Senate to Vote on Shielding Gun Makers

From the NYT

Backers of a bipartisan bill that would shield firearms dealers and manufacturers from lawsuits are pushing for a vote this week in the Senate, injecting the volatile issue of gun control into this year's presidential and Congressional elections.

The bill, which would grant legal immunity to gun makers and dealers so long as they did not sell defective weapons or violate any law, has the support of the White House and 55 sponsors in the Senate, including the Democratic and Republican leaders. It has already passed the House and could come up for consideration in the Senate as early as Wednesday.

It appears that this is almost a done deal, with holdups being amendments added  that would extend the assault weapons ban, and to make gun show dealers responsible for doing backround checks.
So I'm wondering how the pro Dean faction here feels about it, given Deans previous high NRA ratings. Does anyone actually know where Dean stood on the immunity issue?
I wonder how kossians in general feel also. I know I am more then a little incensed over this.
 I mean how the f**k can they just give immunity to companies like this? Is this even constitutional?

Many Democrats have not forgotten that 1994, the year the assault weapons ban passed, was also the year they lost control of the House of Representatives. Tom Foley of Washington, then the speaker of the House, lost his race that year after the National Rifle Association ran an advertising campaign against him.

So is it really a political dead end like that smug bastard thinks?Is there no way to frame this to our viewpoint and advantage and make people see the reasonableness of rational arguements?Is this one of those political third rails, as many dems seem to think?

Unlike Mr. Bush, the two leading Democratic contenders, Senators John Edwards and John Kerry, oppose immunity.
"There are Democrats all over America cringing because they don't want to go down that path again," said Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the rifle association. "They know it's a political dead end."

Of course they're pretty safe. Daschle on the other hand is fighting for his political life

Opponents of immunity, including mayors and city police chiefs, say the threat of legal action forces manufacturers to make guns safer. They say the bill would result in the dismissal of valid civil suits, including one by families of the victims of the sniper attacks in the Washington area.

"The only reason gun manufacturers are attempting to make guns safer or develop systems like childproof locks is in response to the significant liability issue," said William J. Bratton, the Los Angeles police chief. "They're not doing it out of the goodness of their heart."

I just dont get it. Reasonable limits on gun ownership are not the end of the world.We regulate and restrict so many things , I just dont see what the problem is.And I especially cant see how you can give immunity to companies like this.

•  Good

  I don't know where Dean stands, but as far as I;m concerned this is a good thing.  It's legal to sell guns, so manufacturers ought not to be sued for making them.

  by Slade on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 03:42:04 AM PDT

•  responsibility

  Should you be able to sue a car maker because someone drove drunk in their vehicle?

  Rather than fill the courts with more bogus lawsuits, the government can just regulate gun sales/safety requirements as it sees fit. There are already numerous laws on the books.

  Bottom line: the effort to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens failed, and cost the Democratic Party big-time. And, frankly, they deserved it.

  by youwouldno on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 03:47:28 AM PDT

•  I guess Dean was right

  this race will be all about God, gays and guns. I get so sick of the whole thing. I wonder if the NRA knows how many pro-gun gays are out there. They'd rather make people believe that we all just flee from the room in tears every time those big, virile men pull out their rifles.

  by JamesB3 on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 04:27:44 AM PDT

•  Why should you be able to sue?

  If a gun blows up when you're using it, that's one thing, but why should you be able to sue if someone else uses a gun to shoot you?  It's the person who's at fault, not the gun.  

  There's already enough stuff that makes a mockery out of our legal system.  Frankly, people shouldn't be able to sue the tobacco companies either.  If you smoke and get cancer then it's your own damn fault.  Alcohol is about 10 times worse than tobacco and contributes to many crimes, as well as deaths through drunk driving and impaired judgement.  Yet no one sues the alcohol companies...  Our society is just moronic.  

  by Asak on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 10:20:38 AM PDT