Truth be told, you couldn’t put a piece of paper between Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’ and former First Lady Hillary Clinton’s position on gun control. So it’s no wonder that Clinton has been hammering Bern on his 2005 vote for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). As we explained, the PLCAA stops lawsuits for criminal use of their legal products, when they’re sold legally. Bernie has been defending his vote for months. A couple of days ago he gave up and threw his support behind a bill designed to strip the firearms industry of this protection – which would lead to its death by a thousand cuts. Bernie’s “flip-flop” above, and below in his pre-debate press release . . .
CHARLESTON, S.C. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Saturday made good on his promise to support legislation to amend a 2005 law on firearms manufacturers’ liability.
“I’m pleased that this legislation is being introduced,” Sanders said of proposals by Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Rep. Adam Schiff to rescind portions of a law granting broad immunity from lawsuits to gun manufacturers and dealers. “As I have said for many months now, we need to look at the underlying law and tighten it up,” Sanders added.
Sanders called it “good news” that the Senate and House bills proposed by Blumenthal and Schiff would leave in place provisions in the 2005 law that require child safety locks on guns and ban armor-piercing ammunition. “Those were important provisions that I did support,” he said.
Sanders also renewed his concern that the law should not subject the owners of small gun stores, which have not acted negligently, to lawsuits. “As I have said, I do want to make sure that this legislation does not negatively impact small gun stores in rural America that serve the hunting community. So I’m pleased to support the legislation and should it come up for consideration I would work to make sure it includes a provision that allows us to monitor its impact so that we may determine if it is having any unintended consequences.”
Sanders proposed amendment to the Blumenthal and Schiff bills would require the Commerce Department to monitor and report on the law’s impact in rural areas on the availability of hunting supplies, including firearms, sold by non-negligent local gun stores. Sanders amendment would add this section to the proposed legislation:
Sec. 3. Protection of non-negligent rural mom and pop hunting stores. The Secretary of Commerce shall monitor the impact of this statute, if any, on the availability of hunting supplies, including firearms, in rural communities from non-negligent local sellers. Within six months of enactment, and every six months thereafter, the Secretary shall transmit the results of the monitoring to the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate, respectively.
More proof leftists do not have a brain.
If that doesn’t convince you, how about Bernie’s comment on last night’s debate … something about how businesses destroyed the economy. I kid you not! The very businesses that ARE the economy somehow destroyed the economy.
I guess that fits right in with the idea that up is down, left is right, and black is white.
Lies, damn lies, and a statist with an agenda.
but what about mom and pop gun manufacturers there are many small business that make gun parts or even hole firearms for someone who supposedly loves the working class he seems to hate a major american blue collar industry.
I didn’t see that much bovine excrement at the dairy farm I used to drive past where they piled it up to decompose and sell as fertilizer. They could at least re-title it as the “Flagrantly Pandering to Fudds” amendment…
WTF? That would be equivalent to saying, the local Chevy dealer is selling vans to the local mafia but let’s sue Chevrolet for making vans!
I hate the r word, but this is just flat out retarded.
Words have meaning, not morality. The correct word is the correct word. In this case, retarded is a pretty good one.
I prefer the word “fucktard”,you probably already this but if you don’t,it means fucking retard.
Knee-jerk Marxism, go after the corporations.
FWIW, it’s already a federal crime “if people act as straw men.” One would expect a senior federal legislator to know as much. Except perhaps when his is in maximum pander mode.
Unfortunately it is not knee-jerk Marxism. It is carefully thought out, strategically planned Marxism.
It’s just raw, undiluted, populist pandering to the ambulance chasers. Until sanity, meaning the only civil suits allowed are over either 1)explicitly entered into contracts, or 2)the defendant has first been found criminally guilty, is restored, it will only get worse. About as retarded as “we” holding the only guy who despite a massive effort could not be proven to have killed OJs wife, somehow responsible for her death…. With the well indoctrinated, braindead dimwits cheering massa gommiment and their lawyer overlords on from the peanut gallery.
Hunting. It’s great that he wants to protect hunting, now how about he protects the second amendment while he’s at it! This short shortsightedness is remarkable. No, don’t sue the little stores. Just sue the pants of the big wealthy corporations that supply them. They can afford it. They’re not paying their fair share of taxes! They got infinite money! Makes lots of sense.
Is he under the impression that local gun shops manufacture their own goods?
So want an Ar-15 it comes from the Evil Smith & Wesson mega Corp.
You’re good wholesome bolt action though (that’s never been used maliciously or in war ?). That’s made in the back room, by loving hand.
Hell yeah, that’s what we need in this country, more law suits!
Sue Zippo and Exxon for arson. Sue Glock and GM for drive-by shootings. Sue Mc Donald’s and Taco Bell for heart disease. Sue KY and Trojan for rape. Sue Miller-Coolers and Jack Daniels for liver disease. Sue Pespi and Coke for diabetes.
Let no one take any responsibility for their actions. We are all just innocent, little purple penguins. free from choice or strife.
Sue gun manufactures when someone uses a product they made to kill someone, then sue car manufactures when someone kills someone while driving under the influence.
We’ll call that law “Close the manufacturer death and injury liability loophole Act”.
Alcohol brewers and distillers shall also be held liable.
“then sue car manufactures when someone kills someone while driving under the influence.”
Why so picky about DUI? Sue car manufacturers whenever there is a death caused by an automobile accident of any kind! Sue the manufacturer with the most cash at the time, who cares if its vehicles were even involved?
Or why not come full circle: Sue someone for not engaging in enough sue worthy behavior to make the ambulance chasers wealthy enough. That’s the whole point of this, after all: to transfer as much wealth and influence from productive people to lackeys of the state as possible.
Hillary has insanely restrictive gun legislation proposals / intentions. To get her votes, Sanders needs to match her rhetoric. Is this surprising to anybody? Bernie was OK with respect to guns in VT because if he wasn’t, he would not get re-elected. But now, running for the Dem nomination, he has nothing to lose. And his true communist colors are showing. You’re a fool if you think that Sanders is or ever was a friend of the 2A.
I don’t understand this guys appeal to the Democratic voters except the free $#!+ he keeps saying is coming. If this guy is elected the USA is likely doomed as all the big business will leave due to over taxation and law suits.
His proposals will kill the small businesses too. Increased taxes and increased regulatory burden.
Negative, ghost rider.
Rich people and corporations own this country, and the politicians, as well. Do you think the Bern is running on his own dime, like Trump?
Nope, he is borrowing money and writing “IOU’s.” He isn’t going to change anything any more than Obama did. It’s all rhetoric; the rich people and corporations aren’t going to “donate” piles of money just to get taxed out the nose, to the tune of 90%, later on down the road.
All the free sh*t he is promising isn’t going to be put on the backs of rich folks, it’s going to be put on ours–the same people he is promising the “free” stuff to.
The Bern has already been bought, sold, and paid for, just like the rest of them.
I don’t know RockOnHellChild … I have heard many well-to-do Progressives vigorously advocate for handing over a lot of money (including a lot of their own money) to “underpriveleged” people via taxes. A mass case of “white guilt” maybe?
It’s all talk and no walk.
It’s easy to talk a big game when the current tax laws allows for right offs and deductions.
Purpose a flat 50, 60, or even 70% gross tax rate and see how quickly their tune changes.
He’s running for president, not King of Congress.
You mean he’s running for president just like our current king did? Mr. I have a pen and a cell phone. If Congress won’t do anything I will act myself. The current communist in chief has set the stage for the next guy to do whatever the hell he wants. Is congress going to do anything? Doubtful.
What Sanders lacks in his efforts to destroy gun rights, he makes up for with his lack of understanding of fundamental economics. He can’t possibly see anyway this is going to affect his precious Vermont mom and pop gun dealers? Just another clueless old hippie.
“…Sanders called it “good news” that the Senate and House bills proposed by Blumenthal and Schiff would leave in place provisions in the 2005 law that require child safety locks on guns and ban armor-piercing ammunition. “Those were important provisions that I did support,” he said…”
Is there even a single case of AP ammo used in a crime in the USA?
Tax and sue the evil house of (D).
If you’re a POS liberal / progressive / communist blue (D) you are responsible for the ills of the world and you should pay the bill.
Democrat candidate “all in” death watch for two anti gunners despite public support for arms. Meanwhile the hope is the FBI hammer drops Hillary and Americans confirming Bern is a nut job with the possibility of drafting Uncle Joe…l’m watching the DNC blow the bridge while the train falls onto a sinking ship in slow motion.
Not sure if I should cheer as an individual or cry for what this nation is becoming.
Add a “Loser pays” clause to the legislation.
After the Lucky Gunner lawsuit fiasco, Brady and company may have a hard time lining up potential clients.
Actually, what we need is a “Loser’s Lawyer Pays” clause. In most cases, if a judgement for costs are awarded to a defendant who prevails at trail, the plaintiff walks away from the judgement, or declares bankruptcy.
These cases are always contingency based fee cases, meaning the lawyer fronts the costs, hoping he will win, and get 1/3-1/2 of the judgement/settlement. Even if the case is a loser, he gets the publicity, which leads to paying clients in other not so high profile cases. Making the lawyer liable for all costs, including the prevailing defendant’s legal fees would stop most frivolous lawsuits.
Attorney’s fees” and “costs” are two separate categories. As it is, the plaintiff’s attorney is out everything he fronted, which can amount to hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars in some cases. He is also out all of the tie devoted to the case. Meanwhile, most defense costs and attorneys fees are paid for by insurance when the case arises out of a tort. On the other hand, a lot of commercial (breach of contract) type litigation involves contracts with attorney’s fees and costs provisions (i.e. loser pays), and neither side has insurance coverage. As to the latter, a loser pays requirement makes sense, in tort litigation, not so much, absent a frivolous claim (and for which sanctions are available in many courts and the federal court system).
Frivolous claims are precisely the question, the whole idea is to use court costs to bankrupt manufacturers.
I watched Bernie Sanders debate for the first time last night, I wouldn’t want that childish old fool for my President. He mentally and physically cannot handle the presidency. How he has such a following I don’t know.
People want free stuff. He’s promising them that and more. And by ‘more’ I mean less, because if, for example, he implements $15/h minimum wage, he’ll just make lots of folks instantly unemployed (and unemployable). So while a small percentage of people will earn more, most will be worse off. Of course everything will go up in price, so even earning more won’t mean much. But all this free stuff, free money and more benefits nonsense sounds good to people, so they like him and want to vote for him. Which just shows how illiterate our society is when it comes to even simple economics. But try to explain this to people and see how quickly you’ll be called an a-hole.
The reason he has a following at all is because odumbo can’t run again and hillary will most likely be sitting in a federal prison.He’s that garbage that you scrape from the bottom of the barrel.
His following has a lot of millennials with a Utopian idealism that has yet to be tarnished when confronted with reality. It is not “free stuff,” it is a belief that the government should provide basic housing, food, education and medical care to all of its citizens. Government as mother. Or as parents, if you prefer.
If they want to give out free stuff,fine,I’ll take a mansion sitting on a thousand acres,five new cars and trucks sitting in the driveway,and a million a month in spending money.Oh,I’ll need a private jet so I can experience different cultures first hand.I’ll also need an allowance so I can buy all the expensive guns I want.
The poor bastard would have been better off if he’d stuck to his guns. Hillary accomplished what she set out to do – to make him publicly shift on a hot button issue, thus looking unreliable.
This is so bass ackwards its insane if their actual goal was stopping crime. Protecting point of sale that actually interfaces with customers and might do shady (like sell to ATF strawbuyers) instead of manufacturers who don’t even touch the end user. But since the goal is to make it impossible to sell guns and make a profit, it achieves its legislative aims.
I remember all the Bernie fans that where popping up here 6 months ago talking up how Bernie was a friend to gun owners and a defender of the 2A. A man of integrity they said. An idealist that was true to his word they claimed. Where are they now?
Feeling the Bern…?
LOL! You mean gonorrhea?
Wouldn’t that be feeling the Shannon…?
I’ll take two please
I’m a “Bernie fan”. I have never said that the guy is pro-gun. What I said is that he’s less anti-gun than Clinton, in a way that is not quite as obvious, but very important. Let me reiterate that argument.
TL;DR: the big difference between Hillary and Bernie on guns isn’t what they want or do not want to ban and/or regulate, but in how much they care about it.
Hillary clearly sees gun control as her personal crusade at this point. She desperately needed something like that – basically, something that would be to her what ACA was to Obama – because on all other issues she’s too moderate to present or incite any sort of passion, and in this electoral climate passion is something that voters look in a candidate (hence the successes of Sanders on the left, and Trump, Cruz and Carson on the right). I doubt it’s a sincere point of conviction for her, in a sense that she doesn’t really seem to have any, being a bona fide career politician. But she probably looked at the polls and at growing partisan polarization, realized that anyone who cares enough about guns wouldn’t vote for her for other reasons anyway, and decided to put it on her banner large and proud. If she is elected, she will have pursue this further to score points with her electorate.
Now, if you look at Bernie’s remarks on gun control, they’re always reactive, prompted. He doesn’t go on the stage to say a fiery 40-minute speech on guns, the way he does on income inequality. He reacts when Hillary and others call him out on it, and his reactions are basically just long and prominent enough to rebutt them, but not anymore. Based on his entire political track record, it just really isn’t important for him, and I bet that he sees this issue as something detracting from his main message, which is all about economic and social inequality. Guns are pretty much completely orthogonal to that, so while he may have a personal opinion on them (and it’s likely more anti-gun than pro-gun), it’s just not a part of his politics.
I bet he’s really annoyed that this issue is used to attack him, and so he does the motions expected from a Democratic candidate to dodge it and secure the primary, but beyond that? I would expect him to downplay it even in the general, and if elected, I very much doubt he’d be proactive about it (i.e. he’d sign a law if Congress were to submit one; but Congress is not going to be majority Democrat in both chambers anytime soon, so it’s not happening). He has too much other fish to fry on the matters that are the core of his political message. Look at Obama who didn’t touch guns at all until he had ACA secure – and what Sanders wants to do is much, much bigger than ACA.
The other side of it is that Bernie is a curious blend of idealist and pragmatist. He has very specific and fairly extreme ideas, and he openly voices them and sticks to them, but he doesn’t go for all-or-nothing (like those Republicans voting for the 40th time to repeal ACA, knowing that it’s a meaningless vote). If you look at the bills that he sponsored or co-sponsored while in the Senate, he’s actually quite good at compromising and tit-for-tat, even across party boundaries. So basically he’ll draw a line in the sand and say that it’s the ultimate goal, but he’s quite willing to walk there inch by inch, trading things for every step, so long as it’s in the direction of that line.
Given the likely distribution of seats in Congress, he’ll need that skill if he is a president, that’s for sure. It also means that he’ll need some cards to trade for those compromises. Logically speaking, you trade the least valuable things – the ones you care about least – first, especially if your opponent values them highly. So gun control would be the most natural thing for him to surrender in return for some concessions from Republicans (or Democrats from more conservative states) on his economic policy projects.
So even if there’s no difference whatsoever in the words that Hillary and Sanders say on the subject of gun control (and there still is), there is a big difference in what deeds those words would translate to if they’re elected.
This, in turn, leads to another point that I want to make.
Many people here proudly declare themselves to be single-issue on guns – as in, they will consider the candidate’s gun stance before anything else, and reject them if it’s not good enough.
Obviously, those people would have some Republican candidate (probably Cruz at this point) as their favorite. However, it doesn’t hurt to hedge your bets if Republicans don’t win. If you’re truly single issue, you won’t have any love for either Bernie or Hillary, but you have to admit that under President Clinton, attacks on gun rights are both more likely, and will probably be more severe, than under President Sanders.
So, if your state has an open Democratic primary or caucus, I urge you to go there, hold your nose, and vote for Sanders. These are the affected states: AL, AR, GA, ID, IN, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, ND, SC, TN, VA, VT, WA, WI. Here is the detailed state-by-state instruction on how to register, attend and vote.
If Democrats don’t win the race, it doesn’t matter. If they do, you’ll thank me later. 😉
He should have just called out Hillary on the fact that the only thing she wants to do is sue firearm manufactures out of business. He should state the law only protects manufactures from lawsuits whose only goal is to put firearm manufactures out of business. That it has nothing to do with keeping firearms out of the wrong hands. She wants to keep firearms out of everyone’s hands. That Hillary basically wants to use civil courts to kill the second amendment.
That argument won’t fly with the gnat brains that make up the base and hate guns anyway. Corporations are the inherent source of all that is EVIL, therefore that is where the battle must be enjoined.
No, I was hopping he would make her look even more extreme and pull away the center votes.
Last night Senator B.S. also said that he would work hard to make straw buys illegal under Federal law.
Now that’s a new idea!! Right????
I feel safe already!
If a gun chambers and fires a bullet, it’s working as designed. The target of the bullet is up to the human controlling the gun.
Did the gun fire without injuring the operator? If it did, the manufacturer isn’t at fault. The item performed to specification.
If you are going to seek legal action against someone, the person operating it might be a better target, if he or she is still alive.
I seriously doubt that ghetto trash has anything that could be awarded in a lawsuit.If the government is going to play the part of parents to grown able bodied people,maybe they should be the one’s to have to pay for damages these criminals inflict on our society.It’s about time the government took the side of the victims when a criminal does his thing.If a citizen is shot while being robbed,raped,ect.,ect.,the victim should automatically collect ten million from the feds,maybe the ten million should come out of the budget of the ATF or the FBI,or maybe the attorney generals budget.Maybe after these federal agencies paid out a few lawsuits,they would get the incentive to enforce the law.If a gun manufacturer can be sued in a bullshit lawsuit,if the gun manufacturer wins the lawsuit,then they should have the right to counter sue and the federal government should have to pay what the loser is ordered to pay,but can’t.
Anyone who would blame an auto company for a drunk driver running someone over (which is the same thing) is absolutely crazy and/or mentally retarded. No concept of justice whatsoever. I am ashamed these people live in the United States.
And cars don’t even have a constitutional amendment amendment protecting them.
He just proved without a doubt that he is either crazy or senile or both.
This guy gives commies a bad name. Let’s sue the people making a legitimate product but not the guys who might actually be looking the other way for straw purchasers. What a moron.
So… car companies get sued for building dangerous assault vehicles, spoon and fork manufacturers are clearly responsible for making me fat… this is a joke, right, Bernie?
Like any other lawsuit,in the end,only the lawyers will benefit,I would hazard a guess that most members of the federal government have a law degree and will go back to practicing law after they are no longer in office so they can benefit from the laws they helped pass when they were in office.If they pass this into law,keep an eye on the lawyers that are doing the suing.When the government went after the cigarette industry,the only ones to receive any money was the government and it’s lawyers.I’ve been a life long smoker and I didn’t get any of that payout.
The attorneys who go back to practicing law after ending their political careers do not go back to being prosecutors or litigators, but instead become consultants to people and corporations that want to do business with the government. Just as retired generals go to work for defense contractors or lobbyists. Far mnore lucrative with far less effort.
Wow someone actually watched the dem “debate”?!? So what is O’Malley aiming for? VP or an appointment? Old Bernie is the old fart we all thought he was. A clueless communist…and what’s going on with the Wisconsin gun store successfully sued for letting an(obvious) straw purchase go through? And shooting 2 cops? THEY weren’t manufacturers…
The thing that puzzles me is, if gun control is such an important issue for democrats, the why is No’Malley, who is the most strident anti-gun candidate out there, with a long record of doing damage to gun rights, polling at less than 2%??
As far as I’m concerned, if you’re a gun owning democrat, the only friend you had, was Jim Webb, and he’s out of the race.
If Bernie somehow gets the nomination, I predict a beatdown the likes of which hasn’t been seen since Walter Mondale’s ill fated run.
If only we could count on the democrats to nominate the poor old fool
the illogic is stunning. If the law allows lawyers to sue gun manufacturers into oblivion, the mom and pop gun store owners will have nothing to sell, even if they are immune from suit (except when negligent, as is the law currently), and will have to go out of business. I mean like, Duh!
That right there is bat $hit stupid. But what it illustrates is the life and death importance of who will be making the Supreme Court appointments and further who will approve or reject said appointments.
Bernie sanders drinking game:
Every time he says he’s going to give you something for free without explaining how it’s going to be paid for, take a sip of someone else’s beer.
-D
Too GD funny.^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bernie won’t win the nomination. He may derail HRC, but he WON’T be the nominee. Neither will O’Malley. It will be some dark horse like, say JOEY McMENSA!!!
So if he supports suing the manufacturer for making a gun that was used to kill someone, surely we can sue the perp’s parents for making the finger that pulled the trigger?
Can anyone please explain why godless communist jews like Bernie sanders thinks that only old rural vermont people
(white folks) need guns, since he says that is the reason why he voted the way he did?
And why to do communist gun owners troll this web site trying to fit in? I have been reading the comments of Sanders supporters on TTAG since June of last year.
Since power comes out of a gun the progressive believes only the government should have guns. That has always been the end game for people like Bernie Sanders.
This site is actively astroturfed. A percentage of posts, posters who are paid to be disruptive and steer conversations and discussions in certain directions.
@int19h: I’m interested in why you’re a “Bernie fan” and how you can overlook Bernie’s flip-flops on things like protecting the manufacturing industry from frivolous lawsuits? Also, how many Sanders SCOTUS appointees are going to have his same (as you claim, nonchalant) views on guns? If Sanders, as you point out, is completely invested in single-payer healthcare, “free” college, paid family medical leave, $15/hr minimum wage, and everything else that fits into his $18 Trillion Dollar Free Shit Express locomotive, do you think he’s going to find 1 (or up to 3) diamond(s) in the rough that agree with that kind of big government but trusts individuals with firearms ownership? I don’t think Clinton or Trump will be any better with SCOTUS appointees; then again, I’m not supporting any of those ass holes either.
Comments are closed.