told us anecdotally that there is concern at the national level with the new presidential administration, that the government is going to take away citizens’ guns. That belief appears to be pretty widespread because we are told that pretty regularly,” he said.

Now, extrapolate that to the rest of the states, most that don't even require a FOID card or even a permit to purchase or own license, like the state of AZ, my state, and the numbers are staggering.

It wouldn't surprise me that, with the ongoing attempt to stigmatize firearm owners, fewer people are admitting it.

[Lizzie Poppet]

17. You are, of course, absolutely right.

Nuisance lawsuits are a way of subverting the democratic process and trying to end up with a result you can't achieve by legislative means (because you don't have the votes).

[anigbrowl]

20. This is a standard response to any sort of litigation people dislike

I heard almost identical objections to people who went to court for the right to same-sex marriage. I fail to see why the gun industry is entitled to special protection that other industries are not.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

23. What special protection?

[GGJohn]

27. What special protection would that be?

Do you honestly believe that an industry can be sued for the criminal or negligent misuse of a legal product by a 3rd party?
That would be like my being able to sue Ford Motor Company because a drunk driver, driving a Ford, plowed into me, injuring me and my passengers.

[Hoyt]

29. I think they should be sued for their marketing campaigns designed to attract yahoos,

who are too often right wing racists, to their product. And that doesn't even get to gun manufacturers financing the right wing racist NRA to promote and protect their lethal products.

[GGJohn]

31. What you think, Hoyt, is irrelevant, and it would be unconstitutional. eom.

[Hoyt]

35. No it would not. Just because you love gunz and are willing to accept daily tragedies,

doesn't mean gunz should be treated any differently than other deleterious products pushed on Americans my marketeers and right wing organizations like the NRA.

[GGJohn]

36. LOL, ok Hoyt, whatever you say.

[trillion]

41. Oh look, bulling tacics.

I know a 12 year old who uses the same one.

[GGJohn]

49. Bulling tactics?

What does bulling tactics even mean?

[trillion]

40. +100000

[trillion]

43. .

[Hoyt]

44. Oliver is right on.

[trillion]

42. Always gotta watch out for people telling others what they think is "irrelevent".

They're usually controlling bullies. Anyway, keep it coming, you're defining yourself quite well here.

[GGJohn]

50. LOLOL,

Like I really care what you think.

[GGJohn]

51. Controlling bullies?

My lovely wife might have something different to say about that, then again, she too could care less what you think.

[GGJohn]

38. This isn't a standard response, it's the truth. eom.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

47. No industry needs to have protection

from selling a legal, non-defective product. If you think firearms should not be available for sale - you need to change the laws, and probably the constitution.

Do we agree??

[GGJohn]

22. Exactly.

Once upon a time, the Brady Org. and big city anti firearm mayors got together and devised a way to bankrupt the firearms industry, they filed a mess of SLAPP suits, not expecting to win, but hoping to bankrupt them through attorney fees and settlements, well, it badly backfired on them, the Congress, in 2005, passed the PLCAA to protect the firearms industry against frivolous SLAPP suits.

The firearm industry can, as you say, still be sued for defective products, criminal misconduct by the manufacturers, there are actually 6 exceptions where the PLCAA doesn't protect the industry.

Despite what some here say, they are not protected from liability, the protection is that they can't be sued for the criminal or negligent misuse by a 3rd party, and it's been upheld by the SCOTUS.

Moral of the story is that the Brady Org. and these mayors screwed themselves.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

25. Thanks for the info. Makes total sense.

[Duckhunter935]

34. Indeed, yes it does

[Duckhunter935]

32. very correct once again

And I am sure you will get crickets from the misinformed or insults like normal from them.

[GGJohn]

33. I'm waiting for them, it's easy to prove,

google is a wonderful search engine.

[lunamagica]

11. K&R. Go Hillary!

[riversedge]

52. :-)

[TipTok]

14. 2nd Amendments fans and Republicans consider that a win I suspect...

[mcar]

18. K&R

[riversedge]

21. and a big REC and Kick for the evening viewers.

[trillion]

39. We'll we have to give her credit, she found one industry she doesn't support.

[Duckhunter935]

45. this week

She will evolve back to Annie Oakley.

[TipTok]

46. That is really the main issue with her...

I always get the feeling that she would say whatever is expedient to gain power.

While this certainly applies to most politicians, she is on the far end of the spectrum. I am confident that if she thought it would lead to the white house, she would have run as a Republican.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

48. When she goes to Texas or Arizona, I suspect she'll be open carrying.