Jump to content

Hillary being a cunt on gun control


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 453
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Not really. Discussing the question with someone who can't tell the difference between these two rounds...     ...would be a discussion with either a moron or a victim of mental illness

One aspect of the fun does continue for me. This one: Even the famously independent Sanders could not break the TeamD tribal taboos surrounding gun control. Something that continues today, a

Posted Images

The level of obstruction of trace data evidence is stunning.

 

In both 2007 andf 2009, the Tiahrt measures were rolled back. At present, the key problems are:

--NICS background check records are still destroyed within 24 hours:

--ATF still does not have the power to require dealer inventory checks to detect lost and stolen guns:

--State and local authorities are still restricted from using trace data to fully investigate corrupt gun dealers and traffickers.

  • The Tiahrt Amendment restricts access of state and local law enforcement authority to gun trace data, hindering municipal police departments' ability to track down sellers of illegal guns, to investigate gun trafficking patterns, and to make connections between individual gun-related crimes.[14]
  • The Tiahrt Amendment requires that NICS background check records be destroyed within 24 hours, and this makes it harder for law enforcement authorities to catch law-breaking gun dealers who falsify their records.
  • The Tiahrt Amendment denies the ATF the authority to require dealer inventory checks to detect lost and stolen guns. Under current rules, the ATF can conduct a warrantless search of any licensed gun dealer once per year.[17]

 

Tiahrt: Industry pressure hides gun traces, protects dealers from public scrutiny

By James V. Grimaldi and Sari Horwitz Washington Post Staff Writers

Sunday, October 24, 2010; 6:00 AM

Under the law, investigators cannot reveal federal firearms tracing information that shows how often a dealer sells guns that end up seized in crimes. The law effectively shields retailers from lawsuits, academic study and public scrutiny. It also keeps the spotlight off the relationship between rogue gun dealers and the black market in firearms.

...

Such information used to be available under a simple Freedom of Information Act request. But seven years ago, under pressure from the gun lobby, Congress blacked out the information by passing the so-called Tiahrt amendment, named for Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.). The law removed from the public record a government database that traces guns recovered in crimes back to the dealers.

"It was extraordinary, and the most offensive thing you can think of," said Chuck Wexler, director of the Police Executive Research Forum, a nonprofit group for police chiefs. "The tracing data, which is now secret, helped us see the big picture of where guns are coming from."

...

For years, the ATF had been releasing tracing data that was at least a year old. A Freedom of Information Act lawsuit pushed for contemporaneous data, but the ATF balked because it felt that the release of real-time trace data could threaten investigations. The standoff landed in the Supreme Court.

In February 2003, before oral arguments, the NRA persuaded Rep. George R. Nethercutt (R-Wash.) to add a provision codifying the time delay into a 544-page omnibus spending bill. In a dramatic move, the high court canceled arguments. The case eventually was tossed out.

Next, the gun lobby moved to take the trace data out of public circulation altogether. In July 2003, Tiahrt introduced his amendment, saying, "I wanted to make sure I was fulfilling the needs of my friends who are firearms dealers."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/23/AR2010102302996_2.html?sid=ST2010102304311>

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jokeawf, do you wish a good guy with a gun had prevented your wife from being raped or not? Simple question. If not, why not. Do you wish you had been there to possibly defend her? If not, why not?

 

And if no is your answer, does your wife know this about you that you would rather see her raped than defended?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It IS the day, as you already found out....

 

I don't need to tell you that arms manufacture is big big business. The USA is the no 1 exporter of arms with almost a third of the world wide market. Mostly there are calls worldwide to prevent the prolification of arms.

 

Arms manufacturers don't need protection; not at all, not even domestically.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jokeawf, do you wish a good guy with a gun had prevented your wife from being raped or not? Simple question. If not, why not. Do you wish you had been there to possibly defend her? If not, why not?

 

And if no is your answer, does your wife know this about you that you would rather see her raped than defended?

Get lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It IS the day, as you already found out....

 

I don't need to tell you that arms manufacture is big big business. The USA is the no 1 exporter of arms with almost a third of the world wide market. Mostly there are calls worldwide to prevent the prolification of arms.

 

Arms manufacturers don't need protection; not at all, not even domestically.

 

 

How did we get from talking about frivolous lawsuits to talking about our exports of things like fighter jets? Those things are a bit different.

 

Our arms manufacturers need protection from frivolous lawsuits. That's why even people like Bernie Sanders voted for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It IS the day, as you already found out....

 

I don't need to tell you that arms manufacture is big big business. The USA is the no 1 exporter of arms with almost a third of the world wide market. Mostly there are calls worldwide to prevent the prolification of arms.

 

Arms manufacturers don't need protection; not at all, not even domestically.

 

 

How did we get from talking about frivolous lawsuits to talking about our exports of things like fighter jets? Those things are a bit different.

 

Our arms manufacturers need protection from frivolous lawsuits. That's why even people like Bernie Sanders voted for it.

 

Never mentioned fighter jets. That's your furphy. (your style really)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Better yet, should USG be held responsible for the murder of innocent children with weapons suppled to "freedom fighters" affiliated with AQ or IS in Syria, Libya or Iraq?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey pinoco - direct question for you:

 

Should car manufacturers be held liable if their car is used to deliberately run someone over?

 

Should alcohol distilleries be held liable if someone drinks themselves to death?

 

Welcome to the third grader trail.

If an argument can be dumbed down far enough, a gun extremist will always win the argument.

--Car manufactures have responded to mandated safety requirements and inspections, or else.

--Liquor distillers have reluctantly produced PSA's per court requirement.

 

******************************

 

Criminals want "clean" guns, with no bodies on them.

The very supply of guns to these criminals is an issue here, not just the strawman alert brand of gun used in a killing.

Some gun stores have a certain reputation, but they needn't fear prosecution.

Their broad, unusual PLCAA immunity allows more gun sales, albeit to criminals, so why should they act improve public safety?

 

Besides that, a jury of my peers may rightfully think ill of the manufacturer of any excessively misused AR-15.

It might think ill of the K-Mart that sold it. Let the gun product suppliers face their day in court, it would help to control this mess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jokeawf, do you wish a good guy with a gun had prevented your wife from being raped or not? Simple question. If not, why not. Do you wish you had been there to possibly defend her? If not, why not?

 

And if no is your answer, does your wife know this about you that you would rather see her raped than defended?

Get lost.

 

 

Firearms are, in the case of potential crime victims, particularly women and the elderly, a force equalizer. They protect people from harm. They are tools to protect property. And they are tools to prevent rape.

If a woman is armed, it is often the case that an attacker will not get the upper hand in these kind of situations. Armed citizens intervene everyday to prevent violence and other forms of criminal behavior.

An elderly woman was at home in Big Sur, Calif. when a pair of men armed with knives broke into her house and attempted to rape her. During the incident the woman was able to ...

A woman was at home in Billings, Mont. when she went to her car to retrieve her purse. Upon grabbing the purse, the woman heard a suspicious noise and drew a .380-caliber pistol from the ...

 

A woman was at her Van Zandt County, Texas home when she became aware of a man attempting to gain access to the house through a side door. The woman retrieved a gun and shot

 

So, again, do you not wish that your wife's attack had been prevented by an armed citizen? Do you not wish that she herself had been able to prevent the attack with a gun?

Stop the name calling. Stop the pretense. Stand up like a man and answer the questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Yes I totally agree that suing a manufacturer for frivolous reasons is well... frivolous. However you can't sue them for non-frivolous issues too.

 

Actually, you can. Badlat tried to edit around it in that other thread, but the law that is the subject of this thread clearly says that suing manufacturers for non-frivolous reasons like product defects is OK.

 

Speaking of dicks, it looks like the efforts of Democrat lobbyists to pursue more gun control don't stop at the Presidential level.

 

Dem Congresscritters Being Cunts On Gun Control

 

“Congress passed a unique form of immunity for only one industry — and that is the gun industry,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told The Hill in an interview.

 

“If you’re a carmaker and your airbags kill someone, you’re potentially liable,” continued Schiff, one of the lawmakers behind the gun control bill. “If you’re a pharmaceutical company and sell faulty drugs, you can be held liable. If you’re a liquor store and sell alcohol to minors, you can be held liable."

 

“Why should it be any different for gun manufacturers?” he asked.

 

 

The answer to his question, of course, is that it's not different.

 

"[Clinton's statement] doesn't appear to be completely accurate," said Adam Winkler, professor of law at UCLA and author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, in an email to NPR. "The 2005 law does not prevent gun makers from being held liable for defects in their design. Like car makers, gun makers can be sued for selling a defective product. The problem is that gun violence victims often want to hold gun makers liable for the criminal misuse of a properly functioning product."

 

 

The relevant section of the law was posted by badlat, with a little help from me, in another thread:

 

 

 

shall not include—

 

"(5) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or

 

 

(My contribution was the red part that badlat somehow missed...)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

People control tools, not the other way around.

 

...

People control cars, but there are licenses, registration, age limits, speed limits, red light cameras, speed cameras, highway patrol cars yearly mechanical checks, airbags, oh and the freedom to sue manufacturers (strangely enough).

 

 

 

As noted repeatedly, we can sue gun manufacturers, just not for reckless and unintended uses of their products. Speaking of which...

 

 

Hey pinoco - direct question for you:

 

Should car manufacturers be held liable if their car is used to deliberately run someone over?

 

Should alcohol distilleries be held liable if someone drinks themselves to death?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

People control tools, not the other way around.

 

...

People control cars, but there are licenses, registration, age limits, speed limits, red light cameras, speed cameras, highway patrol cars yearly mechanical checks, airbags, oh and the freedom to sue manufacturers (strangely enough).

 

 

As noted repeatedly, we can sue gun manufacturers, just not for reckless and unintended uses of their products. Speaking of which...

 

 

Hey pinoco - direct question for you:

 

Should car manufacturers be held liable if their car is used to deliberately run someone over?

 

Should alcohol distilleries be held liable if someone drinks themselves to death?

 

 

You still haven't read or cannot acknowledge Professor Goldberg's conclusion? You are determined to mischievously imply something other than what was a very simply expressed expert opinion on law! It's like you are completely blinkered Tom. This is not a debate much less a conversation. It's as low brow as your pro gun websites and their adolescent and emotive essays.

 

Car manufacturers and purveyors of alchohol have been sued. I can do the same thing of endlessly listing the controls and legislation for those industries too. Curiously stricter controls in the USA than a lot of other 1st world countries.

 

Just not guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am Tom Ray, and I quote myself a lot.

 

 

I am Tom Ray, here to tell you about Tom Ray

 

 

One, day, Tom Ray said to me, Tom Ray...

 

 

(My contribution was the red part that badlat somehow missed...)

 

I am Tom Ray, the guy who schooled BadLat and then talked about howTom Ray schooled BadLat

 

Thanks Tom. Thanks for quoting yourself again. Three times in one post.

Do you plan to quote yourself all day tomorrow, too?

 

Tom, you're a sharp guy, what would you conclude about another poster who quoted himself incessantly?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

People control cars, but there are licenses, registration, age limits, speed limits, red light cameras, speed cameras, highway patrol cars yearly mechanical checks, airbags, oh and the freedom to sue manufacturers (strangely enough).

 

 

As noted repeatedly, we can sue gun manufacturers, just not for reckless and unintended uses of their products. Speaking of which...

 

 

Hey pinoco - direct question for you:

 

Should car manufacturers be held liable if their car is used to deliberately run someone over?

 

Should alcohol distilleries be held liable if someone drinks themselves to death?

 

 

You still haven't read or cannot acknowledge Professor Goldberg's conclusion? You are determined to mischievously imply something other than what was a very simply expressed expert opinion on law! It's like you are completely blinkered Tom. This is not a debate much less a conversation. It's as low brow as your pro gun websites and their adolescent and emotive essays.

 

Car manufacturers and purveyors of alchohol have been sued. I can do the same thing of endlessly listing the controls and legislation for those industries too. Curiously stricter controls in the USA than a lot of other 1st world countries.

 

Just not guns.

 

 

You didn't answer JBSF's question. Being sued is one thing. Being sued for reckless and unintended misuse of their products is another.

 

If it has happened to car makers, I haven't seen it.

 

Will you admit that Adam Winkler is right?

 

Adam Winkler, professor of law at UCLA and author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, in an email to NPR. "The 2005 law does not prevent gun makers from being held liable for defects in their design. Like car makers, gun makers can be sued for selling a defective product. The problem is that gun violence victims often want to hold gun makers liable for the criminal misuse of a properly functioning product."

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't answer JBSF's question. Being sued is one thing. Being sued for reckless and unintended misuse of their products is another.

 

If it has happened to car makers, I haven't seen it.

 

Will you admit that Adam Winkler is right?

 

Adam Winkler, professor of law at UCLA and author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, in an email to NPR. "The 2005 law does not prevent gun makers from being held liable for defects in their design. Like car makers, gun makers can be sued for selling a defective product. The problem is that gun violence victims often want to hold gun makers liable for the criminal misuse of a properly functioning product."

 

Do you have any examples of this ever occurring?

 

A bit further up-thread we argued for a bit about Baretta being sued, but eventually even you did not seem to dispute that they had given up in the case because they had been proved to be aware of a potential safety issue, and had not added a warning to the product as they had promised to.

 

It's called negligence, and shirly no law will protect them from that.

 

And of course, it only got that far because somehow the father who left his gun lying around got let off by the courts. fuckin liberal judges...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You didn't answer JBSF's question. Being sued is one thing. Being sued for reckless and unintended misuse of their products is another.

 

If it has happened to car makers, I haven't seen it.

 

Will you admit that Adam Winkler is right?

 

Adam Winkler, professor of law at UCLA and author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, in an email to NPR. "The 2005 law does not prevent gun makers from being held liable for defects in their design. Like car makers, gun makers can be sued for selling a defective product. The problem is that gun violence victims often want to hold gun makers liable for the criminal misuse of a properly functioning product."

 

Do you have any examples of this ever occurring?

 

A bit further up-thread we argued for a bit about Baretta being sued, but eventually even you did not seem to dispute that they had given up in the case because they had been proved to be aware of a potential safety issue, and had not added a warning to the product as they had promised to.

 

It's called negligence, and shirly no law will protect them from that.

 

And of course, it only got that far because somehow the father who left his gun lying around got let off by the courts. fuckin liberal judges...

 

 

I think the Beretta lawsuit was frivolous because they were being sued due to reckless misuse of their product, not any flaw in the product itself.

 

They had indeed settled a previous frivolous lawsuit and promised to put a warning on the gun, but a gun is only so big so they put a warning to read the manual instead of trying to etch every possible warning into the gun itself.

 

Negligent is not reading the manual. Negligent is leaving the gun accessible to the kid. Negligent is not knowing how your gun (and most semiautomatics) operate. Negligent is failing to train kids in firearms safety. Beretta didn't do any of those things. The owner did.

 

Negligent is pointing a gun at a friend and pulling the trigger. Beretta didn't do that either. A kid did.

 

Because we don't treat minor offenders as adults, killing his friend was not considered a crime. That's the reason the PLCAA was said not to apply. I think it reveals a problem in the law, which should say "reckless misuse" instead of "criminal misuse" so it can cover frivolous lawsuits brought because of reckless actions by kids too.

 

If a gun works properly, pointing it at a friend and pulling the trigger is indeed a potential safety issue. It's not one that can be designed out of the gun. It's one that needs to be trained out of the user.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You didn't answer JBSF's question. Being sued is one thing. Being sued for reckless and unintended misuse of their products is another.

Do you have any examples of this ever occurring?

 

A bit further up-thread we argued for a bit about Baretta being sued, but eventually even you did not seem to dispute that they had given up in the case because they had been proved to be aware of a potential safety issue, and had not added a warning to the product as they had promised to.

 

It's called negligence, and shirly no law will protect them from that.

 

And of course, it only got that far because somehow the father who left his gun lying around got let off by the courts. fuckin liberal judges...

 

I think the Beretta lawsuit was frivolous because they were being sued due to reckless misuse of their product, not any flaw in the product itself.

 

They had indeed settled a previous frivolous lawsuit and promised to put a warning on the gun, but a gun is only so big so they put a warning to read the manual instead of trying to etch every possible warning into the gun itself.

 

If you had read my post, or indeed the case itself, you would have noticed that they did _NOT_ put a warning in the manual.

Talk about reckless and negligent. Slam dunk fee for the lawyers. No point at all in risking punitive damages.

Hence they folded.

Negligent is not reading the manual. Negligent is leaving the gun accessible to the kid. Negligent is not knowing how your gun (and most semiautomatics) operate. Negligent is failing to train kids in firearms safety. Beretta didn't do any of those things. The owner did.

I totally agree.

Now, why the owner got off? This I don't know. Do you have a link?

It is this clown not being convicted of anything that caused this whole mess for Beretta and the sheriff.

Negligent is pointing a gun at a friend and pulling the trigger. Beretta didn't do that either. A kid did.

 

Because we don't treat minor offenders as adults, killing his friend was not considered a crime. That's the reason the PLCAA was said not to apply. I think it reveals a problem in the law, which should say "reckless misuse" instead of "criminal misuse" so it can cover frivolous lawsuits brought because of reckless actions by kids too.

 

If a gun works properly, pointing it at a friend and pulling the trigger is indeed a potential safety issue. It's not one that can be designed out of the gun. It's one that needs to be trained out of the user.

Sorry, this is a stupid argument.

There was an obvious crime committed. The dad left his gun lying around where his kids could find it.

How did he get off?

Why ad a bunch of new laws trying to give one industry special protections when the obvious actual fix is to ensure that what appear to be obvious crimes are effectively punished? (and in so doing, permit the liability rules to protect the said industry).

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you had read my post, or indeed the case itself, you would have noticed that they did _NOT_ put a warning in the manual.

 

I haven't read that manual but I think it's fair to assume it explains how to load and unload the gun.

 

The only reason I can think of that an explanation of how to unload the gun should be followed by a warning that says the gun (like most semiautos) will still fire if you don't finish unloading it is the previous frivolous lawsuit.

 

Most will still fire if you eject the magazine because that's what most people want and expect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Negligent is pointing a gun at a friend and pulling the trigger. Beretta didn't do that either. A kid did.

 

Because we don't treat minor offenders as adults, killing his friend was not considered a crime. That's the reason the PLCAA was said not to apply. I think it reveals a problem in the law, which should say "reckless misuse" instead of "criminal misuse" so it can cover frivolous lawsuits brought because of reckless actions by kids too.

 

If a gun works properly, pointing it at a friend and pulling the trigger is indeed a potential safety issue. It's not one that can be designed out of the gun. It's one that needs to be trained out of the user.

Sorry, this is a stupid argument.

There was an obvious crime committed. The dad left his gun lying around where his kids could find it.

How did he get off?

Why ad a bunch of new laws trying to give one industry special protections when the obvious actual fix is to ensure that what appear to be obvious crimes are effectively punished? (and in so doing, permit the liability rules to protect the said industry).

 

 

I don't know why the dad wasn't charged.

 

The industry needs special protection because it's wrong to hold them responsible for reckless behavior by the kid and his dad.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Hey pinoco - direct question for you:

 

Should car manufacturers be held liable if their car is used to deliberately run someone over?

 

Should alcohol distilleries be held liable if someone drinks themselves to death?

Welcome to the third grader trail.

If an argument can be dumbed down far enough, a gun extremist will always win the argument.

--Car manufactures have responded to mandated safety requirements and inspections, or else.

--Liquor distillers have reluctantly produced PSA's per court requirement.

 

******************************

 

Criminals want "clean" guns, with no bodies on them.

The very supply of guns to these criminals is an issue here, not just the strawman alert brand of gun used in a killing.

Some gun stores have a certain reputation, but they needn't fear prosecution.

Their broad, unusual PLCAA immunity allows more gun sales, albeit to criminals, so why should they act improve public safety?

 

Besides that, a jury of my peers may rightfully think ill of the manufacturer of any excessively misused AR-15.

It might think ill of the K-Mart that sold it. Let the gun product suppliers face their day in court, it would help to control this mess.

In usual dumbass style - you typed a lot of words and still avoided answering the simple question. Again, any product maker can and should be held liable if their product is defective. No one is disputing that that. But in your typical evasive cowardly way you won't answer if a product fu nations perfectly as designed but is used to deliberately harm thems loves or others - should that company or the dealer who sold it be held liable? Yes or no?

 

So if Kmart sells a product like a gun legally and goes through the correct process and then the buyer goes out and kills someone a month later, Kmart is at fault here???

 

 

Your straw man is okay, kinda, as far as you've taken it.

But understandably, if lots of K Marts are feeding guns to the gun mayhem, a jury of my peers may object.

And if one K Mart has been known to supply criminal guns for decades, a jury of my sharp peers might come after that retailer.

 

Beyond your bumper sticker wisdom,there is another side to it, Jeff. I don't have the stories organized, but some wild stuff has happened out there, and courts haven't been able to address long term rogue gun suppliers. In many egregious circumstances, these families and their attorneys have been shocked by a wall of gun lobby legal irresponsibility. I'll try to present a few later.

 

"Frivolous lawsuits", as a catchphrase, is an aggressive lie. I can cite some real stinkers.

 

Badger Guns

In its first eight years of doing business, the store sold at least 804 guns traced to crimes, according to one of the lawsuits the gun dealer is facing. Federal data revealed that in 1999 Badger sold more guns that were used in crimes than any other dealer in the country.

The store's moratorium on cheap handguns lasted about a year. By 2005, Badger was back to peddling more crime-linked guns than any other dealer in the nation.

Between 2007 and 2009, Badger sold 62 percent of crime-linked guns recovered in Milwaukee…

In 2010, Milwaukee cops started stopping people outside the store and found that 1 in 5 was a felon banned from possessing weapons.

In late 2011, the ATF finally revoked Badger's license. In July 2012, another of Allan's sons opened a gun store in the same location called Brew City Shooters Supply.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/obama-justice-department-badger-guns>

 

Bullseye Firearms is a Tacoma shop which had been reprimanded by the ATF repeatedly, before a tricked out AR-15 disappeared there, from their central floor display. The disappearance was not noted by the gunshop staff. The DC Snipers had obtained that gun.

 

But on the stats on Puget Sound crime guns, the twenty year record of a Skagit County gun shop shows it is worse than Bullseye FIrearms.

 

Skagit County gun shop may have been worst in U.S.

In 2005, federal authorities uncovered a raft of violations at Kesselring Gun Shop that put the public at risk, including not knowing the whereabouts of 2,396 guns. Yet it was eight years before the ATF took away the shop’s firearms license.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023468781_gundealeratfxml.html>

 

Your straw man misses the point. Gun dealers have become pariahs on society: your elk didn't keep it clean.

They started juking the intelligence.

Dumbass style is when your ILA elk messed with the data collection of LE and science.

 

The dangerous outcome of a lethal product is largely protected from litigation.

That is a curious situation, which will meet judicial and legislative scrutiny, until it is resolved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun shops and the men who frequent them are of questionable social value, I fear.

Preaching insurrection, and teaching lethal violence, is a sure fire way to raise sophisticated levels of concern.

Some of the concerned sit on juries. They are always, always surprised when they encounter the PLCAA statutes.

 

Your peers may feel that your philosophy and its outcome (and gear like the AR-15) are not healthy, or desirable.

This is what you get when your elk fight their tyrants: the SPLC can document 128 right-wing incidents of violence after Timothy McVeigh.

 

Terror From the Right:

Plots, Conspiracies and Racist Rampages Since Oklahoma City

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=164031&page=2#entry4864130>

 

If interested, a calm overview of this movement can be found here.

Read it, Jeff. Read it, Tom Ray.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Negligent is pointing a gun at a friend and pulling the trigger. Beretta didn't do that either. A kid did.

 

Because we don't treat minor offenders as adults, killing his friend was not considered a crime. That's the reason the PLCAA was said not to apply. I think it reveals a problem in the law, which should say "reckless misuse" instead of "criminal misuse" so it can cover frivolous lawsuits brought because of reckless actions by kids too.

 

If a gun works properly, pointing it at a friend and pulling the trigger is indeed a potential safety issue. It's not one that can be designed out of the gun. It's one that needs to be trained out of the user.

Sorry, this is a stupid argument.

There was an obvious crime committed. The dad left his gun lying around where his kids could find it.

How did he get off?

Why ad a bunch of new laws trying to give one industry special protections when the obvious actual fix is to ensure that what appear to be obvious crimes are effectively punished? (and in so doing, permit the liability rules to protect the said industry).

 

I don't know why the dad wasn't charged.

 

The industry needs special protection because it's wrong to hold them responsible for reckless behavior by the kid and his dad.

 

So you don't think the dad was a criminal?
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you had read my post, or indeed the case itself, you would have noticed that they did _NOT_ put a warning in the manual.

I haven't read that manual but I think it's fair to assume it explains how to load and unload the gun.

 

Fine. Here it is spelt out for you in baby steps.

See the case: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1101052.html

Section II D

In this case, the first line of the manual reads in bold and enlarged font “Caution:  Read this manual carefully before handling and loading the pistol.”   As noted above, the manual repeatedly warns the user to make sure the cartridge chamber is empty when storing the firearm and provides step-by-step instructions on how to accomplish this.   The manual clearly reads that removing the magazine does not clear a loaded chamber.   However, the manual does not contain any notation or warning whether or not a handgun may fire the chambered bullet when the magazine is removed.   Thus, the holding in Kane is not helpful to Beretta because even if Billy had read the entire manual, he would not have been warned that removing the magazine does not mean the handgun will not discharge a bullet.

 

Beretta clearly has greater knowledge of the danger of the handgun than the typical user.   The nature of the inadequacy in this case was that a user was not pointed to a warning in any event.   Plaintiffs provided evidence that over a third of adults questioned in the Johns Hopkins study either believed that a gun would not fire with its magazine removed or did not know either way.   In fact, an experienced user such as David, a trained police officer, did not know that the firearm may fire a bullet with the magazine removed.   Therefore, plaintiffs' failure to warn claim presented a question of fact and should have survived summary judgment to determine if Beretta's warnings were sufficient.

Beretta was screwed. They had years to get a warning into their manual.

Their own stupid fault.

The only reason I can think of that an explanation of how to unload the gun should be followed by a warning that says the gun (like most semiautos) will still fire if you don't finish unloading it is the previous frivolous lawsuit.

Did you miss the bit where nearly 35% of the population were mis-informed on this topic?

Most will still fire if you eject the magazine because that's what most people want and expect.

Apparently the court feels that there should be a warning in the manual given that nearly 35% of people would be surprised.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't know why the dad wasn't charged.

 

The industry needs special protection because it's wrong to hold them responsible for reckless behavior by the kid and his dad.

 

So you don't think the dad was a criminal?

 

 

I usually know why people who I think did nothing wrong are not being charged. Because they did nothing wrong.

 

I don't know why the dad wasn't charged. Because he did several things wrong.

 

Obviously, the court did not think it mattered. The PLCAA says that if a crime occurred, that crime should be considered the cause of any injury. The reason the law was said not to apply was that Billy's action of pointing the gun at his friend and pulling the trigger was not a crime. That's only because of his age. If an adult had done the same thing, it would be considered a crime. As I said, I think it points to a defect in the law, which should be rewritten to cover such non-crimes by minors if they are reckless and negligent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fine. Here it is spelt out for you in baby steps.

See the case: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1101052.html

Section II D

In this case, the first line of the manual reads in bold and enlarged font “Caution:  Read this manual carefully before handling and loading the pistol.”   As noted above, the manual repeatedly warns the user to make sure the cartridge chamber is empty when storing the firearm and provides step-by-step instructions on how to accomplish this.   The manual clearly reads that removing the magazine does not clear a loaded chamber.   However, the manual does not contain any notation or warning whether or not a handgun may fire the chambered bullet when the magazine is removed.   Thus, the holding in Kane is not helpful to Beretta because even if Billy had read the entire manual, he would not have been warned that removing the magazine does not mean the handgun will not discharge a bullet.

 

Beretta clearly has greater knowledge of the danger of the handgun than the typical user.   The nature of the inadequacy in this case was that a user was not pointed to a warning in any event.   Plaintiffs provided evidence that over a third of adults questioned in the Johns Hopkins study either believed that a gun would not fire with its magazine removed or did not know either way.   In fact, an experienced user such as David, a trained police officer, did not know that the firearm may fire a bullet with the magazine removed.   Therefore, plaintiffs' failure to warn claim presented a question of fact and should have survived summary judgment to determine if Beretta's warnings were sufficient.

Beretta was screwed. They had years to get a warning into their manual.

Their own stupid fault.

The only reason I can think of that an explanation of how to unload the gun should be followed by a warning that says the gun (like most semiautos) will still fire if you don't finish unloading it is the previous frivolous lawsuit.

Did you miss the bit where nearly 35% of the population were mis-informed on this topic?

Most will still fire if you eject the magazine because that's what most people want and expect.

Apparently the court feels that there should be a warning in the manual given that nearly 35% of people would be surprised.

 

 

I commented on the warnings and how many people do not understand how semiautos work in post 38. I'm surprised the number is that high but don't believe firearms manufacturers should be responsible for educating the entire population by printing warnings of all the obvious dangers on each gun.

 

 

Of the 1,200 respondents:  65% answered the pistol could still be fired;  20.3% answered the pistol could not be fired;  14.5% did not know;  and .2% refused to answer.   Of the 34.8% who responded that the pistol could not fire when the magazine is removed or that they did not know, 28% lived in a gun-owning household.   Teret also testified that he felt the chamber loaded warning was not effective and could not possibly warn people who have no knowledge about guns.

 

 

Maybe people who don't know about guns should read the manual and find out what that chamber loaded indicator thingy is for prior to pointing a gun at a friend and pulling the trigger. Or maybe, just maybe, the biggest problem demonstrated by the case was the lack of any training for the kid. By that age, I knew to never, ever point a gun at anyone I did not want to shoot.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In usual dumbass style - you typed a lot of words and still avoided answering the simple question. Again, any product maker can and should be held liable if their product is defective. No one is disputing that that. But in your typical evasive cowardly way you won't answer if a product fu nations perfectly as designed but is used to deliberately harm thems loves or others - should that company or the dealer who sold it be held liable? Yes or no?

 

So if Kmart sells a product like a gun legally and goes through the correct process and then the buyer goes out and kills someone a month later, Kmart is at fault here???

 

 

Your straw man is okay, kinda, as far as you've taken it.

But understandably, if lots of K Marts are feeding guns to the gun mayhem, a jury of my peers may object. No they may not. Unless there is actual legal standing to show the Kmart was selling guns illegaly or not following the rules - there is no standing for the suit That is the very fucking definition of frivolous.

And if one K Mart has been known to supply criminal guns for decades, a jury of my sharp peers might come after that retailer. See above. Again, I don't care if a particular neighborhood Kmart sells a gun to a user every day of the week who then turns around and murders his wife...... unless there was some specific thing that Kmart did that was illegal or had prior knowledge that a crime was going to take place - misuse of a product by a customer is NOT legal liability.

 

 

 

Again, I will ask you directly..... if a man buys a GMC yukon from a dealer and then goes and runs over and kills 10 people on the Las Vegas strip on purpose - is the dealer and/or GMC itself legally liable? Yes or no?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I will ask you directly..... if a man buys a GMC yukon from a dealer and then goes and runs over and kills 10 people on the Las Vegas strip on purpose - is the dealer and/or GMC itself legally liable? Yes or no?

 

 

Look, if you don't want discourse with me, I'm OK with that.

However if you DO want to exchange some ideas, then please desist with childish questions, and ALL yes-or-no questions. That way we can have a mature conversation.

We're grownups. We both know it's not a yes-or-no world, eh?

I'm not impressed with where you leave many conversations.

 

 

...

Jocal: And if one K Mart has been known to supply criminal guns for decades, a jury of my sharp peers might come after that retailer.

Jeff: See above. Again, I don't care if a particular neighborhood Kmart sells a gun to a user DERAIL ALERT Jeff, I said feeding guns to criminals every day of the week who then turns around and murders his wife...... unless there was some specific thing that Kmart did that was illegal or had prior knowledge that a crime was going to take place - misuse of a product by a customer is NOT legal liability.

 

Jocal: Your straw man is okay, kinda, as far as you've taken it.

But understandably, if lots of K Marts are feeding guns to the gun mayhem, a jury of my peers may object.

Jeff: No they may not. Unless there is actual legal standing to show the Kmart was selling guns illegaly or not following the rules - there is no standing for the suit That is the very fucking definition of frivolous.

You got yourself de-railed again here. Since I have given multiple examples of problem gun dealers ( as demonstrated by Badger Firearms, Bullseye Firearms, Skagit County WA Worst in USA), and these examples were even known over extended periods of time, you needn't assume innocence of gun dealers in our conversation.

The gun dealers mentioned were untouchable....while shuffling guns to checkered characters. Because the ATF was incapacitated by the NRA, cough cough.

When one of that dealer's loose guns hurts a citizen, why should such a dealer be exempt from civil action?

Secondly, why should trace data showing suspicious gun sales not be used, however prudently, however supervised?

Jeff, here's a bonus example of a problem gun dealer. Should he be above civil liability?

As a juror, would a suit against him seem "frivolous," considering?

NRA Board Director Sandy Abrams

--Sandy Abrams had 800 FFL violations, but was still an NRA Board Director.

The NRA says we don’t need new laws, we need to enforce existing laws, but the NRA itself has a rather casual attitude toward law-breaking. During the time he was on the NRA’s Board of Directors, Maryland gun dealer Sandy Abrams was cited for over 900 violations of federal firearms laws, for which his dealer’s license was eventually revoked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(snipped, Hitler content)

 

 

 

I'm gonna roll with nation building here.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't know why the dad wasn't charged.

 

The industry needs special protection because it's wrong to hold them responsible for reckless behavior by the kid and his dad.

So you don't think the dad was a criminal?

 

I usually know why people who I think did nothing wrong are not being charged. Because they did nothing wrong.

 

I don't know why the dad wasn't charged. Because he did several things wrong.

 

Obviously, the court did not think it mattered. The PLCAA says that if a crime occurred, that crime should be considered the cause of any injury. The reason the law was said not to apply was that Billy's action of pointing the gun at his friend and pulling the trigger was not a crime. That's only because of his age. If an adult had done the same thing, it would be considered a crime. As I said, I think it points to a defect in the law, which should be rewritten to cover such non-crimes by minors if they are reckless and negligent.

 

He _was_ charged. But he got off. Don't you read anything?

In response to the shooting, Sheahan filed a complaint against David before the Merit Board claiming that David failed to properly secure and store his handgun.   David's guns were taken from him by the police in their investigation and never returned to him.   Following a bench trial, David was found not guilty of criminal charges based on the proscription under section 24-9 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/24-9 (West 2004)) against improper storage of a firearm in a premise in which a minor under 14 is likely to gain access to the firearm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Apparently the court feels that there should be a warning in the manual given that nearly 35% of people would be surprised.

I commented on the warnings and how many people do not understand how semiautos work in post 38. I'm surprised the number is that high but don't believe firearms manufacturers should be responsible for educating the entire population by printing warnings of all the obvious dangers on each gun.

 

Noone is saying that. Baretta has agreed in court that a warning is desirable, and so in a similar court case 10 years later when it was found that there was still no mention of this issue in the manual, they folded because they knew their ass was grass.

 

Of the 1,200 respondents:  65% answered the pistol could still be fired;  20.3% answered the pistol could not be fired;  14.5% did not know;  and .2% refused to answer.   Of the 34.8% who responded that the pistol could not fire when the magazine is removed or that they did not know, 28% lived in a gun-owning household.   Teret also testified that he felt the chamber loaded warning was not effective and could not possibly warn people who have no knowledge about guns.

Maybe people who don't know about guns should read the manual and find out what that chamber loaded indicator thingy is for prior to pointing a gun at a friend and pulling the trigger. Or maybe, just maybe, the biggest problem demonstrated by the case was the lack of any training for the kid. By that age, I knew to never, ever point a gun at anyone I did not want to shoot.

 

Baretta didn't bother discussing the chamber indicator, that was just the plaintiffs trying to get another goal. It didn't work. Stop introducing red herrings.

 

No, the biggest problem was that the gun owner left his guns lying around where a child could get at them. Another problem is that despite overwhelming evidence he was not convicted.

 

If you read the court's decision, they make it clear that if a child gets hold of a gun, such behaviour should be assumed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Again, I will ask you directly..... if a man buys a GMC yukon from a dealer and then goes and runs over and kills 10 people on the Las Vegas strip on purpose - is the dealer and/or GMC itself legally liable? Yes or no?

 

 

Look, if you don't want discourse with me, I'm OK with that.

However if you DO want to exchange some ideas, then please desist with childish questions, and ALL yes-or-no questions. That way we can have a mature conversation.

We're grownups. We both know it's not a yes-or-no world, eh?

I'm not impressed with where you leave many conversations.

 

 

Go fuck yourself then. I have no interest in discourse with a man you willingly and deliberately lies, obfuscates and dances around direct questions without even bothering to answer them. My question above is not childish. It gets to the very core of the discussion. That fact that you continually refuse to answer it just further undermines your already extremely weak position. The world is not always Yes or No or black and white. But sometimes it is. In this case my question is can be a yes or no. Or you could actually try to chose to answer it and explain your reasons why its not yes or no but that there may be some subtitles to the answer. That's acceptable. What's not acceptable is to totally ignore it and then have the fucking gaul to accuse me of not wanting to engage in discourse. You have about as much discourse skill as the big dump I took this morning. At least it went away.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

omfg. so much emo.

Again, I will ask you directly..... if a man buys a GMC yukon from a dealer and then goes and runs over and kills 10 people on the Las Vegas strip on purpose - is the dealer and/or GMC itself legally liable? Yes or no?

I'll answer for you.

 

Liable for what?

The man killing someone? No, not at all.

If the plaintiff can show that the man who bought the yukon was unaware that taking the keys out of the ignition would lock his steering while the car continued moving, that the possibility of confusion existed, and that GMC made no effort to inform the driver, then they might fold like Baretta did. Especially if the issue had already come up in a previous court case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

omfg. so much emo.

Again, I will ask you directly..... if a man buys a GMC yukon from a dealer and then goes and runs over and kills 10 people on the Las Vegas strip on purpose - is the dealer and/or GMC itself legally liable? Yes or no?

I'll answer for you.

 

Liable for what?

The man killing someone? No, not at all.

 

blah blah blah about a safety issue with barrette and not in the slightest relevant to JBSF's question about deliberate misuse.

 

Thank you for answering directly.

 

See jocal, was that so fucking hard?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, congratulations on your bowel movement, and your sex life too. Tell us more.

 

1.Many of your questions, which you can get quite adamant about, contain forms of informal fallacies.

2.Other questions which you present are meaningless, except to the culture on the third grader trail.

(Should I organize a series of such childishness and post it?)

3.My conversation did not cover whether to sue GMC because of a Yukon mishap.

That was just the straw man you were using, while you were dodging three rogue gun dealers' immunity from civil lawsuits.

I ignore content like 1, 2, and 3.

 

Instead, I challenge you on my own terms, when I feel like it. I will do so again some day.

Your belief system is made up of cliches, and your research has no empirical foundation so far.

So our score is around 8-0.

 

Eight Jeffie defeats

Let's review. You challenged me for "direct engagement", then lost several confrontations, based on facts.

1.The first dustup was over gun suicide. You brought just your opinion. (The evidence in incontrovertable. Gun availability drives gun suicides up.)

2.Gangbanger homicides are not the "vast majority" of US gun deaths, as you have stated repeatedly.

3.Any support you may have presented for "MoreGuns, Less Crime" was eroded here. By eight sources, too.

4. Most gangbanger deaths are not in the act of a secondary crime. You claimed the CDC and NIJ said 70% were.

5.Only 15% of homicides are carried out by strangers. (You did the "liar liar" even after I sourced it.)

6.Your claim of being personally non-violent is contradicted by your violent intentions upon Spatial Ed at some future US regatta.

7.You to not coach last resort "self-protection". (Not if you would use your gun on a shirtless, unarmed tire-chucker with clenched fists instead of retreating prudently).

8.You keep trotting out your insistence that MADD logic will prevent certain consumer products (such as LCM's, handguns or AW's) from being limited. This is DIRECTLY challenged by the NAS. Guns are agents in gun violence, and have been targeted, by science, for better control.

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=142774&page=27#entry4990399>

Link to post
Share on other sites

When stupid PA threads co-mingle:

Man who feared mass shootings brings gun to movie theater, accidentally shoots woman

By Michael E. Miller January 26 at 4:53 AM

Dane Gallion was so worried about public shootings that police say he committed one.

Last Thursday, Gallion popped a Xanax, ate a pizza and downed a 22-ounce beer. Then the 29-year-old headed to an evening showing of “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi” in the Seattle suburb of Renton, Wash.

But not without his handgun.

Despite a Regal Cinema prohibition against firearms, Gallion sneaked his piece into the theater. He was, he later told police, “concerned about recent mass shootings in public places.” So concerned, in fact, that he kept his gun unholstered and tucked into his waistband, according to the Seattle Times.

Fifteen minutes into the movie, Gallion’s gun somehow went off, police say, striking the woman sitting in front of him. Gallion quickly ghosted out of the theater, allegedly discarding his gun’s magazine in a trash can on the way out. It was only when his retired Air Force colonel father learned of the shooting 90 minutes later and called 911 that Gallion finally turned himself in, according to the Times.


Linky

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think an explanation is in order Folding Koch.

 

All your posts, your profile notes, everything is devoted to sledging Hillary Clinton. Why is it so?

 

Don't tell us about Hillary, tell us about you and your pathological hatred. Or is it just a front of convenience, vested interest, calling black, white, for a gun running buck.

 

I have been thinking that your credibility is so low that I have no confidence about anything else that you post. Nothing

 

Spill you guts in a convincing way or apologise to the group here for wasting out time and e-ink.

 

stock-photo-60654102-i-m-not-convinced-.

In the same way that you hate everything American?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

omfg. so much emo.

Again, I will ask you directly..... if a man buys a GMC yukon from a dealer and then goes and runs over and kills 10 people on the Las Vegas strip on purpose - is the dealer and/or GMC itself legally liable? Yes or no?

I'll answer for you.

 

Liable for what?

The man killing someone? No, not at all.

 

blah blah blah about a safety issue with barrette and not in the slightest relevant to JBSF's question about deliberate misuse.

 

Thank you for answering directly.

 

See jocal, was that so fucking hard?

 

All that blah blah blah that was a bit too complicated for you is, in fact, what the lawsuits you're shitting yourself about concern.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

omfg. so much emo.

Again, I will ask you directly..... if a man buys a GMC yukon from a dealer and then goes and runs over and kills 10 people on the Las Vegas strip on purpose - is the dealer and/or GMC itself legally liable? Yes or no?

I'll answer for you.

 

Liable for what?

The man killing someone? No, not at all.

 

blah blah blah about a safety issue with barrette and not in the slightest relevant to JBSF's question about deliberate misuse.

 

Thank you for answering directly.

 

See jocal, was that so fucking hard?

 

All that blah blah blah that was a bit too complicated for you is, in fact, what the lawsuits you're shitting yourself about concern.

 

 

Uhhh no, actually the beretta lawsuit has nothing whatsoever to do with what I'm talking about. The beretta lawsuit was about safety and an accidental shooting and whether they should or shouldn't have added a warning label. I'm talking about deliberate misuses of a gun to commit a crime, like murder. Do you think a gun should have warning label on it that says "Don't murder anyone with this gun"?

 

I don't give a shit about the slap fight you were having with Tom about that case, I am talking about lawsuits brought against gun manufacturers and dealers when a gun is used in a crime. As you have clearly said already, NO - the gun makers should not be held liable for the negligent actions of someone who deliberately uses a perfectly functioning tool to commit a crime any more than we would hold Ford accountable if someone murdered someone else with one of their cars by deliberately running them down.

 

Next.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes Jeff, I don't think that GMC should be able to be sued for someone running another person over with a new Camaro, because that would just be silly and downright mean-spirited and would be nothing but an underhanded way to demonize the car maker. However, I'm going to maintain that gun makers can be sued if a gun is used to injure someone deliberately and negligently - even if the gun functioned perfectly as designed. Why the difference? Because I'm a stubborn, illogical pin-head who couldn't think my way out of a wet paper bag. It makes sense to me and that's all I care about. If that makes me a cunt, then so be it.

 

 

Well, there you have it. The definitive jocal......

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

omfg. so much emo.

Again, I will ask you directly..... if a man buys a GMC yukon from a dealer and then goes and runs over and kills 10 people on the Las Vegas strip on purpose - is the dealer and/or GMC itself legally liable? Yes or no?

I'll answer for you.

 

Liable for what?

The man killing someone? No, not at all.

 

blah blah blah about a safety issue with barrette and not in the slightest relevant to JBSF's question about deliberate misuse.

 

Thank you for answering directly.

 

See jocal, was that so fucking hard?

 

All that blah blah blah that was a bit too complicated for you is, in fact, what the lawsuits you're shitting yourself about concern.

 

Uhhh no, actually the beretta lawsuit has nothing whatsoever to do with what I'm talking about. The beretta lawsuit was about safety and an accidental shooting and whether they should or shouldn't have added a warning label. I'm talking about deliberate misuses of a gun to commit a crime, like murder. Do you think a gun should have warning label on it that says "Don't murder anyone with this gun"?

 

I don't give a shit about the slap fight you were having with Tom about that case, I am talking about lawsuits brought against gun manufacturers and dealers when a gun is used in a crime. As you have clearly said already, NO - the gun makers should not be held liable for the negligent actions of someone who deliberately uses a perfectly functioning tool to commit a crime any more than we would hold Ford accountable if someone murdered someone else with one of their cars by deliberately running them down.

 

Next.

 

Can you please cite an occasion when a lawsuit such as the one you suggest has succeeded?

 

Edit: and it looks to me like there was a crime in the Beretta case, but noone can explain why a jury didn't convict the dad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

blah blah blah about a safety issue with barrette and not in the slightest relevant to JBSF's question about deliberate misuse

Thank you for answering directly.

 

See jocal, was that so fucking hard?

 

All that blah blah blah that was a bit too complicated for you is, in fact, what the lawsuits you're shitting yourself about concern.

 

Uhhh no, actually the beretta lawsuit has nothing whatsoever to do with what I'm talking about. The beretta lawsuit was about safety and an accidental shooting and whether they should or shouldn't have added a warning label. I'm talking about deliberate misuses of a gun to commit a crime, like murder. Do you think a gun should have warning label on it that says "Don't murder anyone with this gun"?

 

I don't give a shit about the slap fight you were having with Tom about that case, I am talking about lawsuits brought against gun manufacturers and dealers when a gun is used in a crime. As you have clearly said already, NO - the gun makers should not be held liable for the negligent actions of someone who deliberately uses a perfectly functioning tool to commit a crime any more than we would hold Ford accountable if someone murdered someone else with one of their cars by deliberately running them down.

 

Next.

 

Can you please cite an occasion when a lawsuit such as the one you suggest has succeeded?

 

Edit: and it looks to me like there was a crime in the Beretta case, but noone can explain why a jury didn't convict the dad.

 

 

There's a whole new world of responsibility where manufacturers sell all sorts of ideas about their guns which encourages their customers to live out.

 

Just ask the Asbestos or the Tobacco industry.

 

That Dad thought a loaded gun sitting around his house was a good thing in case of big bad men arriving. I have seen loaded guns in many homes and cars in America. It is common.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That Dad thought a loaded gun sitting around his house was a good thing in case of big bad men arriving. I have seen loaded guns in many homes and cars in America. It is common.

Leaving your gun where kids can get hold of it and play with it is widely regarded as a bad idea, and appears to have been illegal in the location. The guy was charged. For some reason he got off. Noone has found the court record for this yet though.

 

He wasn't defending his home. It was a work gun which he didn't use during his job, and which he couldn't store at work. So he left it at home, and neglected to lock the box.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That Dad thought a loaded gun sitting around his house was a good thing in case of big bad men arriving. I have seen loaded guns in many homes and cars in America. It is common.

Leaving your gun where kids can get hold of it and play with it is widely regarded as a bad idea, and appears to have been illegal in the location. The guy was charged. For some reason he got off. Noone has found the court record for this yet though.

 

He wasn't defending his home. It was a work gun which he didn't use during his job, and which he couldn't store at work. So he left it at home, and neglected to lock the box.

 

 

I'd guess he wasn't charged because a presumption isn't evidence.

 

 

David testified that he owned three guns:  the handgun, the .38 Special, and a .25 automatic.   All three guns were stored in the same locking case, along with ammunition.   David stored the case, and additional ammunition, on the top shelf in his closet.   He maintained one key to the case on his key ring and an additional key in the junk drawer of his dresser.   Approximately a year before the shooting, David completed his annual firearm qualification.   David disagreed with Billy's testimony and stated that he locked up all three guns in the lockbox, returned them to the top shelf in his closet and did not touch the guns after that date.   For the purposes of defendants' summary judgment motions and these proceedings, the presumption is that the lockbox was unlocked. -

 

 

It's possible he was telling the truth and the presumption is wrong. How would a prosecutor prove otherwise?

 

Even if so, a keyed lock with a key nearby is not safe from an exploring kid. A combination lock is safer as long as the combination isn't written down anywhere. Safer still would be teaching the kid basic rules like the one about never pointing guns at people you don't wish to shoot.

 

There are lots of things the he and/or his kid could have done to avert that shooting. There's nothing Beretta could have done that would have changed anything. That's why I don't see them as responsible.

 

The fact that there was a previous frivolous lawsuit doesn't change my opinion. It just reinforces my belief that we need to protect manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Leaving your gun where kids can get hold of it and play with it is widely regarded as a bad idea, and appears to have been illegal in the location. The guy was charged. For some reason he got off. Noone has found the court record for this yet though.

 

He wasn't defending his home. It was a work gun which he didn't use during his job, and which he couldn't store at work. So he left it at home, and neglected to lock the box.

I'd guess he wasn't charged because a presumption isn't evidence.

 

My head is hurting.

He was charged, you clown.

He even went to trial.

It didn't stick.

 

Seriously, how many more times will I need to repeat this basic fact which is mentioned only a paragraph or so from the quote you put in below?

It's possible he was telling the truth and the presumption is wrong. How would a prosecutor prove otherwise?

In the context of this case it doesn't matter at all. That is why I'm interested to read the case where the father got off. I suspect the laws are simply so fluffy that prosecution is difficult.

Even if so, a keyed lock with a key nearby is not safe from an exploring kid. A combination lock is safer as long as the combination isn't written down anywhere. Safer still would be teaching the kid basic rules like the one about never pointing guns at people you don't wish to shoot.

 

There are lots of things the he and/or his kid could have done to avert that shooting. There's nothing Beretta could have done that would have changed anything. That's why I don't see them as responsible.

Yes, but he/his kid are no good for suing.

 

Beretta was silly and left an obvious technical safety issue uncovered, so they got nailed.

 

Like it or not, this is kind of how the us legal system rolls. It is quite unique in the world.

This is why my hammers have stickers on them with ridiculous instructions.

The fact that there was a previous frivolous lawsuit doesn't change my opinion. It just reinforces my belief that we need to protect manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits.

Why just gun manufacturers?

I think all manufacturers should be free of them.

There should be no special treatment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Uhhh no, actually the beretta lawsuit has nothing whatsoever to do with what I'm talking about. The beretta lawsuit was about safety and an accidental shooting and whether they should or shouldn't have added a warning label. I'm talking about deliberate misuses of a gun to commit a crime, like murder. Do you think a gun should have warning label on it that says "Don't murder anyone with this gun"?

 

I don't give a shit about the slap fight you were having with Tom about that case, I am talking about lawsuits brought against gun manufacturers and dealers when a gun is used in a crime. As you have clearly said already, NO - the gun makers should not be held liable for the negligent actions of someone who deliberately uses a perfectly functioning tool to commit a crime any more than we would hold Ford accountable if someone murdered someone else with one of their cars by deliberately running them down.

 

Next.

 

Can you please cite an occasion when a lawsuit such as the one you suggest has succeeded?

 

Edit: and it looks to me like there was a crime in the Beretta case, but noone can explain why a jury didn't convict the dad.

 

 

You miss the point. It doesn't need to succeed. A frivolous lawsuit can tie up a small gun maker or a mom & pop gun shop for years and bankrupt them overnight. Which was and is the whole reason why people like Hillary Cuntin want to go after gun makers and dealers when a gun is used in a crime. Its purely punitive and has nothing to do with liability that the manufacturer or dealer has any control over.

 

Again, lets break this down into simple concepts (I know local doesn't like simple concepts, but he can go fuck himself since he is the lowest common denominator here).

 

Liable

  1. If a car maker sells a car that has a defective airbag or the wheel falls off at high speed - they will have the shit sued out of them.
  2. If a gun maker sells a gun with a defective safety or the chamber blows up with proper factory ammunition - they will have the shit sued out of them.
  3. If a bartender continues to pour drinks for an obviously obliterated driver and then watches him walk out the door with keys in hand - that will have the shit sued out of them for poor decision making in selling that drink if the drunk driver kills someone.
  4. If a gun shop sells a gun to a person who doesn't pass a background check but lets the person walk out the door with the gun anyway and then they use that gun to kill someone - the gun shop will have the shit sued out of them.

Not Liable

  1. A deranged guy drives his new Dodge Ram pickup into a crowd of Korean tourists in Orange County because he doesn't like slanty-eyed people - Chrysler is not liable for his criminal misuse of that truck.
  2. A deranged guy takes a Bushmaster AR-15 and shoots up a school full of 1st graders because he is mentally fucked up - Bushmaster is not liable for the criminal misuse of their gun.
  3. A liquor store sells a bottle of Jack Daniels to a normal sober guy and then the guy a week later gets tanked up and runs a school bus off the road - neither the store or Jack Daniels distillery is liable for the actions of that guy.
  4. A gun store sells an Glock to a person who passes a Federal background check, does all the proper paperwork and everything is above board and legal - and then a week later he shoots a congresswoman in the face with it - Neither the gun store or Glock is liable for the actions of that guy.

I'm glad I could clear that up for you once and for all. There still is no hope for jocal, but what's new?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, you are cherry-picking the subject matter.

Guns are designed to kill. Law is more applicable against guns (and dangerous objects) than teddy-bears.

THAT'S WHAT LAWS ARE FOR.

To make guns, and their dealers, exempt from civil liability is quite curious. This appears to be special treatment.

Such protection has no comparison to other consumer products in the USA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, you are cherry-picking the subject matter.

Guns are designed to kill. Law is more applicable against guns (and dangerous objects) than teddy-bears.

THAT'S WHAT LAWS ARE FOR.

To make guns, and their dealers, exempt from civil liability is quite curious. This appears to be special treatment.

Such protection has no comparison to other consumer products in the USA.

 

No. Guns are designed to protect and defend. That is why law-abiding citizens own them.

 

The law is very clear that deadly force is justifiable when they are used to defend life and property.

 

So, I will ask again, do you not wish that your wife's attack had been prevented by an armed citizen? Do you not wish that she herself had been able to prevent the attack with a gun?

 

And would you have other women raped or beaten or killed for lack of adequate defense?

Stop avoiding. Stand up like a man and answer the questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, you are cherry-picking the subject matter.

Guns are designed to kill. Law is more applicable against guns (and dangerous objects) than teddy-bears.

THAT'S WHAT LAWS ARE FOR.

To make guns, and their dealers, exempt from civil liability is quite curious. This appears to be special treatment.

Such protection has no comparison to other consumer products in the USA.

 

I.am.fucking.done.with.you. Dumbschidt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, lets break this down into simple concepts...

Your problem is that it's not actually a simple issue.

 

Your preshus gunz are the tip of the iceberg - it's just that most people don't have a big fat lobby group to get them special protections.

 

I fully support the removal of all special cases in law as a general principle.

I also support initiatives to make litigation more difficult in general.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Will you admit that Adam Winkler is right?

 

Adam Winkler, professor of law at UCLA and author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, in an email to NPR. "The 2005 law does not prevent gun makers from being held liable for defects in their design. Like car makers, gun makers can be sued for selling a defective product. The problem is that gun violence victims often want to hold gun makers liable for the criminal misuse of a properly functioning product."

 

 

 

 

Where is the link to your cite? Please present it, and ;let us do read Mr. Winkler, in context, and his complete thoughts.

Winkler is a straight shooter. He's informed. Winkler exposes your elks' shenanigans twenty different ways in his writings.

No offense, Tom, but the Winkler stuff I have read, well, takes a lot of shots at your positions.

 

Whoopsie, The Badgeless Phony will regret mentioning Adam Winkler.

 

Second Amendment doctrine is profoundly unsettled. Ironically, the only consistency in the lower court cases is in the results. Regardless of the test used, challenged gun laws almost always survive. Since Heller federal and state courts have ruled on Second Amendment challenges in over 200 cases, with the government successfully defending gun control in nearly every case.

 

--Only the two bans on handguns in Washington, D.C. (Heller) and Chicago (McDonald) have been invalidated on Second Amendment grounds.

-- One other provision of federal law, which bans gun possession as a condition of bail in child pornography cases, has been invalidated on procedural due process grounds.3

quoted from here

 

The Standardless Second Amendment

Tina Mehr* & Adam Winkler**

* Attorney Fellow, Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office.

** Professor of Law, University of California Los Angeles.

https://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/Mehr_and_Winkler_Standardless_Second_Amendment.pdf

 

 

 

sixty pages of Winkler roasting Tom Ray's elk here:

 

Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America

By Adam Winkler

Pasted from <https://books.google.com/books?id=oq39ykAGVYQC&pg=PT77&lpg=PT77&dq=nra+the+whole+statute+must+be+voided&source=bl&ots=469buxBPBb&sig=2jEf1_7_KHB4LNTe-cBGl-sRL7Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ7rLUu5rKAhVGVT4KHSIGAU4Q6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=nra%20the%20whole%20statute%20must%20be%20voided&f=false>

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeffie could further our discussion of the PLCAA, by reading a little Adam Winkler himself.

Would Cuntfinder The Great consider a lawsuit against this character (below) to be "frivolous"?

Frivolous lawsuits are a distraction from industry immunity from civil liability.

Guys like this should be liable, IMO. PLCAA statutes make him immune.

Honest gun stores don't need such protection, bad gun stores don't deserve it---

Adam Winkler, on Sandy Abrams

an excerpt from The Standardless Second Amendment

The NRA's board of directors included a rogue gun dealer named Sandy Abrams, whose Valley Gun in Baltimore was determined by federal officials, after more than nine hundred offenses, to be a "serial violator" of federal gun laws.

Abrams guns had a suspicious way of disappearing,. At one point, he could not account for 27 per cent f his inventory. These guns didn't appear to have been stolen. Abrams never filed a police report about a theft or files an insurance claim--that is, he didn't do what you'd expect a businessman to do when a huge chunk of inventory disappears without a trace. Abrams justrdidn't have the guns anymore.

Federal law enforcement agents suspected that the guns were sold illegally without the required background checks. And they traced numerous homicides, assaults, and other crimes to guns that were once part of Abrams' inventory. ATF eventually revoked Abrams's federal license to sell firearms.

Nevertheless, Abrams was reelected to serve on the NRA's board. See footnote 84.

https://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/Mehr_and_Winkler_Standardless_Second_Amendment.pdf

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you just stfu and answer Jeff and mine question....how do you think a firearm manufacturer could POSSIBLY be legally liable for a perfectly functioning gun ....that someone used to shoot somebody with?....

 

That responsibility may be more moral than legal. But I feel some industry and vendor responsibility exists.

BECAUSE of the lethality attached to the gun's function, the benefit of the doubt is strained.

Civilization tends to go that way, otherwise, guys like you often get out of hand.

Darwin has become subtle since the stone age, Rick, don't expect gun violence to get a free pass.

 

 

Tort liability plays an important role in injury prevention. In circumstances where legislators have been unwilling to enact regulations to improve safety, dangerous products and careless industry practices are normally held in check by the possibility of civil litigation that enables injured individuals to recover monetarily. As noted above, policies designed to hold gun sellers accountable can curtail the diversion of guns to criminals. Litigation can do the same thing.73http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-safety-public-health-policy-recommendations-for-a-more-secure-america/#Immunity>
Link to post
Share on other sites

`law abiding' citizens?

 

People become criminals only after the fact of their crime. You use a gun to kill a family member, a fellow driver on the road or perhaps a neighbour and you become a criminal. Before that, you were a law abiding citizen.

 

Almost all rapes are committed by a known attacker... a family member, a friend, a neighbour. It's an opportunistic sex crime. It's ridiculous and unlikely that you (the hero) are going to burst through the door and catch the rapist red handed and shoot him. ... and do you think that in a date situation or in the privacy of your own home with a visit from Uncle Boothy, a woman is going to pack heat in her summer dress?

 

There's this weird Hollywood good guy/bad guy tone to all the gun club's posts where you think real life is like TV.

 

Here's a tip... make sure the law abiding gun owning citizens who commit crimes hand in their white hats along with their guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What was that about others only having to see a few posts to confirm unsuitability to own a gun? JFC.

Unlike JokeAwf, i can actually pass a background check. In fact.....I've passed over forty of them....

 

 

Boothy, what makes you think I can't pass a background check?

Let's make a wager on it, big mouth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal in Australia you would not get a firearm license it would be declined because you are not a fit and proper person.

 

This Green politician is a anti gun nutter he was knocked back because he couldn't pass being a fit and proper person.

http://www.davidshoebridge.org.au/2013/02/07/mps-request-gets-shot-down-smh

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jeff, you are cherry-picking the subject matter.

Guns are designed to kill. Law is more applicable against guns (and dangerous objects) than teddy-bears.

THAT'S WHAT LAWS ARE FOR.

To make guns, and their dealers, exempt from civil liability is quite curious. This appears to be special treatment.

Such protection has no comparison to other consumer products in the USA.

 

I.am.fucking.done.with.you. Dumbschidt.

 

 

As I commented yesterday. in anticipation of such drama, I don't care for the way you leave many conversations.

As a JBSF bonus for our creaders, here's another Dear John I got from ya.

 

 

JBSF, on 22 Jul 2014 - 13:09, said:

I give up. You are a dumbass and will always be a dunbass. And GITC was correct, you really DO need to be under mental supervision. Good luck. You're dead to me. You're not even worth mocking anymore. You're just sad.

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=158223&page=4#entry4622518>

 

 

 

 

This thread has covered the difficulties and special treatments built into the PLCAA (since Hillary criticized it early and specifically).

You have tried to sway the conversation into a narrow, shallow bandwidth, relating to brand and function liability.

But the PLCAA covers both product function, and product distribution.

Note: In Chicago, the suit was filed after a police sting operation revealed that many gun retailers were involved in illegal sales.

 

All your girly girly drama follows your shallow strawman and smokescreen... to avoid discussing problem distribution. I'm not through with that.

You are low hanging fruit, Simple Jeff, and like Tom, you seem very smug in your self assessment.

You may find, long term, that such hubris works against you.

 

 

The preface to the PLCAA states that allowing civil liability of gun manufacturers to continue was “an abuse of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our Nation's laws, [and] threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty.”

 

But doesn’t letting an overweening special interest push through legislation that insulates it from accountability do the same?

 

https://www.change.org/p/congress-repeal-law-giving-gun-makers-special-immunity>
Link to post
Share on other sites

What was that about others only having to see a few posts to confirm unsuitability to own a gun? JFC.

 

I dunno. Was it about content maybe?

This gent frequently boasts that he has passed 40 background checks.

 

Boothy and gun vengeance, the 2015 collection

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=167901&p=5057792

Quote

R Booze Posted 17 September 2014 - 02:08 PM

Post 262 USA vs England thread

Here's where all your shit goes right out the window---and that if the 'murder rate' has gone up lately, that tells me that more bad guys are getting their cumupence and being killed.

I for one see absolutely nothing wrong with that. At all....

<http://forums.sailin...=3#entry4680823>

R Booze, on 04 Feb 2015 - 14:52, said:

Getting rid of America's bad guys, in any manner, is a GOOD thing JokeAwf. You should relish & savor the very moment every-fuking-time that one of them meets an early demise. .... <http://forums.sailin...=2#entry4837580>

'R Booth', on 20 Dec 2012 - 18:59, said

If you had killed a bad guy, then you would have done America a big favor.....

<http://forums.sailin...Key]=date&st=50>

R Booze Posted 27 July 2014 - 02:24 PM

This is a most fuktabulous ruling----one which will immediately begin to save lives rather than ending the lives too soon of law abiding citizens. I hope to fuk that DC's criminal element takes note and changes their current game plan on preying on the innocent.

(Ah hell, who am I kidding. Would love to see about three dozen pussified, chicken shit gang members meet an early demise)......

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=69325&p=4625625

R Booze Posted 29 October 2013 - 04:30 AM

I don't normally approve of shooting bad guys in the back, but this fuk-stik seems to have deserved a rather large exit wound out the front of his shirt. And good on the husband for not interupting the local cops during their donut break.

Win-win.....

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=142774&p=4367582

R Booze Posted 14 November 2015 - 01:40 PM

You do know that when you shoot and kill parasitic criminal scum balls, that you remove their ability to continue to be criminal scum balls?

I honestly can't see the down side to that. But sadly you do, you piece of shit pussified abettor you.......

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=165145&page=7#entry5144437>

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Will you admit that Adam Winkler is right?

 

Adam Winkler, professor of law at UCLA and author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, in an email to NPR. "The 2005 law does not prevent gun makers from being held liable for defects in their design. Like car makers, gun makers can be sued for selling a defective product. The problem is that gun violence victims often want to hold gun makers liable for the criminal misuse of a properly functioning product."

 

 

 

 

Where is the link to your cite?

 

 

When a block of text has already been quoted and cited in a thread, I'll sometimes quote it again but omit the second citation.

 

I think he's right about the problem he noted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal to the Badgeless Fabricator: Where is the link to your cite of Adam WInkler?

 

When a block of text has already been quoted and cited in a thread, I'll sometimes quote it again but omit the second citation.

 

I think he's right about the problem he noted.

 

 

You cherry-picked the Winkler quote, thus juking, and mis-representing, a great article.

 

Adam Winkler despises the PLCAA, and this Tom Ray crap is not truthful

 

Publius Johnson Posted 22 January 2016 - 04:18 AM

Why should it be any different for gun manufacturers?” he (Senator Schiff) asked.

The answer to his question, of course, is that it's not different.

 

The article, taken as a whole, disagrees with Tom's dishonest representations of it.

The Long Answer:

Clinton is wrong that gun companies have zero liability for their goods, but they do have special legal protections against liability that very few other industries enjoy.

The special legal considerations for the gun industry is what that article is about.

 

Here, Tom's article dissects the extended Simple Jeff dodge succinctly:

 

Gun-rights advocates have also argued that suing a gun company for crimes committed with its products is akin to suing a car company for drunken-driving fatalities.

But the issues at hand are more complex, say some legal scholars.

"It's more like — are you a bartender and do you keep on pouring drinks for someone?" as Fordham University law professor Saul Cornell told NPR. That might be a better way to think about whether manufacturers shouldn't supply certain stores, he says.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/06/446348616/fact-check-are-gun-makers-totally-free-of-liability-for-their-behavior>
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal in Australia you would not get a firearm license it would be declined because you are not a fit and proper person.

 

This Green politician is a anti gun nutter he was knocked back because he couldn't pass being a fit and proper person.

http://www.davidshoebridge.org.au/2013/02/07/mps-request-gets-shot-down-smh

 

The link you provide does not concern someone having their license application rejected, it concerns a high-profile politician having their membership of a gun club rejected by slightly less-high profile politicians. Who also arguably committed a criminal breach of the privacy legislation.

 

Are you actually that bad at reading?

Or are you trying to lie?

Link to post
Share on other sites

bc

Clubs can decide if someone is a fit and proper person to have a firearm license, if a club tells the police they are not fit and proper person they don't get a firearm license.

 

He tried to use hunting club as a genuine reason for firearm license and failed, this will always be on his record.

Link to post
Share on other sites

bc

Clubs can decide if someone is a fit and proper person to have a firearm license, if a club tells the police they are not fit and proper person they don't get a firearm license.

 

He tried to use hunting club as a genuine reason for firearm license and failed, this will always be on his record.

I think you'll find that the police only go to ask the club when they have an application hit their desk.

It doesn't sound like an application was made - he just sent in an app to the club to stir up trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The firearms act 1996 specifically mentions a firearms license can only be given to a fit and proper person , the exact same words used here.

 

The clubs have a lot of power in rejecting people if they don't believe they should have a gun, pistol license holders have to pass a six month probationary period with their club before they can buy a pistol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you just stfu and answer Jeff and mine question....how do you think a firearm manufacturer could POSSIBLY be legally liable for a perfectly functioning gun ....that someone used to shoot somebody with?....

 

The question of whether the manufacturer/dealer of a truck deliberately used to kill pedestrians is liable is plain dumb. We don't know if it was advertised as useful to do so, we don't know if the dealer knowingly sold it to a person who had done this a lot, we don't know if the dealer knowingly fitted a bull bar for the customer to make that action more effective. I think it's ridiculous for me to type any of that just I think it is ridiculous for me to know the arguments.

 

A supreme court with better minds than anyone's here are best to judge what liabilities may be appropriate for gun manufacturers to wear.

 

Special protections for gun manufacturers under the law is a recipe for dysfunction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The firearms act 1996 specifically mentions a firearms license can only be given to a fit and proper person , the exact same words used here.

 

The clubs have a lot of power in rejecting people if they don't believe they should have a gun, pistol license holders have to pass a six month probationary period with their club before they can buy a pistol.

He will not get a firearm license life ban just because a bunch of yobs who personally dislike him don't let him into their club.

There are other clubs.

There are other justifications for being issued a license.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bc

 

Shoebridge is on record for having license denied because he is not a fit and proper person, the firearms act says the commissioner of police has to be satisified he is a fit and proper person before issuing a firearms license.

 

The evidence from the hunting club or pistol clubs or target shooting clubs is taken very seriously by the police with license applications.

 

No other club will accept Shoebridge, the police will bring up the fact he has been judged as not a fit and proper person if he tries again for a license.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bc

 

Shoebridge is on record for having license denied because he is not a fit and proper person, the firearms act says the commissioner of police has to be satisified he is a fit and proper person before issuing a firearms license.

 

The evidence from the hunting club or pistol clubs or target shooting clubs is taken very seriously by the police with license applications.

 

No other club will accept Shoebridge, the police will bring up the fact he has been judged as not a fit and proper person if he tries again for a license.

Because I am a sad loser with no life I have gone and looked up the actual legislation and regs. WA chosen because you declared them to be most strict.

 

Act: http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_339_homepage.html

Regs: http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_1453_homepage.html

 

Secret back-channels between gun clubs and the police are not mentioned at all.

 

I'm sure there are situations where the police could make an application difficult because of unofficial friendships with those in gun clubs etc.

 

But your suggestion in this case is simply rubbish. The administration tribunal would take a giant shit on the police before the complaint even hit their desk based only on the public admissions (from your link) that the rejection was personal, and no rigorous vetting had occurred.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your links are for the 1973 firearms act perhaps you should be looking at the 1996 firearms act.

 

If you are using a club membership as a genuine reason for firearms license are you saying the Police require no evidence you are a member of that club when issuing a license when club membership is required to prove genuine reason?

 

If a shooting club informs the police you are not a fit and proper person then surely the police would be negligent in issuing a firearm licenses when the firearms act says the police commissioner has to be satisfied the applicant is a fit and proper person before issuing a license.

 

I find those who praise our gun laws are actually ignorant about them

 

Gun laws shit over all other rights in Australia, with a firearm prohibition order the Police don't need a warrant to search you home or car for firearms, section 79 of the 1996 firearms act allows doctors/nurses to break doctor patient confidentiality without civil or legal liability when related to firearms.

Link to post
Share on other sites