Point Blank
The NRA must be breathing a sigh of relief, and so must the manufacturers of firearms in the United States, over the recent bill that passed the House in a margin of 283-144 that protects gun manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits by local governments and victims of firearm misuse.
The bill allows lawsuits to go forward if there is a defect in the design or manufacture of a gun, or if weapons dealers knowingly sell firearms intended for criminal activity, but the legislation prohibits civil liability actions in any state or federal court against the firearms industry, while dismissing any and all pending legal actions against manufacturers and dealers.
Unsurprisingly, there are those who insist that this bill is "shameful", such as representative Robert Wexler, Democrat-Florida (and people marvel that the NRA commits most of its political fundraising to Republican candidates), claiming that the passage of the House bill is more a testament to "the power of the gun lobby" rather than the testament to common sense and the politics of personal responsibility that it actually is.
"I just find it an absolute travesty that these people who are going to be killed (and) maimed by weapons that have been negligently handled (will) have no recourse," said Senator Diane Feinstein in a comment on the passage of the bill, conveniently neglecting to mention that the United States currently has a sprawling legal and law enforcement system dedicated exclusively to providing recourse to those who are victims of criminal and negligent acts.
Whatever with Diane Feinstein. She's the exact same kind of "absolute travesty" who insists that we need extra Hate Crime penalties against criminals when our legal and law enforcement systems already punish those who commit acts of violence . . . against anybody . . . period . . . no matter their color, gender or sexual proclivity. And before the gay lobby jumps all over my back, I recall reading that gay "advocates" were dancing on the tables over the recent ruling in Kansas that struck down unequal punishment of homosexuals regarding sex with minors. That's all fine and good, and exactly what needed to happen, but guess what ladies and fellers -- if you don't want unequal punishment for yourselves under the law, then stop f**king demanding unequal punishment for others under the law (which is the purpose of Hate Crime legislation). No crime victim is more important than any other crime victim, and no criminal deserves a greater punishment because his victim was a woman, or a gay or black, just as no criminal deserves a greater penalty simply because he may be a man, or gay or black.
And is it just me, or doesn't the whole "Hate Crime" thing smack of 1984? Dang, and here I thought that it was only the Republicans who were all Orwellian and sh*t.
In more encouraging news, the House also passed what it calls, "The Cheeseburger Bill", in which the House voted 306-120 to ban frivolous lawsuits by consumers who claim they became obese from eating too much of a food company's high-calorie product.
So much for my latest get rich quick scheme . . .
So, two strikes for personal responsibility. I'm very impressed. And even more impressive still, the senate voted down a pay raise for itself!
*gasp*
Though not after the House voted to keep it, so the conflict between the two bodies has yet to be worked out. But seriously, the Senate voted 92-6 to forgo an automatic annual pay raise of $3,100, saying they have to reduce government spending after the huge expenses caused by Hurricane Katrina. Forgoing the raise will save the federal treasury about $2 million, which is about the price of one toilet seat at the Pentagon (or 10 hammers), but hey, it's a start.
Comments
I with you on all this, Homocon. I don't want hate laws to protect me, I want ordinary laws to protect me. Hate crime and hate speech laws have the eventual effect of creating hate thought crime laws, if not in the judiciary, then in society. "How can you even think such a thing?" is a standard leftist comeback to having their racial, sexual, class pieties questioned.
As for the gun and cheeseburger laws, will they make it through the Senate?
And as for BoxerStein or FeinBoxer, these two mommy statists need to be dumped for good. Every time I see one of them in the news, I start fantasizing about duct tape.
______________
Homocon sez:
I'm with ya all the way -- except on the duct tape fantasies . . .
Posted by: Essem | October 24, 2005 9:10 AM
Okay, I'll be the first to say it:
That cheeseburger and pistol both look really good!
Posted by: Scott | October 24, 2005 9:56 AM
I'm not surprised the bobble-headed lefties are decrying this bill. After all, their aim is to accomplish through litigation what they could not through legislation: kill the firearms industry (much like they tried to do with the tobacco industry). It's reprehensible that some working in our government (and many out here in the "real world") think that it's okay to sue the manufacturer of a product when some idiot goes and uses it dangerously or illegally. If this were to happen for gun makers, what happens the next time someone is struck by a drunk driver? Would Ford or GM be sued then? I just don't understand the mindset of some people.
I'm also glad the "Cheeseburger Bill" passed. Why should anybody else get rich because they stole my idea? ;)
I agree with you whole-heartedly about the alleged "hate crime" thing. I've never really been able to figure that out myself...
______________
Homocon sez:
Right. I find the whole Hate Crime issue especially confusing after the Kansas ruling that struck down the clause of the Kansas statute which imposed harsher sentences for sex with a minor if it involved sodomy between same-sex couples. While the majority of citizens may not appreciate the idea of same-sex coupling, this doesn't justify harsher punishment for same-sex dallying with a minor than is doled out for opposite-sex dallying with a minor.
A crime is a crime -- the punishment shouldn't vary according to who performs the crime, or who is the victim of it.
Posted by: Phillip | October 24, 2005 10:19 AM
The senate has already passed the gun bill and the President has promised to sign it, so saving the American small arms industry from the (near) doom of the American private airplane industry.
I am a prosecutor in Texas, where we do have hate crime legislation and will execute two of the three murderers of James Byrd without the "hate crime enhancement."
Enhanced punishment for injuries to particular classes of the citizenry is not unusual. Under Texas law, if a criminal injured any one of several categories of person (before the NAACP stampeded our governor into the hate crime business)the crook faced a greater punishment; e.g., police officers, firefighters or EMTs in the performance of their duties; children and the elderly (over 65 yoa).
The logic is that certain segments of society who are easier prey for predatory criminals and certain people in already dangerous occupations are classes we will seek to protect by punishing wrongs aimed at them more harshly than otherwise.
That same logic breaks down as applied to factors such as race, ethnicity and the like. Statistics will show that the statutes governing injuries to the previously "super-protected" classes are applied daily in Texas. "Hate crime" prosecutions are so rare as to be notable when they are employed. The fact that a person is under fifteen years of age or is outfitted in full firefighter regalia is, in the main, objective, observable fact. One's membership in the newly protected classes may be discernable but if the crook does not announce his mind, how are we to devine whether his assault is in part or whole based upon the status of his victim or he is just a sorry bastard?
Posted by: ben | October 27, 2005 6:26 AM