It's time for Bernie Sanders to rethink his position on gun control.

[pnwmom]

He's not running for Senator of Vermont this time; he's running for President of the United States, and he's running as a Democrat.

Despite what some people think, there is no shame in re-evaluating a position in light of different or changing circumstances. Gun control positions that made sense for Sanders 30 years ago, or as the Senator from a small rural state, don't make sense now, as a candidate for President of the United States.

Enough is enough. We need a President with strong pro-gun-control views. Sanders could be that President if he's willing to learn from experience. America's tragic experience.

Do we have to put metal detectors in the entrance to every grocery store, every shopping mall, every restaurant, every stadium, every school, and every movie theater? Or should we recognize that we've been making it way to easy for violent people to get hold of guns?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html

Then Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders jumped into the 2016 presidential race, he was widely hailed as a far-left socialist who would appeal to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. A liberal challenge to Hillary Clinton, said Politico. True progressives’ liberal alternative, trumpeted FiveThirtyEight. But before liberal Democrats flock to Sanders, they should remember that the Vermont senator stands firmly to Clinton’s right on one issue of overwhelming importance to the Democratic base: gun control. During his time in Congress, Sanders opposed several moderate gun control bills. He also supported the most odious NRA–backed law in recent memory—one that may block Sandy Hook families from winning a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the gun used to massacre their children.


Sanders, an economic populist and middle-class pugilist, doesn’t talk much about guns on the campaign trail. But his voting record paints the picture of a legislator who is both skeptical of gun control and invested in the interests of gun owners—and manufacturers. In 1993, then-Rep. Sanders voted against the Brady Act, which mandated federal background checks for gun purchasers and restricted felons’ access to firearms. As a senator, Sanders supported bills to allow firearms in checked bags on Amtrak trains and block funding to any foreign aid organization that registered or taxed Americans’ guns. Sanders is dubious that gun control could help prevent gun violence, telling one interviewer after Sandy Hook that “if you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen.” (He has since endorsed some modest gun control measures.)

None of these views are particularly shocking for a Vermont representative: Sanders’ deep-blue state has both high gun ownership and incredibly lax gun laws, and it’s perfectly logical for the senator to support his constituents’ firearms enthusiasm. And a close friend of Sanders once said that the senator “thinks there’s an elitism in the anti-gun movement.”

The act’s primary purpose is as simple as it is cold-blooded.
But Sanders’ vote for a different kind of pro-gun bill is more puzzling—and profoundly disturbing. In 2005, a Republican-dominated Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This law doesn’t protect gun owners; it protects gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers. The PLCAA was the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association for years, because it shields gun makers and dealers from most liability when their firearms are used criminally. It is one of the most noxious pieces of pro-gun legislation ever passed. And Bernie Sanders voted for it. (Sanders’ campaign has not replied to a request for comment.)

SNIP

[seveneyes]

1. We need a President with strong pro-gun-control views

like a fish needs a boat.

[AverageGuy]

2. My brother was killed by an automobile, we sued the other driver

but we never thought the car company was responsible

[pnwmom]

4. If the other driver's car was defective your lawyer would have sued the manufacturer, too.

And if he thought the dealer of that vehicle knew it was defective, your lawyer would have included the dealer in the lawsuit.

Thanks to a NRA-backed law that Sanders supported, gun manufacturers and dealers enjoy a freedom from liability-- even from defective products-- that no other manufacturers of dealers of other products enjoy.

[AverageGuy]

12. If a gun blows up in a shooters hand, the gun manufacture should be responsible

for damage to the shooter, but they should not be responsible for damage it causes to others if it operates as expected. The shooter is responsible for how it is used.

[pnwmom]

15. That law protects even a dealer who negligently sells a gun

to a lunatic.

Do you support that?

[AverageGuy]

20. No that should be changed.

As long as the dealer performs the required background check, he is not negligent and should be protected.

[frylock]

31. can you point me to the text of the bill that protects a dealer that circumvented..

the background check process?

[hack89]

47. No it does not

The dealer is protected as long as they obey all state and federal laws.

[beam me up scottie]

79. Prove that claim pnwmom or stop making it.

Or do you support making false claims on DU?

[aikoaiko]

90. If someone is a lunatic and not getting help, they should be committed...

...,so that they are prevented from buying guns from licensed dealers in the future.

Gun dealers are not psychologists.

[madokie]

46. A gentleman who I knew

sorry he's long gone, got a new shotgun for Christmas from his sons and the first time he took it out hunting it blew up and took part of his thumb with it and he sued the manufacturer and won a substantial amount. This was back in the late '70s.

[Ed Suspicious]

102. That's a very different thing than suing for a product that works as intended distributed by

another party not related to the gun manufacturer.

[beam me up scottie]

76. And the gun manufacturer CAN be sued if their product is defective.

People who claim otherwise are lying.

[aikoaiko]

88. This is just not true, pnwmom, and I showed you that 1.5 hours before you posted this.

Please note exception #5 and stop spreading misinformation

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7006471

See here for specific exceptions to the protections of the PLCAA:

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-industry-immunity-policy-summary/

There are six exceptions to the blanket civil immunity provided by the PLCAA:
(1) an action brought against someone convicted of “knowingly transfer a firearm, knowing that such firearm will be used to commit a crime of violence” by someone directly harmed by such unlawful conduct;
(2) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;
(3) 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;3
(4) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product;
(5) 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
(6) an action commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.4

[grasswire]

3. why is a Hillary supporter telling Bernie what he must do? nt

[pnwmom]

7. I haven't decided who to vote for yet. But if Bernie is going to be President, he will be President

for ALL of us, not just those who voted for him.

Do you want to increase his support, or do you only want the votes of those who are already committed to him?

[mmonk]

5. As a Bernie supporter, I completely understand.

I support the lawsuit but also understand his position (doesn't mean I agree with it). He'd rather implement bans on certain guns and ammunition than go through lawsuits. Guess he doesn't want to leave it to a corporate court. I'm more of do both. But many sport gun enthusiasts would be up in arms (to make a pun).

[ibegurpard]

6. Why should people be able to sue

A company that makes a legal device? Guns are weapons...their purpose is to kill. If you want to make the case that they should be illegal then I wish you luck with that but that law was bullshit. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld local jurisdictions' rights to ban guns. Here in Montana we just managed to beat back a right wing attempt to allow open carry on college campuses (and I personally lobbied my legislators to defeat it) But you are NEVER going to be able to ban firearms outright everywhere in the country and people like me will fight you if you try. I will support background checks, strong regulations on sellers and possibly banning on certain types of firearms. That's it. And Bernie' s positions generally line up with mine

[pnwmom]

9. Why should guns be the only product with a special exemption from state product liability laws?

A gun could have a defective safety-lock, for example. Why should that manufacturer be protected from liability?

[ibegurpard]

13. if you can prove something is defective make the case

[pnwmom]

14. You can't, thanks to this special exemption from state product liability laws. n/t

[ibegurpard]

16. that is not true

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

"However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer ofconsumer products (i.e. automobiles,appliances, power tools, etc.) are held responsible."

[pnwmom]

17. There appear to be differing views on that.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html

If a gun seller sold a gun to a customer without performing any kind of background check—and then the buyer opened fire on the subway—his victims might sue that seller for negligently providing a gun to a mentally unstable person. The standards in each state differed, but the bottom line remained the same: Victims of gun violence and their families could recover financially from the people and companies who negligently enabled gun violence.

The PLCAA changed all that. Remarkably, the act wiped out gun liability laws in all 50 states, rendering them invalid except for a handful of narrow exceptions. (So much for states’ rights.) Thanks to the law, victims of mass shootings are barred from suing the companies that produced a wartime weapon that no civilian could ever need. With few exceptions, victims cannot sue a gun seller for negligently providing a semiautomatic weapon to a lunatic who shoots them in a movie theater. Even if a jury decides a gun maker or seller should be liable, the PLCAA invalidates its verdict. The law tramples upon states’ rights, juries’ rights, and fundamental precepts of America’s civil justice system. And it received Bernie Sanders’ support—in both 2003 (when it was first introduced) and 2005 (when it finally passed).

[ibegurpard]

25. you're talking about negligence in selling

I stated I would support tougher regulations on sellers. I would certainly part ways on Sanders on this if he refused to budge on amending the law. But there is nothing to prevent lawsuits on defective devices.

[frylock]

32. can you point me to the text of the bill that protects manufacturers..

from being sued for selling defective products that may cause injury or death?

[Sheepshank]

19. When that manufacturer calluded with the NRA

To spread lies about the national need for a gun in every hand, when they callude with NRA to put fear in the hearts and minds of every citizen, and flood the community with weapons that are used to murder people and destroy families...I look at it as more like why cigarette manufacturers have need sued. For spreading lies, the lies that killed millions in order make a profit.

Bernie has been typically against the type of capitalism that results in excessive greed to the detriment of the 99%. But not in the case of gun manufacturers. Almost a BILLION in sales, which sales only goes up every time there is a mass shooting.

And remember these shooting are made easier because of a lack of any sensible gun control laws all suppressed by gun manufacturers and NRA. They are not innocent bystanders in all of this.

[ibegurpard]

36. you're not going to get any argument about sensible

Gun control laws from many people...including Sanders. Where you will encounter unending resistance is on outright bans. Holding manufacturers accountable for devices that work as they are supposed to will never fly either.

[pnwmom]

43. Did you think the Brady Bill was sensible after Reagan was shot? Bernie voted against it. n/t

[ibegurpard]

56. I do not remember the specifics of the Brady Bill

I was very young at the time. I would support any measures that align with the positions I have already stated that I hold.

[Luminous Animal]

8. He has, for several years now. But you already know that

By the way. Did you know that the Obama had bragged he expanded gun owner rights by allowing guns on Amtrak checked luggage?

[pnwmom]

10. No, he hasn't. He hasn't changed his mind on product liability laws. And if Obama bragged about that

then he was wrong.

I don't expect any politician to be right on everything. They're all human.

[Luminous Animal]

11. Actually I got that wrong. He bragged about allowing guns in national parks

and signed the law allowing guns on amtrak

[Sheepshank]

21. Yet just today he mentions his frustration at not being able to implement any

Responsible and make sense gun control laws. He vows to keep trying for the rest of his Presidency. Obama is FOR gun control.

[London Lover Man]

18. Let me turn the thread on you - what does Hillary stand on gun control?

[Sheepshank]

22. It's really not that hard to use google

As Hillary Clinton mulls running for president in 2016....... she delivered harsh criticism of gun culture in America and denounced the idea that "anybody can have a gun, anywhere, at any time." Clinton didn't dispute Americans' right to own guns. But she said access to guns in the U.S. had grown "way out of balance."
"We've got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime," she said. "And I don't believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people."
Citing a number of shootings that arose from minor arguments over loud music or texting, she drew a comparison: "That's what happens in the countries I've visited where there is no rule of law and no self-control." She added: "That is something that we cannot just let go without paying attention."
Source: Wall Street Journal, "Anywhere, Anytime Gun Culture" , May 6, 2015

***************************

[TeddyR]

29. Those quotes provides exactly

Zero information on where Hillary stands on gun control, and I currently tend to favor Hillary over Bernie. The only point she makes is that people should not be able to have a gun "anywhere, at any time." If Hillary wants to enact universal background checks then I'm on board. If she wants to make all states "shall issue" for concealed carry licenses and ban open carry, then I'm board with that too. But based on the language you quote I have no idea what her positions are, other than you shouldn't be able to have a gun "anywhere, at any time."

[Sheepshank]

33. It provides 100% more than what Bernie is offering

Thanks for your opinion anyway.

Congress’ failure at Littleton response inspired Senate run

A month after the Columbine shootings, Bill & I went to Littleton Colorado to visit with the families of victims & survivors. The Columbine tragedy was not the first, nor the last, episode involving gun violence at an American high school. But it ignited a call for more federal action to keep guns out of the hands of the violent, troubled and young--a lethal combination. Bill and I announced a proposal to raise the legal age of handgun ownership to 21, and limit purchases of handguns to one per month.
Source: Living History, by Hillary Rodham Clinton, p. 503-4 , Nov 1, 2003
-------------------------

Her position on gun control puts her at odds with the staunchly pro-gun GOP, and the push for gun control laws at the federal level has been historically unsuccessful. As president, Bill Clinton sought to tighten gun laws but was unable to achieve lasting effects.
Source: Wall Street Journal, "Anywhere, Anytime Gun Culture" , May 6, 2014
-------------------------

CLINTON: I respect the Second Amendment. I respect the rights of lawful gun owners to own guns, to use their guns, but I also believe that most lawful gun owners whom I have spoken with for many years across our country also want to be sure that we keep those guns out of the wrong hands.
-------------------------

I will also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We had it during the 1990s.......because it has lapsed--the Republicans will not reinstate it--are being outgunned on our streets by these military-style weapons.

[TeddyR]

52. The statements you quoted in your first post

Provided absolutely zero insight into how Hillary would proceed on gun control and did not include a single policy position.

The statements in your reply do provide policy positions. Not sure I agree that handgun purchases should be limited to those 21 and older. 18 year olds can join the military and be killed serving their country. Disagree with limiting purchases to one handgun a month, though neither of those is a particularly compelling issue to me and neither seems like it would have any impact on shootings.

I oppose reinstatement of the assault weapons ban. How exactly are we being "outgunned" by "military style weapons"? That's simply hyperbole that is contrary to the facts.

[Sheepshank]

67. The original question what was her stand...I responded

implementation has been all but impossible for Obama. He is frustrated. I don't know if Hillary will be any more successful, but it's a start that she even addresses some policy. Again 100% more than what Bernie has done

[pnwmom]

24. Well, the NRA considers her an anti-gun zealot.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20140620/hillary-clinton-gun-control-opponents-are-terrorists-not-entitled-to-viewpoint

[LWolf]

26. And they give Sanders an "F." nt

[pnwmom]

34. They campaigned for him against his pro-gun-control primary opponent in his first Senatorial race.

He voted against Brady, which made them happy, but later he had a more mixed record, so they gave him D's and F's.

[LWolf]

35. Okay.

It doesn't exactly sound like he's a favorite of the gun lobby.

[pnwmom]

40. They certainly prefer any Rethug to him, no question. But I wish he would change

his position to a stronger position on gun control. It seems so inconsistent with everything else he stands for.

[LWolf]

49. I understand where it comes from.

I live rurally, and I've lived in cities as well, so I understand the divide in perspectives about guns.

His take is appropriate for representing the most rural state in the nation. He needs to expand his position to representing the rest of the nation, and I think he will; I think he listens.

I support a strong position on gun control.

I also know that the source of gun violence, or any violence, is the person, and that if we want to see violence decrease, we've got to address the sources. And THAT's a hell of a lot more complicated than gun control.

Gun control, AND strong policies on racial justice, are needed NOW. The policies that address the sources of injustice and violence...those are long term issues.

I think we need both.

[pnwmom]

51. Since you bring up racial justice,

that reminds me -- urban voters and minority voters are much more likely than white, rural voters to favor strong gun control. So if he's trying to expand his base, that's another reason for him to rethink this.

[LWolf]

64. I agree.

I'm pretty confident that Sanders is open to listening, and to addressing concerns that affect people. It's not surprising to me that he sees economic justice as a vehicle to help deliver social justice; he IS a socialist, after all, lol.

I think he makes the connection between economic and racial justice because, if people were economically secure, they wouldn't need to compete for scarce resources, and therefore group up to fight for power over those resources. I think that's right...and it's a long term solution that doesn't address the needs on the ground today. I think we have to do both.

I think, though, that since Sanders is all about making lives better for people, he'll be open and swift to act on all issues that affect us, including social justice issues.

[pnwmom]

68. Right. Black people don't have time to wait for economic justice.

There are things that can and must be done much more quickly to eliminate racial injustice.

[Aerows]

23. I think it is time for people that live in urban areas

to stop judging people in rural areas.

That said, long guns are inconvenient, but I'd consent to just having long guns.

I'm pretty sure that nobody that has had to deal with wild pigs and alligators is going to get pissed off if you restrict it to rifles.

I have no need for a hand gun, to be honest.

Take away the rifle that protects myself, my neighbors and my property? No.

[restorefreedom]

30. this is an excellent point

these mass shootings are not being done with the kind of rifles people use in the woods to scare off a coyote. they are pistols and handguns, many semi auto.

type of gun permitted is an important and often overlooked aspect of this debate. unfortunately the nra wackos would never support any restriction. i think they want people to drive around in tanks and walk around with hand grenades. I really do.

[Aerows]

48. There is a time, a place and a use for everything.

No, you should not restrict rifles, because they are used for two things - hunting and protection.

[restorefreedom]

73. just heard on cnn

it was a 40 caliber semi auto handgun

dammit

people would have noticed if he had walked into the theater with a .30-06

supporting your point about rifles. and the need to do something about the damn handguns.

[Aerows]

75. It's the damn handguns.

I don't need a handgun (and it wouldn't be useful) to protect myself, my family or my property.

Nobody hunts with a handgun.

A handgun is useless against large animals unless it is so high of a caliber that you can't aim it correctly.

Am I wrong here?

[restorefreedom]

77. absolutely correct

there's only one reason handguns exist, and we all know what that reason is. It was on full display last night sadly.

[bravenak]

99. Me too.

We have bears and moose within city limits.

[Aerows]

100. Uh huh.

I have wild pigs and alligators in mine. We KNOW.

Mind you, I can't tell people that don't deal with these situations what to do, other than plead with their understanding.

I'm fine with long guns.

[bravenak]

104. Some people just don't realize how dangerous it is to live in the sticks.

I live in a city and we had bears at the Ramada Limited.

[LWolf]

27. Will you support him in your primary if he does? nt

[HockeyMom]

28. I am still undecided, but leaning more towards Bernie

His record on Gun Control troubles me, but then so does a lot of Hilary's issues, who I actually voted for as my Senator. Hillary's Corporate backers, especially Monsanto, worries me. I like that Bernie is beholden to NO Corporate sponsors whoever they are. If that is true, then the NRA won't be able to sway him either. PEOPLE can influence him, not Corporate sponsors to his Presidential campaign. I like that. Fine in my book if he is willing to listen to the general public instead.

[daybranch]

44. As one whose father was murdered with a handgun when I was 4,

I believe that reasonable gun controls are necessary. That said, guns that are obviously for hunting and a reasonable deterrent to attack in your home should be allowed. In no case should any sale of a gun be made without a background check and we should do what we can to remove guns from those who become afflicted with mental illness including severe depression.
It is often said that republicans do not do nuance well and apparently many of those who would just ban guns do not either, anymore than the NRA who would give them to everyone if allowed. While he has many faults, I agree with H. L. Mencken when he said for every complex situation, there is a solution that is simple, direct and wrong. It is great to have a thinking man like Bernie. Go Bernie.

[ibegurpard]

53. I am so sorry about your father

I think your views on the issue reflect the views of many people across the nation. They sound similar to mine.

[Cosmic Kitten]

37. Name the last president elected on a single issue platform

Since when has single issue voting
won the Oval Office?

[pnwmom]

38. No one. But why is there this perception that Bernie can never change his position on anything

because that would be tantamount to admitting he could sometimes be wrong? And that would be admitting that he, like every other candidate out there, is not perfect.

For example, I was glad that Hillary acknowledged that she was wrong about Iraq.
I wish Bernie would admit some of his votes against gun control should be re-considered.

[ibegurpard]

42. that would mean he thought he was wrong

I can't speak for him but I don't think he was. Other than getting tougher on sellers I would've voted exactly like him on it.

[tazkcmo]

39. If I was senator for NH, I would have too.

His reasoning for his votes in this area are easily found as he hasn't run away from any of his votes. I appreciate your disagreement on the PLCAA, personally I don't see how you can hold a manufacturer responsible for the use of their legal product by their owners. I'd hold the dealers more accountable (Close the gun show loophole for instance, better background checks for ALL gun sales, retail or private and accountability for those performing them) than the makers but even then there's going to be boundaries. Guns are a legal product at this time regardless of mine or your feelings about this. But this is about Sen. Sanders' vote, not mine.

As for this part of the article which really irked me: &quot Sanders’ campaign has not replied to a request for comment.)"
It's as if he hasn't addressed it in the last month or two. His reasoning for voting the way he did is readily available so no real need to reply to the request for comment. He hasn't run away from any of his votes. If the author needs clarification then she or he hasn't been paying attention or nknow how to use a search engine:

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/10/generation-forward-pac/did-bernie-sanders-vote-against-background-checks-/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/bernie-sanders-defends-votes-gun-control-measures-article-1.2287649

His campaign speeches have also covered this. Lots of material with Sen. Sanders' own words.

Again, I respect people's differences on issues when discussing them rationally. Also, this is what the Primary process is all about. Examining positions and records of the candidates. I am simply offering offering information on why he has voted as he has. I agree with the article that as President, he'll need to have the same convictions in terms of constituent responsiveness as he expresses as his main justification for these votes (though not the only one). Also, I believe he understands that and has expressed it in his campaign when he contrasts urban vs rural gun use and attitudes.

While I'm a Sanders supporter I understand he won't score 100% on everybody's score card and he doesn't on mine but he's closer than all the rest.

[pnwmom]

41. Right. It makes sense for Senator from Vermont. Less sense for President of the US, IMO. n/t

[tazkcmo]

45. And BOOM!

We agree! Makes much less sense. I guess that's the main reason I am a supporter of his because I trust him to be the adult in the day care center that is our Congress and lead the discussion in a constructive and logical manner. Not just on gun control but in general.

[pnwmom]

50. I think he is probably more flexible and willing to re-consider

than some of his supporters realize. You can't be a politician as long as he has been and not learn to work with people to get things done.

And while I would like him to reconsider his position, I also don't think he -- or any candidate -- has to be perfect to be elected. I guess I'm just too jaded to be a true believer, with regard to any candidate.

[tazkcmo]

54. Question everything!

As a supply sergeant in the Army I had a sign on the wall that said "In God We Trust. All Others Must Sign." Lots of supply rooms in the military had this sign. I'm so jaded I added "But He Still Has To Show Valid ID."

[Aerows]

57. adult in the day care center that is our Congress

Isn't it a damn shame when that is the most accurate description of our legislative bodies?

They spend their time flinging poo at each other, while the Republic suffers.

[tazkcmo]

60. Yes. It is.

Damn.

[Sancho]

58. There are certainly differences of opinion, including progressive analysis....

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/19/why-isnt-the-media-discussing-the-unprecedented/191910

Why Isn't The Media Discussing The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity?

Faced with an increasing number of successful lawsuits over reckless business practices that funneled guns into the hands of criminals, the 2005 immunity law was a victory for the NRA, which "lobbied lawmakers intensely" to shield gun makers and dealers from personal injury law. As described by Erwin Chemerinsky, a leading constitutional scholar and the Dean of the University of California-Irvine School of Law, by eliminating this route for victims to hold the gun industry accountable in court, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was a complete deviation from basic "principles of products liability":

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is also commonly referred to as the "Gun Protection Act." The law dismissed all current claims against gun manufacturers in both federal and state courts and pre-empted future claims. The law could not be clearer in stating its purpose: "To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm caused solely by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended." There are some narrow exceptions for which liability is allowed, such as actions against transferors of firearms who knew the firearm would be used in drug trafficking or a violent crime by a party directly harmed by that conduct.

It is outrageous that a product that exists for no purpose other than to kill has an exemption from state tort liability. Allowing tort liability would force gun manufacturers to pay some of the costs imposed by their products, increase the prices for assault weapons and maybe even cause some manufacturers to stop making them.

The NRA successfully cloaked this special treatment for the gun industry as part of "tort reform" - the right-wing's general attack on access to justice for victims of corporate wrongdoing - by claiming the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was needed to stop "politically motivated" and "frivolous" lawsuits "intended to bankrupt the gun industry." Yet the Brady Center's Legal Action Project has successfully utilized the law's narrow exception for litigation based on gun industry criminality, proving that lawsuits against the current system that provides firearms for crimes are hardly without merit.

[Sancho]

61. More differences of opinion...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/10/bernie-sanders-misleading-characterization-of-a-controversial-gun-law/

Fact Checker
Bernie Sanders’s misleading characterization of a controversial gun law

Still, it provides a unique federal legal shield that most consumer goods manufacturers do not have.

Negligence claims in tort law allow consumers to sue for negligence caused by carelessness, which doesn’t always involve a violation of the law or knowingly entrusting someone unfit to handle the product, said Timothy Lytton, a Georgia State University law professor who specializes in tort law and gun policies. (For example, doctors can be sued for carelessness and negligence in medical malpractice. You can sue a supermarket if you slip and are injured, and the market did not display a “wet floor” sign.)

Few industries have federal liability immunity. Vaccine manufacturers have limited protection from lawsuits if their vaccine led to an injury. The federal government enacted this immunity to encourage companies to produce more vaccines without the fear of lawsuits, for their benefit to public health. Another example is federal protection for the airline industry from lawsuits arising from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. But unlike the gun law, both cases established a compensation scheme for victims to recover money for damages.

While the law provides protections that no other industry has, courts have been reluctant to impose liability on manufacturers for third-party misuse of the product, said John Goldberg, Harvard Law School professor who specializes in product liability. So the types of lawsuits that Sanders mentioned (for hammers or guns) didn’t have a slam-dunk chance in court before this law came about. Instead, this law ensures that those types of lawsuits can’t be brought against gun manufacturers.

Sanders’s statement is misleading and a simplification of this complex case.

[Sancho]

63. ...and some others who disagree with Bernie on gun immunity...

http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/24/why-is-congress-protecting-the-gun-industry/

CASE STUDY
Why Is Congress Protecting the Gun Industry?
Gun manufacturers and dealers enjoy broad legal immunity, even though lawsuits against them would help improve safety

Civil lawsuits do two important things: they compensate people who are injured by the bad acts of others and they penalize people and companies for bad behavior. If a company knows it may have to pay a large amount of money if it poses an unreasonable threat to others, it will have a strong incentive to act better.

Lawsuits prod companies to make their products safer. Years ago, lawsuits over the Ford Pinto’s fuel tank fires led Ford to recall the troubled car and improve the design. Since then, all sorts of consumer products — from aboveground swimming pools to children’s pajamas — have been made safer by litigation or the threat of litigation.

Before the PLCAA, lawsuits were starting to prod the gun industry to act more responsibly. In 2000, Smith & Wesson, the nation’s largest handgun manufacturer, agreed to a variety of safety conditions to end lawsuits that threatened to put it in bankruptcy. Among other things, Smith & Wesson agreed to put a second, hidden set of serial numbers on all of its new guns to make it harder for criminals to scratch away the identifying markings.

But the PLCAA took away the pressure to work on safety. Protected against lawsuits, gun manufacturers have less incentive to develop improved technology for locking guns when they are not in use and gun dealers have less reason to worry about whether the person they are selling a firearm to will use it to commit a crime.

[Sancho]

65. ...so really, most progressive thinking would not have give special immunity to the gun manufacturer

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/01/1183784/-2005-Law-Gives-Gun-Manufacturers-and-Dealers-Protection-From-Lawsuits-Not-Given-to-Other-Industries#

THU JAN 31, 2013 AT 08:05 PM PST
2005 Law Gives Gun Manufacturers and Dealers Protection From Lawsuits Not Given to Other Industries

"What we witness today is the culmination of a seven-year effort that included a comprehensive legislative and election strategy," stated Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. "We worked hard to change the political landscape to pass this landmark legislation

Whether or not you believe in these types of lawsuits against products, it seems only fair that the gun dealers and gun manufacturers should be held to the same standards that apply to other industries. That they are not is an indication of the tremendous amount of power that the NRA has had in this country.

[ibegurpard]

66. manufacturers are not protected from lawsuits

Due to defective devices. You and others want more than that. Many other people disagree. Including people who support reasonable regulation and despise the NRA as an organization.

[Sancho]

69. ...then they don't need a special law that's different from anyone else!

You make the point. The NRA specifically lobbied for this law and relished in it's passing.

The gun manufacturers don't deserve any laws that set them apart. The examples of where it protects them are provided.

Bernie caved in to the gun lobby and gun nuts in Vermont.

Defective devices don't concern me. The gun companies concern me...so they should face all types of lawsuits well beyond defects in the product.

[ibegurpard]

70. there is nothing to prevent people from suing

Gun manufacturers if a gun blows up in their hands. Nothing.

[beam me up scottie]

74. +1000

They think we're stupid enough to believe it.

[Sancho]

82. I don't think you get it...

Progressive thinking does not "protect" big business.
Progressives don't succumb to lobbies like the NRA.
Progressives don't create loopholes that corporations can use against regular folks.

I think we should be able to sue ANY manufacturer for ANY behavior that does harm. It has NOTHING to do with defects. If I think it might be an issue, I should be able to sue.

If gun manufacturers could be sued more often under tort law, they might build ALL guns with fingerprint id locks, or they might change their marketing plan (like the pink and blue guns for children). Who knows? Products often change without being "defective" as a result of legal action.

I think that ANYTHING that ANYONE wants to claim that holds a big company liable should be fair game for suits.
If there is some law that applies to ALL companies that defines torts, fine. There should never be special treatment for any industry.

Bernie is in bed with the very companies that he rails against. It's hypocritical.

[ibegurpard]

85. I vehemently disagree with your views on lawsuits

[hack89]

80. Gun control advocates overreached and this law was the blow back

They conspired with towns and cities to put gun manufacturers out of business by overwhelming them with frivolous lawsuits. It blew up in their face.

[Sancho]

83. I've heard that theory and I disagree...

SLAP suits usually are big companies going after the small guy who doesn't have resources.

If enough towns and cities are able to go to court and put the gun companies on the ropes - great!!!!

That's what the gun lobby deserves for creating ALEC and repealing Brady and acting like idiots.

If you want TORT reform for ALL cases; then fine. If you want a special deal for gun manufacturers, then forget it.

[hack89]

84. Of course you would disagree

The losing side seldom blames themselves. You want to go after the NRA and gun makers? You better take them down the first attempt. Because, as we saw, you won't get a second try.

[Sancho]

89. I posted above the opinion of a very progressive lawyer:

Sergio Munoz is the Deputy Research Director. Prior to joining Media Matters, he worked on progressive law and policy for the American Civil Liberties Union, the Federal Rights Project, and NCLR. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Michigan Law School.

"It is outrageous that a product that exists for no purpose other than to kill has an exemption from state tort liability. Allowing tort liability would force gun manufacturers to pay some of the costs imposed by their products, increase the prices for assault weapons and maybe even cause some manufacturers to stop making them.

The NRA successfully cloaked this special treatment for the gun industry as part of "tort reform" - the right-wing's general attack on access to justice for victims of corporate wrongdoing - by claiming the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was needed to stop "politically motivated" and "frivolous" lawsuits "intended to bankrupt the gun industry." Yet the Brady Center's Legal Action Project has successfully utilized the law's narrow exception for litigation based on gun industry criminality, proving that lawsuits against the current system that provides firearms for crimes are hardly without merit."

We have LOTS of laws in the US that are bad, but survive for years or decades before everyone realizing they were stupid to start with...and this is one of them.

[ibegurpard]

91. I completely disagree with that.

Lawsuits are for defective products that harm people because of their defects or because of negligence. A gun is a weapon. It's purpose is to kill. When used properly it kills the intended target. As long as we tolerate the legality of firearms we cannot sue manufacturers for producing them. Shame people into it. Start a public relations campaign to make uncool like smoking. But you can't ban them outright.

[Sancho]

92. I cannot ever see a single industry getting special treatment. There's a way to improve gun misuse.

People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

[ibegurpard]

93. Not sure I'd go that far on some

But most of what you listed here is not unreasonable to me.

[beam me up scottie]

81. And HC supports gun ownership too. She talked about going hunting in 2008:

"You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl,” she said. “You know, some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. It’s part of culture. It’s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter. I have gone hunting. I am not a hunter. But I have gone hunting."

She's not anti-gun either.

[HFRN]

55. dont Bogart that Meme nt

[ibegurpard]

59. Not necessary

There's a pretty respectful discussion going on here.

[petronius]

62. I disagree - Sanders was correct to support the PLCAA and he should continue

to do so. (Here's a link to the text of the law, for those interested.)

Beyond that, his recent votes on gun issues have been rather strict; if anything, I'd say he should reconsider that support of the AWB...

[TheKentuckian]

71. Nope, as usual I think Sanders is about right.

[beam me up scottie]

72. "Sanders Votes for Background Checks, Assault Weapons Ban "

Sanders Votes for Background Checks, Assault Weapons Ban

Wednesday, April 17, 2013
WASHINGTON, April 17 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn.

“Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities,” Sanders said. “There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others,” Sanders added.

The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it. “To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories,” Sanders said.

Under current federal law, background checks are not performed for tens of thousands of sales – up to 40 percent of all gun transfers – at gun shows or over the Internet. The amendment would have required background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer. The compromise proposal would have exempted sales between “family, friends, and neighbors.”

In a separate roll call, the Senate rejected a proposal to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. That proposal was defeated by a vote of 60 to 40.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban

This pro-gun control progressive liberal agrees with Bernie on the PLCAA.

HC supporters are trying to paint him as a gun nut out of desperation.

[hack89]

78. His views are very main stream.

And are in line with the Democratic Party platform.

[beam me up scottie]

87. And another HC opportunist blaming Bernie before the bodies are cold.

Politicizing the deaths of gun victims because you can't promote your candidate any other way.

You stay classy, wyldwolf.

[wyldwolf]

94. Yeah, sure, right

Ironic a day after one shooting, Sandernistas dig their heels in on gun control just as a nother shooting is happening.

[beam me up scottie]

95. Since Bernie and his supporters are pro gun control my point about abusing their memories is spot on

You just don't like being called on your disgusting behaviour.

[wyldwolf]

97. #feelthebern

[beam me up scottie]

98. The only one getting Berned here is you, for blaming a gun control advocate for gun deaths.

But then HC supporters have associated him with racist cops and slavery, claimed he fantasizes about rape and asked why he has dual citizenship with Israel.

So using a national tragedy to smear him really doesn't surprise me.

HC supporters: how low will you go when you're feelin the Bern?

[Snotcicles]

101. Hypocrisy.

The hypocrisy of supporters of a firearms profiter calling someone else a gun nut? It's a special kind of of hypocrisy I thought only the right wing could muster.
Hillary Clinton sat on the BOD, was and still may be, a shareholder of a large amount of stock in this countries largest gun and ammo retailer Walmart. Now I'm personally not to concerned about op's, gun issue, but for some to rant around like their pick is somehow above it all, gags me.
I have been holding back on pointing this out, but wyldwolf inspired me. edit to add

[beam me up scottie]

103. Don't hold back anymore, Snotcicles.

It's high time the hypocrisy and vile abuse of victims' memories is called out.

Eventually wyldwolf and the others will get the message: Bernie's not the one who looks like he doesn't care about victims.

[neverforget]

96. no there isn't and you're sick for linking a shooting (real or not) to Bernie