A quick look at gun-control schemes being cooked up across the USA


TV screen shotHi Kelly

More on some liberal “commonsense” firearms control schemes:

The. U.S. Senate
The first is a bill, called the Equal Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act, which was introduced Wednesday by Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) that would allow the victims of gun violence to sue firearms and/or ammunition manufacturers and dealers who sold the items used in criminal activities and would reverse the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is also commonly referred to as the “Gun Protection Act.” This means that you could not only sue the gun owner but the person who sold him/her the ammo and weapon.

This law dismissed all current claims against gun manufacturers in both federal and state courts and pre-empted future claims. The law purpose is: To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm caused solely by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.

I suggest that if the Equal Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act is passed by Congress then we will see civil law suits filed against automobile manufactures and distillers (and anything else that a hungry  contingency/class action lawyer can attack) for intentional/criminal miss use of their products.

This Act has nothing to do with product liability. A firearms or ammo manufacturer is already liable if his product injures someone due to faulty design or manufacture as is true for any industrial product, but being liable for someone who criminally misuses a product is a pathetic attempt to force a twisted agenda on the Public.

The second is out of the state of Hawaii, which isn’t known as a firearms-friendly state. A HI state senator, Josh Green, has introduced a bill that would require firearms owners to carry liability insurance for any negligent, intentional or criminal act that used a firearm owned by them.

This one is hard to refute – until you start looking at the details; Green wants all injurious acts involving firearms to be covered by this insurance.  Current homeowner’s or renter’s insurance covers ACCIDENTAL injuries the same an auto insurance.  Neither covers intentional or criminal acts with either firearms or automobiles. This is a de facto gun control scheme from the liberals, because no insurance company will cover intentional or criminal acts.

George Bernard Shaw’s ‘Revolutionist’s Handbook’ (1903) stated “that the more things change, the more they remain the same”.  Gun banners are still with us and although their language has changed over the years; 60’s and 70’s it was ban the so-called “Saturday night special” – or any short barreled pistol; 80’s-90’s ban “Assault weapons” which to date no one has ever been able to define other than “it looks dangerous” and large capacity magazines.  No one has yet to come up a scheme that prevents reloading a firearm with another “none” high capacity magazine. In the 21st century the “gun show loophole” and internet sales have come center stage along with “stand your ground” laws, as well as continuing attacks on “assault weapons” and large capacity magazines since the Clinton years ban expired.

Amazingly despite the exploration of the Clinton ban and the dire predictions of the gun banners violent crime in this country is generally down except in areas where draconian gun restrictions (such as Chicago and Baltimore) as shown by current FBI reports.

I truly believe the issue is not about firearms control, but People Control.  The Founding Fathers in their wisdom provided for citizens of this country to be armed, not for hunting or sport target shooting – but for their personal protection as well as the ultimate check on the government.

Warren C.
Temple, TX