Yes, Bernie's latest position on guns is an "evolution".

[DanTex]

Or a "flip-flop". Whatever you want to call it -- bottom line, what he's saying now is different than what he said and voted for previously.

He's trying to play it off like, gee, upon further consideration, maybe lawsuits about gun manufacturers making profit by flooding the streets with guns that they know are ending up in criminal hands, maybe these have some merit after all. It's "complicated".

But here's the problem. Bernie isn't nearly dumb enough to not have known that these kinds of lawsuits were precisely why the NRA wanted PLCAA so badly in the first place. Some of these suits were in the courts at the time of his vote, and they were also in newspapers. Local and state governments were using civil lawsuits to shed light on and in some instances change business practices in the gun industry that were contributing to gun violence. The NRA saw this as "back door gun control", and put a lot of pressure on congress to put an end to it all.

Just recently Bernie was defending his vote with the preposterous "if someone hits you with a hammer, you don't sue the hammer company" analogy, but everyone, including Bernie and the NRA, knew that frivolous lawsuits like this were never what PLCAA was about to begin with. That was just the selling line -- it was a distraction. PLCAA wasn't needed to protect against frivolous lawsuits, because protection against frivolous lawsuits, against gun companies and anyone else, was already present in existing law.

I'm glad to see that Bernie has come around on this. As he said about Hillary and TPP, we sure could have used his help on this back in 2005, rather than two days before his first presidential debate, but hey, better late than never.

[workinclasszero]

2. Bernie is allowed to flip flop

and evolve, because....reasons.

Anyone else that changes their views over the years is a servant of satan/corporations though, lets get that straight!

[iandhr]

10. bingo

[aikoaiko]

3. Well, lets take a look at what the judge said about one of those recent lawsuits.

Sandy and Lonnie Phillips filed a suit against Lucky Gunner and several other shooting and law enforcement supply companies that sold Holmes ammunition and equipment used in the shooting.

"It is apparent that this case was filed to pursue the political purposes of the Brady Center and, given the failure to present any cognizable legal claim, bringing these defendants into the Colorado court where the prosecution of James Holmes was proceeding appears to be more of an opportunity to propagandize the public and stigmatize the defendants than to obtain a court order," the judge's order said.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/watchful-eye/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-against-knoxville-ammo-company_50868654

[DanTex]

5. I seem to have missed the part about PLCAA. Can you point me to it?

Did the judge say that without PLCAA this case would have won, but because of it he's throwing it out? Doesn't look that way to me.

Like I said, there were already protections against frivolous lawsuits without PLCAA. This case is an example of that. PLCAA wasn't about frivolous lawsuits, it was against legitimate lawsuits, as Bernie recently acknowledged.

[aikoaiko]

6. Its so unlike you to be coy.

The judge used a state version of the PLCAA. Anti-gun activists made much of the parallel.

The judge dismissed our case because, he said, these online sellers had special immunity from the general duty to use reasonable care under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and a Colorado immunity law. If you couple the PLCAA law with Colorado's law HB 000-208, (which says in essence: If you bring a civil case against a gun or ammunition seller and the case is dismissed then the plaintiff must pay all the defendant's costs), you have an impenetrable barrier to using the judicial system to effect change in gun legislation in Colorado.

Everyone else in society has a duty to use reasonable care to not injure others -- except gun and ammunition sellers.

To make matters worse, the judge ordered that we pay $203,000. This is an outrageous amount, especially given that this case was decided after one single motion! Lucky Gunner has said that it is going to donate all these fees to "gun rights" groups. The thought is disgusting to us that Lucky Gunner does not even plan to use this money to pay for their attorney's fees.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lonnie-and-sandy-phillips/lucky-gunner-lawsuit_b_8197804.html

[DanTex]

7. So did the judge say that without PLCAA the plaintiff would have had a legitimate case?

Certainly doesn't sound like it to me, based on his comments that you quoted.

It is apparent that this case was filed to pursue the political purposes of the Brady Center and, given the failure to present any cognizable legal claim, bringing these defendants into the Colorado court where the prosecution of James Holmes was proceeding appears to be more of an opportunity to propagandize the public and stigmatize the defendants than to obtain a court order,

Like I said, you don't need a special law to protect against cases that "fail to present any cognizable legal claim" and are deemed "an opportunity to propagandize".

[aikoaiko]

13. Yes, that is what Lonnie and Sandy Phillips said that the judge said.

The judge dismissed our case because, he said, these online sellers had special immunity from the general duty to use reasonable care under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and a Colorado immunity law. If you couple the PLCAA law with Colorado's law HB 000-208, (which says in essence: If you bring a civil case against a gun or ammunition seller and the case is dismissed then the plaintiff must pay all the defendant's costs), you have an impenetrable barrier to using the judicial system to effect change in gun legislation in Colorado.

I have no reason to think they are liars. Do you?

[DanTex]

14. Umm... that's not what they said at all. The judge made it clear that he thought the lawsuit was

frivolous, which means that he would would have tossed it out with or without PLCAA.

[Hortensis]

4. If "evolution," it's reassuring evidence that Bernie can evolve.

[roguevalley]

11. what I see is a man changing his focus from representing a small

rural state that does a lot of hunting to a country that doesn't. Its an understanding that with different circumstances you have to adapt. You don't have to believe that but then you might not come from a state or area where most of the people are responsible about their guns. I do. I also hate guns. Good for Bernie for expanding his focus. Like it or not, that is what it means to me.

[Hortensis]

12. Well stated, Roguevalley.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. As a dispassionate observer it is my considered opinion that all candidates are reluctant...

As a dispassionate observer it is my considered opinion that all candidates are reluctant to buck their party on issues of major importance.

[AgingAmerican]

9. Projection

Clumsy attempt to counter Hillary's recent flip flops into Democratic Socialist positions. More cognitive dissonance.