How do guns get into the hands of criminals and gang members????

That is what you do every time, except that you forget what you have said often enough.

 

Except it is a total complete lie that I never said , you did or some other bull(*)(*)(*)(*) gun hero did. without out lies and distortions the right wing wouldn't exist.

 

Well you are a Gun Ban Hero, and you tell many Lies and Distort many facts, and Ignore any good Gun facts you happen to understand will hurt your Gun Ban Hero cause.

 

Whatever you say Homer.

 

Doh !

lol... that was good !

 

If the above is not what you are saying, then precisely what is your issue about the existence of the protection of lawful commerce in arms act?

 

Perhaps the firearm manufacturers are not liable for their product being misused. But that fact did nothing to prevent them from being subjected to lawsuits on the basis that they were liable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/washington/10guns.html

Gun manufacturers have been sued dozens of times by city and state officials across the country, without success. But Daniel R. Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said on Monday that some individual victims of gun mayhem have won suits backed by the Brady Center against manufacturers as well as dealers.

Moreover, Mr. Vice said that a dozen cities in California, including Los Angeles and San Francisco, as well as Gary, Ind., have won suits against gun dealers, and that the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that Gary’s suit against gun manufacturers could proceed in state court.

Lawyers for New York City may have been hoping that the United States Supreme Court would hear its appeal because one member of the three-judge appeals court panel dissented last spring, arguing that the New York State Court of Appeals, the state’s highest tribunal, should have been asked to decide whether the state public nuisance law created an exception under the federal law. But that dissent was not enough to persuade the Supreme Court to take a look at the case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/18/us/gun-makers-see-betrayal-in-decision-by-smith-wesson.html

Lawsuits have been brought against a number of gun manufacturers by 28 cities and counties to hold them responsible for the damage done by their products and to improve gun safety. Discussions between the two sides to resolve the lawsuits have been under way since late last year.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...dustry-force-firearm-makers-gun-manufacturers

LOS ANGELES — Joining calls for tougher gun control in the wake of recent school shootings, Los Angeles and San Francisco on Tuesday filed lawsuits to force firearm makers to place greater restrictions on how their products are sold.

Rather than seeking to recover damages from crimes involving guns as Chicago, Detroit and several other cities have done, Los Angeles and San Francisco are using a state consumer-protection law normally applied to unsafe toys and baby cribs to force firearm makers to prevent their products from reaching criminals and children.

The momentum for tighter restrictions on firearms also was evident Tuesday on Capitol Hill, as Republican House leaders endorsed gun-control measures contained in a juvenile crime bill approved by the Senate last week.

"We support common-sense legislation that keeps guns out of the hands of unsupervised children," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) in a floor speech. Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) added that he hopes a bill would reach the House floor by mid-June.

In filing their suits, Los Angeles and San Francisco asserted that 35 gunmakers and industry groups, including Glock Inc., Smith & Wesson Inc., and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, violated California's Unfair Trade Practices Act by deceiving the public about the safety of their products.

The broad-based law covers any false claim or effort to mislead the public in a company's advertising, marketing strategies, contracts or internal documents. San Francisco used the law as the basis for its suit against the tobacco industry in 1996.

That suit, the first filed by a city, resulted in a $25 billion settlement paid by the tobacco industry to California.

To win their cases, New Orleans and other cities filing product-liability cases must prove that the gunmakers' responsibility outweighs the gun users' negligence. But under the California unfair practices law, Los Angeles and San Francisco can keep the focus on the firearms manufacturers.

"There have been hundreds of instances of fathers leaving guns on the table and kids finding them. We're looking past morally blaming a negligent father or a criminal who pulled the trigger," said Owen Clements, chief of special litigation in the San Francisco city attorney's office.

"We're looking down the street at the people who could have prevented this--the gun industry," he added.

Gun manufacturers blame federal and state governments for allowing guns to get into the wrong hands. "We rely on the licensing (of dealers by the) agencies at the federal and state level who oversee that activity," said Doug Painter, executive director of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents 1,600 gun manufacturers, retailers and distributors.

If gunmakers were to be held responsible for screening gun buyers, Painter added, "We as an industry would be forced to have our own police, which is not appropriate or legal."

The lawsuits charge that the gunmakers have over-saturated the market with more firearms than the legitimate market can support, thereby fueling illegal sales.

The suits claim that the manufacturers also exercise little or no control on dealers, and that many allow "straw sales" by people who illegally resell the weapons to minors, criminals or people living in communities that ban handgun sales.

The city attorneys said that 22 percent of guns sold in California are purchased through multiple sales.

Other allegations in the suits are that gunmakers refuse to install safety devices that would prevent unauthorized use of weapons; design easy-to-conceal, rapid-firing semi-automatic handguns to appeal to criminals; fail to design serial numbers that are difficult to obliterate, and market their products as "your safest choice for personal protection" while ignoring research showing that firearms increase risk of homicide, suicide and unintended injuries to owners.

"Studies have shown that a handgun in the home is at least 22 times more likely to kill or injure a household member than it is to kill or injure an intruder in self defense," said Los Angeles City Atty. James Hahn.

"Despite these statistics, handgun manufacturers and distributors continue to market their products for home defense in a way that ignores warnings or instructions about the safe use and storage of handguns."

Though the Los Angeles and San Francisco lawsuits contain no specified damages, the two

cities lawyers are seeking $2,500 for every violation of the law and a portion of "wrongfully-obtained" profits.

They mainly want the gunmakers to agree to voluntary controls, city attorneys said. Spray-paint manufacturers, who limit off-the-shelf sales to curtail gang graffiti, are among other industries that have policed themselves, the lawyers said.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Lawsuit-Asks-Jury-to-Find-Gun-Industry-Liable-for-2947801.php

Brooklyn, N.Y. -- Gail Fox seethes with the anger of a mother who protected her son year after year, only to see him shot senselessly while on a sidewalk. But her parental ire is focused on an unusual target.

She does not blame the child who accidentally fired the gun or the adult who bought it illegally or the gun trafficker who sold it out of a car trunk.

Instead, her rage is aimed at the firearms industry, and the vehicle for her anger is a lawsuit demanding that gun manufacturers as a whole be held liable for the harm done by their products.

"They make life-taking instruments that pour into our neighborhoods with no regulation," Fox said. "They know what's happening. They could control it, and so they should be held responsible."

A jury of 10 women and two men is deliberating that novel claim in a federal trial in Brooklyn that is being closely watched -- both because it could produce a landmark legal precedent and because it is certain to have an immediate impact on the politics of gun control.

Fox's 19-year-old son, Steven, who survived the shooting nearly five years ago, and relatives of six other shooting victims who died in separate incidents are seeking unspecified damages from more than 30 gun manufacturers and distributors. At the heart of their case is the allegation that the firearms industry is guilty of "collective liability" for fostering the development of an extensive underground market in handguns through negligent marketing methods and deliberate oversupply.

A similar charge arises in a $433 million lawsuit against the firearms industry filed by the city of Chicago in November. New Orleans also has sued gun manufacturers, although on different grounds. The cities of Boston, Atlanta and Miami have announced plans to file suits that will demand that the industry pay the law enforcement and medical costs of violent crime and accidental shootings. Other cities, including San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose, are also considering legal action.

Even if firearm manufacturers are not liable for the misuse of their product, they were still required to expend significant funding in court and attorney fees every time a suit was filed against them.

 

Firearms are constitutionally protected. Cigarettes are not. Firearm manufacturers have never claimed that their product was not dangerous if misused. Tobacco companies claimed their product to be perfectly safe under all instances, no exceptions. The two standards are not comparable to one another.

- - - Updated - - -

Pray tell where it was claimed otherwise.​

 

again your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) has said that I said and that I supported that the gun industry should be allowed to be sued for the illegal misuse of their product,. Never happened, I didn't even insinuate that , your argument now seems to be that the gun industry that is so destructive to our society and caused more pain and suffering than any other industry, should be specially treated like no other industry with a law that , bypasses the constitutional rights of everyone to file suit against all industries and all people except with your Crooked and evil law for just the gun industry, is that your new point now. Bull (*)(*)(*)(*), bull (*)(*)(*)(*), bull (*)(*)(*)(*). More crap from the scum party. And with this unpatriotic law , you come on here patting yourself on the back saying a line of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) about protecting the constitution and peoples rights, you must mean just some peoples rights. You people make me sick. This country gets uglier every day with your right wing hate party and everything that comes out of your mouth.

 

answer me hero , where did I say or support what you said I said and supported. Bull(*)(*)(*)(*)

 

By the way don't waste my time or yours , You would have had to of written something interested or a good point to even make me think to read 1/4 of what you wrote.

 

the waste of time comes from the people who pretend that their jihad against gun ownership is motivated by crime control

 

And yet they still rank less in funds.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XfNSixuZpyI

 

"jihad"?

now you're calling those who support more gun control, "terrorists"?

 

enemies of the US constitution for sure

 

Yawn....

 

I was saying how the NRA isn't getting their influence by bribing politicians. They are getting it by the pow pole speaking for their rights.

 

Your comment was in response to jbander's. My comment was really directed to him making a mountain out of a molehill in his campaign to demonize the NRA for doing what any group would do for its members...nobody cares, just hyperbole that falls on deaf ears ....

 

That is how I read your comment, from a good Irishman.

 

My gramma with her S&W Shield is not very mobile and too old for posse duty.

 

most against ex-felons owning guns or voting are on the right..... I agree they are enemies of the US constitution for sure

.

 

most Democrats want felons to vote because studies prove that felons, when they vote, vote Dem but the Left is even more against felons not being able to own gun. It was democrats that made DV misdemeanors a bar for gun ownership

 

Post limit thread closure notification.

Shangrila
Moderator