Hill Democrats take aim at gun industry protections — and at Bernie Sanders

[ProudToBeLiberal]

There is nothing especially remarkable on Capitol Hill about a group of liberal Democrats from reliably blue states holding a press conference to announce the introduction of a bill to tighten federal gun laws.

But the timing of the Wednesday morning unveiling of new legislation from Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), just a few days before the Iowa caucuses, managed to raise some eyebrows.

Their bill would repeal a decade-old law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act, or PLCAA, which severely restricts the civil liability of gun makers, distributors and dealers — a law that has become a flash point in the Democratic presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

...

Both Clinton and Sanders were in the Senate at the time Congress passed PLCAA, which bars most civil lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers seeking to hold them responsible for negligence after the products they have sold are misused.

In one well-publicized case, the family of an Illinois 11-year-old who was shot by a playmate attempted to sue Beretta for failing to prevent the handgun involved from being fired without a magazine, but the lawsuit was barred under PLCAA. Lawyers representing the victims of mass shootings say the law has frustrated their efforts to press for new safety measures in the gun industry.

More at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/01/27/hill-democrats-take-aim-at-gun-industry-protections-and-bernie-sanders/

[restorefreedom]

1. dredging up tired old talking points

full panic mode now.....

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Blumenthal and Schiff unveiled the new legislation today

Did you even read the article?

[hrmjustin]

3. Good!

[beam me up scottie]

5. Stale talking point/meme #2: Bernie's a gun nut - we rate this meme "pants on fire"

Sanders voted against the pro-gun-control Brady Bill, writing that he believes states, not the federal government, can handle waiting periods for handguns. In 1994, he voted yes on an assault weapons ban. He has voted to ban some lawsuits against gun manufacturers and for the Manchin-Toomey legislation expanding federal background checks.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm

Bernie Sanders’ critics misfire: The Vermont senator’s gun record is better than it looks

....However, the Nation and the other reports like it don’t shed real light on where Sanders is coming from. They don’t explain why he supports some gun controls but not others. Nor do they ask if there’s a consistency to Sanders’ positions and votes over the years? They simply suggest that Bernie’s position is muddled and makes a good target for Hillary.

Yet there is an explanation. It’s consistent and simpler than many pundits think. And it’s in Bernie’s own words dating back to the campaign where he was first elected to the U.S. House—in 1990—where he was endorsed by the NRA, even after Sanders told them that he would ban assault rifles. That year, Bernie faced Republican incumbent Peter Smith, who beat him by less than 4 percentage points in a three-way race two years before.

In that 1988 race, Bernie told Vermont sportsmen that he backed an assault weapons ban. Smith told the same sportsmen’s groups that he opposed it, but midway through his first term he changed his mind and co-sponsored an assault rifle ban—even bringing an AK-47 to his press conference. That about-face was seen as a betrayal and is the background to a June 1990 debate sponsored by the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs.

I was at that debate with Smith and three other candidates—as the Sanders’ campaign press secretary—and recorded it. Bernie spoke at length three times and much of what he said is relevant today, and anticipates his congressional record on gun control ever since. Look at how Bernie describes what being a sportsperson is in a rural state, where he is quick to draw the line with weapons that threaten police and have no legitimate use in hunting—he previously was mayor of Vermont’s biggest city, and his record of being very clear with the gun lobby and rural people about where he stands. His approach, despite the Nation’s characterization, isn’t “open-minded.”

As you can see, Bernie—who moved to rural northeastern Vermont in the late 1960s—has an appreciation and feeling for where hunting and fishing fit into the lives of lower income rural people. He’s not a hunter or a fisherman. When he grew up in Brooklyn, he was a nerdy jock—being captivated by ideas and a high school miler who hoped for a track scholarship for college. But like many people who settled in Vermont for generations, he was drawn to its freer and greener pastures and respected its local culture.

“I went before the sportsmen of Vermont and said that I have concerns about certain types of assault weapons that have nothing to do with hunting. I believe in hunting. I will not support any legislation that limits the rights of Vermonters or any other hunters to practice what they have enjoyed for decades. I do have concerns about certain types of assault weapons.”

That was not the end of his remarks. But it is worth noting that his separating the rights of traditional hunters from the concerns of police chiefs has been a constant thread in many subsequent votes he would take in Congress. It’s also noteworthy that Bernie consistently has opposed assault weapons from the late 1980s—before he was in Congress—which he reiterated to the moderator.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/10/what_bernies_gun_control_critics_get_wrong_partner/

Alternet: Bernie's Gun Control Critics Are Wrong—His Stance Has Been Consistent for Decades

Next, the 1990 debate turned to gun control. The moderator, who clearly was a Second Amendment absolutist, went after Bernie—to test his mettle after Smith’s about-face.

“Do you support additional restrictions on firearms? Do you support additional restrictive firearms legislation?” he asked. “Bernie Sanders, explain yourself, yes or no?”

“Yes,” he replied. “Two years ago, I went before the Vermont Sportsman’s Federation and was asked exactly the same question. It was a controversial question. I know how they felt on the issue. And that was before the DiConcini Bill. That was before a lot of discussion about the Brady Bill. That was before New Jersey and California passed bills limiting assault weapons.

“I went before the sportsmen of Vermont and said that I have concerns about certain types of assault weapons that have nothing to do with hunting. I believe in hunting. I will not support any legislation that limits the rights of Vermonters or any other hunters to practice what they have enjoyed for decades. I do have concerns about certain types of assault weapons.”

That was not the end of his remarks. But it is worth noting that his separating the rights of traditional hunters from the concerns of police chiefs has been a constant thread in many subsequent votes he would take in Congress. It’s also noteworthy that Bernie consistently has opposed assault weapons from the late 1980s—before he was in Congress—which he reiterated to the moderator.

“I said that before the election,” he continued. “The Vermont sportspeople, as is their right, made their endorsement. The endorsed Peter Smith. They endorsed Paul Poirier. I lost that election by about three-and-one-half percentage points, a very close election. Was my failure to get that endorsement pivotal? It might have been. We don’t know. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn’t. All I can say is I told the sportspeople of Vermont what I believe before the election and I am going to say it again.

“I do believe we need to ban certain types of assault weapons. I have taked to police chiefs. I have talked to the police officers out on the street. I have read some of the literature all over this country. Police chiefs, police officers are concerned about the types of weapons which are ending up in the hands of drug dealers and other criminals and our police oficers are getting outgunned.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernies-gun-control-critics-are-wrong-his-stance-has-been-consistent-decades

Sanders Votes for Background Checks, Assault Weapons Ban

WASHINGTON, April 17 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn.

“Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities,” Sanders said. “There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others,” Sanders added.

The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it. “To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories,” Sanders said.

Under current federal law, background checks are not performed for tens of thousands of sales – up to 40 percent of all gun transfers – at gun shows or over the Internet. The amendment would have required background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer. The compromise proposal would have exempted sales between “family, friends, and neighbors.”

In a separate roll call, the Senate rejected a proposal to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. That proposal was defeated by a vote of 60 to 40.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban

Bernie Sanders voted for the 1994 crime bill because it included the Violence against Women Act and assault weapons ban:

In 1994, however, Sanders voted in favor of the final version of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, a bill that expanded the federal death penalty. Sanders had voted for an amendment to the bill that would have replaced all federal death sentences with life in prison. Even though the amendment failed, Sanders still voted for the larger crime bill.

A spokesman for Sanders said he voted for the bill "because it included the Violence Against Women Act and the ban on certain assault weapons."

Sanders reiterated his opposition to capital punishment in 2015. "I just don’t think the state itself, whether it’s the state government or federal government, should be in the business of killing people," he said on a radio show.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/02/viral-image/where-do-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-stand-/

If he's a pro-NRA/pro-gun politician why did the NRA give him a lifetime D- rating?

[ProudToBeLiberal]

9. Hey scottie, how was your day so far? nt

[CajunBlazer]

12. Did you do know that Bernie had NRA's backing for his first successful Congressional run?

Bernie was of course running as an independent. The NRA didn't much like the positions of Republican in the race so they endorsed Bernie instead. Most political observers in Vermont at the time cited the NRA's endorsement as the deciding reason why Bernie won.

Had he not won that race, Bernie's political career may well have been quite different. He might still be the mayor of Burlington. It is kind of ironic that the NRA jump started the political career of the probably most liberal politicians to seriously seek the Democratic nomination in our life times.

Vermont is a mostly rural state. Heck, the population of Burlington, Vermont's largest city, was only 42,417 at the 2010 census and is estimated to be slightly smaller now. As I have heard Bernie explain several times, people in rural areas think differently about guns than people in big cities where guns have only one use, killing people. To be a successful politician in Vermont you simply can't be as anti-gun as a politician in New York City.

[beam me up scottie]

13. Did you know I'm from Vermont and don't need to be lectured by outsiders about my state?

Bernie never received any money from the NRA and they turned on him when he lived up to his promise to vote for an assault weapons ban.

And did you also know that both Hillary and Obama said the SAME thing about the difference between rural and urban gun use?:

Gun-Control Advocates Should Listen More, Obama Says

"I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations and I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake."

His comments come in the wake of the shootings last month in Newtown, Conn. The killing of 20 children in the town has spurred gun-control advocates to seek restriction on the ownership of certain firearms such as military-style assault rifles.

"Part of being able to move this forward is understanding the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas. And if you grew up and your dad gave you a hunting rifle when you were ten, and you went out and spent the day with him and your uncles, and that became part of your family's traditions, you can see why you'd be pretty protective of that.

"So it's trying to bridge those gaps that I think is going to be part of the biggest task over the next several months. And that means that advocates of gun control have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/01/27/170393072/gun-control-advocates-should-listen-more-obama-says

Hillary hits Obama on faith, guns

Yesterday, Clinton hit Obama for calling Pennsylvanians "bitter," ground on which he fairly ably engaged.
Today, she's onto the other half of his San Francisco remarks, in which he linked economic frustration to clinging to religion and guns (the part he sought to walk back this morning in Muncie, Ind.).

"Sen. Obama's remarks are elitist, and they are out of touch," Clinton said. "The people of faith I know don't 'cling to' religion because they're bitter. ... I also disagree with Sen. Obama's assertion that people in this country 'cling to guns' and have certain attitudes about immigration or trade simply out of frustration. People of all walks of life hunt — and they enjoy doing so because it's an important part of their life, not because they are bitter."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2008/04/hillary-hits-obama-on-faith-guns-007747

Hillary Clinton goes bold on gun safety — but she sounded a different note in 2008


But Clinton hasn’t always been so forceful in her fight for gun control. As the Post highlights, Clinton has dramatically shifted her tone on gun control since the 2008 campaign. While Clinton touted her husband’s record record on gun control (former President Bill Clinton signed into the law an assault weapons ban that has since lapsed) she also heralded personal memories of learning to shoot with her father and defend gun ownership, saying, “there is not a contradiction between protecting Second Amendment rights” and the effort to reduce crime.

You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl,” Clinton said while campaigning ahead of the Indiana primary, where white working class Democrats propelled her to a narrow victory over then-Sen. Barack Obama. “You know, some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. It’s part of culture. It’s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter,” she continued, in a dig at Obama’s remark at a fundraiser that disenfranchised Americans often “cling” to cultural symbols like guns and religion.

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/10/hillary_clinton_goes_bold_on_gun_safety_but_she_sounded_a_different_note_in_2008/

[CajunBlazer]

17. Did you know that you are not the only one who reads this forum

I also noticed on your profile that you no longer live in Vermont that you no longer live in the green mountain state, so you might have missed some of Bernie's rise to "prominence".

I also notice that you have had 4 posts hidden in the last 90 days. So you are really not in the position to be telling anyone what not to post.

[beam me up scottie]

19. I've supported Bernie since he ran for mayor of Burlington.

I've had the pleasure of meeting and voting for him - repeatedly, so your patronizing attitude is about as welcome as mine would be if I lectured you about your home state.

I also notice that you have had 4 posts hidden in the last 90 days. So you are really not in the position to be telling anyone what not to post.

That would sound clever and relevant if I actually told you not to post something.

So you're batting zero, wanna try again?

[CajunBlazer]

22. I've read many of your posts

It's hard to miss your prancing green cat with wings or whatever the heck that is.

From what seen you're just not that good. Oh you can use google okay, and you probably have a lot of time on your hands, but obviously you can't be depended upon to have a civil conversation without verbally attacking someone - thus your four hides.. Getting into a heated discussion with you would be like getting into a butt kicking session with a one legged man - it just wouldn't be fair at all. And besides I would want to push you into another hide - you might be suspended from DU.

By the way, I wouldn't be bragging DU about having supported Bernie in all of his political campaigns if I were you. As you know Bernie has always run as an independent, until recently anyway, which means you supported him against Democratic completion in ever race.

[beam me up scottie]

23. See that's what you don't get about Vermonters, we vote for people not parties.

Apparently your Google skills failed since you missed that and it's not the first time. Doing a search on Bernie + Vermont and consulting Wikipedia isn't going to cut it here.

And I've read many of your posts too, including the anti-Semitic op which should have been hidden and wasn't. I won't link to it because that would get me a hide but if anyone's curious or if this goes to a jury all they need to do is Google your name and "THE REAL BERNIE SANDERS" and they'll find it.

Your refusal to remove the offending article and link told me everything I needed to know about you.

So that glass house of yours isn't going to afford you any protection while you're busy hurling rocks at others.

When you can find a single post of mine (get busy I've been here over 11 years) that cites a racist or otherwise bigoted source to smear an opponent only then will you be able to lecture me about what's acceptable here.

I may be rude but I would never resort to using bigotry to score points.

Your attempt to put this uppity person in her place failed.

Again.

You're 0 for 3 now.

Oh and if you're trying to provoke me into another hide I'm going to remind the jury to read your posts first before deciding, your personal attacks are an obvious attempt to bait me and I never responded in kind, I stuck to the facts and topic at hand while all you've done is repeatedly bring up my hidden posts and my behaviour elsewhere on DU.

[CajunBlazer]

24. As might recall...

...the link in question was one of several picked at random and posted to illustrate the kind of crap that will be thrown at Bernie by the Republician "Swift Boat" machine if he get the nomination. It was meant to counter totally unrealistic claims that Bernie would clearly trounce any Republican party nominee. I never even suggested that the claims were true; I was simply pointing out in an perfectly honest manner what Bernie would be facing, and don't deceive yourself for a minute into thinking that the Republican's wouldn't stoop to use that sort of crap. Unfortunately they will continue to throw that kind of mud until the find what sticks.

And yes, there was an alert on that post, but it is still there because people on the jury could tell the difference between an attack and a statement of political fact - the Republicans will throw very sticky mud at Bernie Sanders, count on it.

I read what what's posted in the GDP. Many of your fellow Bernie buddies have posted mean, filthy, outrageous things about Hillary Clinton and claimed they were absolutely true. You had to read the same trash and what did you do about it? Did you call them out? Heck no! You did absolutely nothing! And yet when point out what others might say about Sanders, without claiming it had any validity, you called me out and apparently still can't let it go. There a perfect word for when people act like that - hypocritical - and note, I not criticizing you as a person, I am criticizing the manner in which you have conducted yourself board.

And don't play all goody, goody two shoes with me and talk about personal attacks on you like you are some kind of innocent. I have never had a post hidden, even the ones alerted on in GDP where are one expects a mostly Bernie supporter jury. You on the other hand, don't have such a good record with 4 recent hids. Talk about people living in glass houses.

But let's call a truce. I won't respond to any of your posts if you agree to not respond to any of mine, except this one of course. Deal?

[beam me up scottie]

25. And yet when people expressed their disgust you refused to delete the link.

Do you really think it's acceptable to post racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, sexist or otherwise bigoted articles about Democrats here?

I was simply pointing out in an perfectly honest manner what Bernie would be facing

If that's your excuse then you would be okay with people posting racist articles from hate groups about Obama just to "illustrate" how racists think, right?

And sexist diatribes from MRA sites about Hillary, are those fair game as well?

Imagine GDP bombarded with dozens of attack ads from right wing sources on a daily basis, but only for "educational purposes" of course. Nothing is off limits, Stormfront, FreeRepublic, the Cave, Breitbart, everything gets a pass.

Answer honestly, if those kinds of posts were allowed here as long as the poster claimed they were just "concerned" would you really find that acceptable?



And you want to talk about mean?

According to Hillary supporters on DU Bernie is Israel's #1 shill, a pro gunner that thinks women enjoy being raped, that we should abolish pedophilia or rape laws, is a racist, gun nut, draft dodger, scheming little sneak, socialist throwback jackass, drooling, sweating old fool, scumbag, pandering phony braggart with some kind of emotional instability, tool for the NRA, Republican man with his head between women's legs, who protects the minutemen militia, pedophiles, racist cops, has rape fantasies, thinks that orgasms prevent cancer, wants guns in the streets, is trying to suppress the black vote and is supported by Stormfront.*

Those are direct quotes that were posted about Bernie so get off your high horse.

Oh and I would post the links to those quotes so you could see them for yourself but the last two times I did that my posts were hidden - just for linking to other posts even though it's not a violation of the rules.

So your implications about my hides were wrong too.


And fyi I have asked Bernie supporters to delete ops that were offensive and/or linked to right wing sites. I've also voted to hide those posts as well, so once again you're wrong about me.

If you had bothered to research my posts as well as my hides you'd know that. But apparently your obsession with my posting history begins and ends with my profile.

So let me make this perfectly clear since you obviously didn't do your homework this is and has been my opinion all along:

NO RIGHT WING SOURCES SHOULD BE USED AGAINST ANY OF OUR CANDIDATES.

FOR ANY REASON.

You shouldn't get a pass and neither should anyone else.








*note to jury: the links to all of those posts can be found in my journal so I'm not making false accusations. This post also contains no personal attacks. Thank you for serving.

[CajunBlazer]

27. You know what - you're not worth any more of my time

If you haven't noticed, you just did exactly what you accused me of doing - pointing out nasty things said about your candidate.

But again, you're simply not worth it. I am already regretting the time I have spent trying to civil conversation with you. Obviously you simply want to have the last word so you can convince your self that you've. Well, now you have that opportunity.

It's kind of like when a kid tries to pick a fight with an adult - eventually the adult just has to walk away. Enjoy talking to yourself. I'll see you after the nominee is picked - if you are still here that is. If you are, it's highly likely that many of your Bernie buddies will be gone if they carry through with their threats.

[beam me up scottie]

28. This is what you call civil conversation?:

From what seen you're just not that good. Oh you can use google okay, and you probably have a lot of time on your hands, but obviously you can't be depended upon to have a civil conversation without verbally attacking someone - thus your four hides.. Getting into a heated discussion with you would be like getting into a butt kicking session with a one legged man - it just wouldn't be fair at all. And besides I would want to push you into another hide - you might be suspended from DU.

I have not once insulted or attacked you, no matter how uncivil you've been, so spare me. You're not offended, you just can't admit you're wrong - about everything.

You were wrong about Bernie, my knowledge of Vermont, my posting history and your own actions. You also didn't answer my questions about whether or not right wing sources should be posted here.

All you've done is attack me repeatedly and try to bait me into a hide but it didn't work. So you're not the adult in the room, you're the bully on the playground who runs away when someone stands up to him.

[Doctor_J]

18. she was for guns before she was against them, and was against them before that

Let me check the weather. Maybe we can figure out where she stands today

[beam me up scottie]

20. She also served on the board of the world's largest gun retailer.

And no one seems to know if she's still making money on Wal-Mart's gun sales.

[Doctor_J]

15. did you know that Hillary Clinton has the private prison industry backing for her CURRENT campaign

Checkmate

[HassleCat]

6. That part of the law is good

No manufacturer of any product should be liable if the product is not faulty. If we want to make sure a handgun will not fire unless a magazine is inserted, then we should use the normal rule making procedure to establish a regulation that says so. legislation is not even required.

[Doctor_J]

16. I guess I would tend to agree. The baretta worked exactly as intended.

The idiot left it lying around with ammo in it.

[Eleanors38]

7. Old-line Beltway Dems bring up their favorite issue: Gunz. nt

[NCTraveler]

8. K&R nt.

[CajunBlazer]

10. More quotes from the article:

Sanders supported the bill, and Clinton opposed it, giving her a rare instance where her record is clearly more liberal than Sanders’s on a central issue to Democratic voters.

The four lawmakers who attended Wednesday’s event — Blumenthal, Schiff, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) — all have endorsed Clinton in the presidential race. Also speaking to reporters was Dan Gross, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, whose political arm has savaged Sanders’s gun record in recent weeks.

[Eleanors38]

14. "...On an issue (gunz) central to MSM." Fixed. nt

[hack89]

11. Either candidate will be good for gun owners

just like Obama has been - things will not change despite the campaign rhetoric.

[Odin2005]

21. Anti-gun stupidity.

I'm sorry but blaming gun makers for the acts of gun owners is fucking dumb. If that makes me a "gun-nut", so fucking be it.

[Jack-o-Lantern]

26. I am so goddamned sick of this back and forth between the two sides of our TWO fine candidates...

Please give it a rest. Redirect your attack mode venom toward the lunatics vying for the repuke nomination.

[Dawson Leery]

29. Blumenthal has always been there for us.

He is again.