Last Night’s CNN New York Democratic Debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders once again exposed the issue of the vote Senator Bernie Sanders made to “prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.”
In the fall of 2005, the city of New York was preparing a mammoth lawsuit against 14 gun manufacturers and 27 distributors and dealers. The suit set out to prove that the gun industry bore a responsibility for the volume of guns illegally trafficked into the city.
To make its case, the city had marshaled significant evidence showing that gun manufacturers were unwilling to take simple steps to keep their guns out of criminals' hands—and even knowingly fed the criminal gun market. The lawsuit highlighted federal data from 1996 to 1998 that had traced more than 34,000 guns used to perpetrate crimes back to just 137 dealers. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms informed gun manufacturers every time a gun used in a crime was traced to their companies, information that would have made it easy for manufacturers to determine which of their distributors and dealers were supplying the black market, yet manufacturers continued to sell guns to those "bad apple" dealers.
link
(Emphasis mine)
New York was never allowed to bring it’s case. It was thrown out after the passage of the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act”. "New York was a very strong case," says Jonathan Lowy, an attorney at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence who worked on the case. "We were completely ready for trial."
The “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” (PLCAA) was sponsored by Senator Larry Craig (R-Foot tap). It was signed into law by W. on October 26, 2005. It passed the Republican controlled House of Representatives 283-144 with 6 not voting.
Congressman Bernie Sanders (I) joined with all but 4 Republicans in voting for passage of the bill “granting sweeping legal immunity to the gun industry”.
The bill passed the Senate 65-31 with 4 not voting (3 (R); 1 (D). Thirteen Democrats and Independent Jim Jeffords joined all but two Republicans in voting for passage of the PLCAA. Of the 13 Democrats that voted for passage, 8 were in seats that are now controlled by Republicans. Again:
Of the 13 Democrats who voted for passage of the PLCCA, 8 were in seats that are now controlled by Republicans.
House: www.govtrack.us/...
Senate: www.govtrack.us/...
I didn't breakout the numbers of the Democratic Representatives who voted for PLCAA and whose seats are now controlled by Republicans, but a quick perusal shows that they are overwhelmingly from more rural Congressional Districts. They were or are Democrats that consistently vote with Republicans and against progressive issues.
But here is the bottom line: Senator Sanders fashions himself as a progressive. And on most issues he is. I’ve been a supporter in the past and I will continue to be in the future. When he’s right on the issues. But in this case, he is not.
Senator Sanders will counter that his vote was specifically done to protect “small gun stores in rural America that serve the hunting community”. It is understandable — politically — that he chose to take the position that he did, though most Democratic House and Senate members disagreed at the time and then Senator Hillary Clinton joined her colleagues in voting no.
But Sanders' argument obfuscates the true impact of his vote—namely, that the lawsuits he helped derail once represented the most viable effort in decades to stem the flow of guns onto the black market.
Senator Sanders doesn’t get a pass on his support of the gun manufacturing industry via his vote for the PLCAA.
His vote was one of political expediency done for the express reason of getting rural Vermont votes.
It’s the move of a politician.
You can’t pretend that you’re above the fray and above politics and claim that that’s what your campaign represents when it is clear from this issue and others that that is not true. Bernie Sanders is a politician. He has been running for political office since 1971.
Senator Sanders is probably on record somewhere as being against every major corporation in the history of the USA.
But on this issue, conveniently, he wants the be a moderate, and take a commonsense approach.
Meh.