Bernie Sanders flips on crucial gun control position days ahead of the first Democratic debate

[riversedge]

Personally, I am glad to see Sanders reconsider his position on this critical issue--a public health issue IMHO.
It is good that any candidate can evolve as new information comes into play.

And I do not like the word flip flop or flips or anything close to that word and wish the media would stop using it.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/12/bernie_sanders_flips_on_crucial_gun_control_position_days_ahead_of_the_first_democratic_debate/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow



Monday, Oct 12, 2015 10:37 AM CST

Bernie Sanders flips on crucial gun control position days ahead of the first Democratic debate
Sanders now says he's willing to reconsider holding gun manufacturers liable for gun deaths VIDEO

Sophia Tesfaye

Bernie Sanders flips on crucial gun control position days ahead of the first Democratic debate
(Credit: AP/Steve Helber)

As the first Democratic presidential debate nears, both leading contenders are working to lessen the distance between themselves on two issues of great importance to the primary base. Last week, it was Hillary Clinton’s opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact, with the former secretary of state citing its insufficient safeguards for American workers. This week, it is Bernie Sanders’s reconsideration of his longstanding opposition to holding gun manufacturers liable for gun deaths in the wake of a rash of school shootings.

Sanders cited two shootings Friday at universities in Arizona and Texas as well as last week’s slayings at an Oregon community college when he told NBC’s Chuck Todd during a “Meet the Press” interview on Sunday that he’d take another look at his past position. In 2005, Sanders supported legislation protecting gun manufacturers from civil liability lawsuits.

“That was a complicated vote and I’m willing to see changes in that provision,” Sanders said. “Here’s the reason I voted the way I voted: If you are a gun shop owner in Vermont and you sell somebody a gun and that person flips out and then kills somebody, I don’t think it’s really fair to hold that person responsible, the gun shop owner.”

“On the other hand, where there is a problem, is there is evidence that manufacturers, gun manufacturers, do know that they’re selling a whole lot of guns in an area that really should not be buying that many guns, that many of those guns are going to other areas, probably for criminal purposes?” he asked. “So, can we take another look at that liability issue? Yes.”..........

[leftofcool]

1. Good for Bernie! This is not flip flopping. This is evolving.

His supporters should be proud of this. Way to go, Senator Sanders!

[riversedge]

2. Exactly!

[retrowire]

11. i critiqued both Hillary and O'Malley

for this position when they announced it, and I said that the idea was useless. it wouldn't cut down on shootings as much as the other ideas.

I see this as a tactical move on Bernie's part, so that the others can no longer use it to say, "look how we're ahead of Bernie of gun control!"

I still think it's an idea based in emotional catharsis for victims of gun violence and it's not a preventative action against the shootings that ensue.

now if one of them gets behind the idea of required insurance for gun owners then.... that's a good idea.

still, good news is good news, even if it is a drop in the ocean.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

44. Please state exactly his position.

I can. Can you?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

46. Crickets? n/t

[stone space]

3. Cool!

Sanders now says he's willing to reconsider holding gun manufacturers liable for gun deaths

[edgineered]

10. Is it in poor taste to duplicate this post as your own in many forums?

Just asking.

[stone space]

33. No.

Just telling.

[NCTraveler]

4. Good on Sanders.

It's nice to see him back off his support for industry specific protections that takes the publics voice away while infringing on justice. Excellent evolution on his part if it's true and not simple pandering. I welcome him coming around to reason here.

[stone space]

5. I like flips, but I prefer to avoid flops.

And I do not like the word flip flop or flips or anything close to that word and wish the media would stop using it.

Always joining the flips together with the flops creates a false equivalence between them.

This one looks like a flip to me.

Sanders now says he's willing to reconsider holding gun manufacturers liable for gun deaths

[seabeckind]

9. Sometimes switches with only 2 settings apply.

In the case of behavior and complexity there's more than 2 settings.

The problem is that some people only see 2 colors and shove shading one way or the other to make it easier for them to deal with.

[Vattel]

6. I am glad he is reconsidering. The law is not as bad as it has been

painted in attempts to attack Bernie, but it is bad law and should be amended if not repealed altogether.

[seabeckind]

7. For someone who believes a complex issue can be yes/no

it looks like a flip-flop.

He presented, in a very intelligent manner, 2 different conditions within the issue. It's pretty complex, way beyond the 4th grade level.

A gun shop owner who legally sells a gun to someone who later becomes a person who would have been illegal, should not be held liable for the actions that person does. Everything fell within the definition of legality.

On the other hand, a dealer or a manufacturer which is flooding a market that should not exist based on demographics is trafficking. That person is not doing due diligence in making sure a deadly weapon doesn't fall into the wrong hands.

That's not a flip/flop.

A flip/flop is saying that you are for something and then saying you aren't. Sometimes that's a very good quality in a person because it shows a lack of pigheadedness.

OTOH, if there is no perceptible reason for changing your mind except for public opinion, it's a weathervane.

Bernie is the smart guy. His position didn't change. He dealt with a hypothetical. And he did it very well.

[dsc]

8. the evidence the trafficing was going on existed back in 2005

yet he voted for that law which explicitly permitted that behavior by making it impossible for guns manufacturers to be sued for it.

[DanTex]

14. Well, if he had bothered to look at the kinds of lawsuits that were being filed and which were

thrown out of court as a direct result of this law, he would have understood immediately that they were not of the frivolous hypothetical kind. This was known to everyone at the time. The reason the NRA wanted the law so badly is because gun manufacturers were losing lawsuits for business practices which resulted in them knowingly profiting from gun violence. Some were changing their business practices as a result of this, and the NRA didn't like that one bit. In fact, before this law was passed, Smith and Wesson settled a case of the type the law was designed to prevent, and agreed to voluntarily adopt more responsible practices, and then the NRA organized a boycott of their products for caving, and almost ran S&W out of business. The whole "you don't sue Ford if someone hits you with a car" thing was always a smokescreen talking point, and everyone knew that.

Still, I applaud him for seeing the light on this.

[Science Crow]

15. First off, I'm replying to your post because it contains an error.

I don't know where your definition of trafficking comes from but trafficking as a criminal matter, while complex, has nothing to do with "markets that should not exist based on demographics". Who determines that?

Otherwise, the OP is just another Bernie Sanders attack, and a wrong-headed one at that.

While this is an oversimplification, product liability law has always held that a manufacturer is liable when damages occur as the result of a product failing to perform as described when used in the appropriate manner. Brakes on your new car fail and damages result? Product liability. Lawnmower blade hits a rock and shatters? If damages result, then product liability applies. Faulty gas valve in oven makes your kitchen explode? Product liability.

Firearm performs EXACTLY as designed and manufactured, and bullet kills someone? No product liability.

So, when Senator Sanders supported protecting gun manufacturers from product liability suits, he was supporting established law. Not only that, but in my opinion the law in question prevented a number of futile lawsuits that would, in the end, have only had the effect of benefiting unscrupulous lawyers and impoverishing their clients. All in all, good work.

Now, what does he actually say? That we need to look into this again? Absolutely. Is it possible that a manufacturer's actions could be found tortious without running afoul of precedent, statute, and the 2nd amendment? Maybe. Are our current laws unsatisfactory in dealing with gun violence? Obviously.

Is this a flip flop? Not in the least.

[DanTex]

17. Umm, no, your post is the one with the error. Right here:

So, when Senator Sanders supported protecting gun manufacturers from product liability suits, he was supporting established law.

Completely false. Established law was what governed lawsuits against gun manufacturers (and all other manufacturers) before the Bernie/NRA vote for gun industry immunity. What that law did is give special protection to the gun industry and the gun industry only. It changed liability law, and it changed it for one industry only.

There was no need for a special exemption for the gun industry, because as you pointed out, existing product liability law already protected them from frivolous lawsuits. The reason the NRA wanted the law so badly is because of the non-frivolous lawsuits, like the one that Smith and Wesson settled and agreed to change their business practices. And Bernie finally seems to understand this. Good for him.

[Science Crow]

24. I see your point, and that sentence should have been worded differently, but...

that protection against frivolous lawsuits exists for all manufacturers, as you seem to agree. And yes, the PLCAA codified that protection specifically for firearms manufacturers, right again. These are facts.

But to say that the NRA wanted the law to protect manufacturers and sellers against legitimate lawsuits is argument. While we may not like it, the manufacture and sale of what are essentially killing machines is a legal industry. Because people tend to die when these devices are used as intended and designed, the impulse to bring a suit when such a suit would otherwise be dismissed is much stronger than say, the impulse to sue John Deere. The argument for the PLCAA is that requiring the gun industry to mount a legal defense to lawsuits that involve negligent or criminal misuse as opposed to defective product would place an undue burden on a trade that enjoys, as most others do not, Constitutional protection. There is where the "need" for a special exemption lies, whether or not we agree with it.

So, if any legislator supported a law protecting any industry from product liability lawsuits that did not involve defective products, they would be, as I said, supporting established law or phrased differently, a codification of established law. Whether such a need exists depends on an examination of the circumstances which, as Bernie has said, should be subject to further review in the case of the firearms industry.

Good for him, I agree.

[DanTex]

28. No, PLCAA didn't codify protection against frivolous lawsuits. That protection

already existed. It didn't need to be codified. PLCAA codified protection against non-frivolous lawsuits.

Like I said, everyone knew what kinds of lawsuits that PLCAA was designed to thwart. They weren't the frivolous "sue someone because I got shot in the leg" lawsuits, they were lawsuits like the Smith and Wesson lawsuit. We know that the NRA was pissed off about this because they organized a boycott of Smith and Wesson over it. And we know that other such lawsuits were in the courts while PLCAA was signed, and got thrown out after that. It's not speculation.

The only hypotheticals here are the silly examples of frivolous lawsuits that the NRA came up with (like the guy who gets assaulted by a hammer and sues the hammer company) in order to sell the law.


PLCAA most definitely represented a departure from established law, and a departure that only affected the gun industry. First of all, product defects are not the only grounds for civil lawsuits against industries under established law. Some of the lawsuits that were prohibited by PLCAA, for example, were filed under public nuisance statutes. Public nuisance statutes still exist, but the gun industry is now exempt from them in most cases, thanks to PLCAA. This is not codifying existing common law, it is changing the law.

What PLCAA did is establish an exemption in cases of unlawful misuse. Outside of the gun industry, unlawful misuse is not automatic grounds for dismissing a civil liability lawsuit. So, again, this is not codifying existing common law, it is creating a brand new exemption that previously did not exist.


The obvious reality is that if the unlawful misuse exemption was simply codifying existing law, then they should have made the exemption available for all industries, not just guns. But they didn't. Why? Because it went way beyond codifying existing law, and everyone know that.

[Science Crow]

38. This and I'm done

1. There is no federal products liability law. The PLCAA is a codification of precedent.

2. No, everyone doesn't know what kind of lawsuits the PLCAA is designed to thwart. Are you implying that the PLCAA offers something different other than the plain language contained? Are there mysterious, secret, provisions? No. There are, however, six exceptions to the immunity granted by the PLCAA that are strangely similar to established law in other jurisdictions and are based on legal precedent. Some may say they're a .... codification!

3. The Smith and Wesson lawsuit never went forward. Smith and Wesson capitulated. That's what made the NRA angry.

4. Hamilton v Accu Tek did go forward. (public nuisance) They, (the plaintiffs) lost. This had nothing to do with the PLCAA. Trying to circumvent civil liability laws with novel legal theories benefits no one except lawyers and is potentially harmful to the public.

5. No one but you has mentioned speculation or hypotheticals.

6. I don't know if anything in the law is automatic, but unlawful misuse is grounds for dismissing a product liability lawsuit. See what happens if you sue a car manufacturer for the actions of a drunk driver. It's called a motion for summary judgment, in case you're curious.

7. I've already explained the argument for why the PLCAA was drafted for the firearms industry. If you don't agree, fine, but telling me again that "everyone knows" does not aid your cause.

[DanTex]

39. PLCAA is obviously not codification of precedent, as I've explained. Precedent at the time

allowed these kinds of cases to proceed. Obviously. For example, see Smitth and Wesson. The point of PLCAA was to change the law, because the NRA didn't like how things were going under pre-existing law.

2 Yes, everyone did know. There were wide discussions about it on both sides of the debate. Both the gun control and the pro-gun people knew and openly talked about how the purpose of this was to thwart the lawsuits that were being filed against gun companies such as S&W, the New York City lawsuit, etc. And Bernie knew this also. I'm glad you bring up the plain language of the law -- because, plainly, the language of the law creates a new legal exemption for the gun industry (and only the gun industry) that didn't exist prior.

3 Correct, the Smith and Wesson case was settled. This happens a lot with lawsuits. Of course, with PLCAA it wouldn't have settled at all, it would have been thrown out of court. Once again demonstrating that PLCAA was not just codifying precedent, but actually changing the law.

4 True, not all the cases were successful. And many of them, we'll never know, because the were in court at the time that PLCAA passed -- part of the reason the NRA wanted PLCAA is to get those pending cases dismissed.

5 Bernie himself put forward the hypothetical about suing a hammer company. I'm talking about actual lawsuits, not hypotheticals.

6 No, unlawful misuse is not grounds for dismissing a liability lawsuit. You are simply wrong about this. Obviously, there are some cases of unlawful misuse that will get thrown out of court (i.e. the drunk driving example, or Bernie's hammer example), and others that won't. Except with guns, where, thanks to PLCAA, they all get thrown out.

7 Yes, you've claimed (falsely) that this it was about codifying pre-existing legal protections against frivolous lawsuits. And I've explained how absurd this is.

[DanTex]

12. Good for him to come around on this important issue.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. As a dispassionate observer

As a dispassionate observer I will neither condemn nor praise the Vermont senator and merely remark these are the actions all politicians engage in.

[workinclasszero]

16. So when Hillary changes her position on any given subject

Bernie backers rake her over the coals, call her a flip flopper, disingenuous, looking at which way the wind blows, "camp weathervane", "oh no there goes Hillary evolving again", etc.

But Bernie Sanders stands there like a rock, never changing, right 40 years ago and right today!


But now you say say Bernie is evolving/flip flip flopping on his right wing pro gun views a day before a national debate? Well about time is all I've got to say.

And I fully expect all the Bernie bashers of Hillary Clinton to give Bernie a taste of their own medicine regarding their total disdain and contempt for flip floppers who evolve over time!

[Gloria]

19. WELL SAID

But the worshippers will not see your point...because thry ARE worshippers.

[workinclasszero]

21. Exactly

eom

[Dustlawyer]

23. The difference is in one case, guns, you have recent tragedies that point out an error in past

belief/policy that causes a change in views that is sincerely held.

In the other, TPP where there is no new information other than the pending election and the TPP is just unpopular with voters, the change is for votes and insincere, since she will support these same policies if elected as that is what her Donors require.

That is the difference.

[MADem]

26. TPP was being written and re-written over the past year--IT was

changing and evolving. AND there was a document leak very recently, too. Yet you claim that there was no new information? Please.

Sanders changed his mind because he wisely looked around and saw that people were getting sick of seeing kids getting mowed down on campuses and elsewhere, and those views were held by those who were coming to see him speak.

But how interesting that you wasted no time characterizing.

[jeff47]

30. Time only goes in one direction.

The recent leak was after she changed her position. So it could not have been a factor. The previous leaks were months ago, so there was no new public information that could have caused her to change her position. There would be no reason to take many months to change her position. The TPP leaks are not months-long-analysis complex, especially to a candidate with so many advisors.

If the "written and re-written" was what changed her position, then someone's leaking classified information to Clinton. Otherwise, there's no way she could have received new information near the time that she changed her position.

Do you really want to make that claim?

[workinclasszero]

29. So any Bernie flip flop is sincerely held...

therefore OK. SMH

Wow

[pangaia]

18. I listened to the entire interview last night.

Did Sophia Tesfaye or ANYBODY here actually listen to it? OR know what Bernie's vote was about way back when?

Everything is not so black or white, zero or one, up or down, yes or no, + or -.

And on DIT:

"... both leading contenders are working to lessen the distance between themselves on two issues of great importance to the primary base. "

This is just an ignorant statement made by a lazy writer. ONE contender is trying to lessen the distance....

[restorefreedom]

20. i would like to know what he means by "complicated vote"

and i wonder if he is referring to the language used and or amendments attached rather than the underlying issue. i might be in the minority but i agree with his vermont scenario..if you own a gun shop in vermont (or wherever), and someone comes in, you perform the required background checks, the person buys the gun, and a year later, "flips out" to use bernie's term over some fence dispute with his neighbor, is the shop owner responsible? is the maker of the gun responsible? (assuming the gun had no design flaw allowing it to be easily modified)

if we have an issue with guns in this country, then we need to stop it at the chokepoint: sale. if certain guns should not be in the hands of the public, it is a sale and distribution issue, not manufacture, unless as i said above, the gun is designed to easily allow modifications for easier/faster killing.

we will never stop the problems of gun violence as long as everyone and their brother can buy and stockpile guns and the private sale/gunshow loophole exists.

go ahead, flame away.......

[davemac]

22. Karl Rove must be impressed

This is a laughable exercise by the Clinton camp to attack Bernie's strength...a page right out of Carl Rove's political attack book. So, after flipping on TPP and Keystone (perhaps deceiving is a more accurate verb to use) will she also try to deceive the Democratic voters about her love of endless wars, her blind support of Israel, the hundreds of millions of dollars of political donations she's receiving from the Wall street banksters and speculators (and instead throw the bums in jail), her political donations from the multi-billion private incarceration industry, her support for Monsanto ignoring the UN fact that Glyphosate - the active ingredient in Monsanto's profitable herbicide Roundup - is carcinogenic, her support of GMO's and the work her and her husband are doing, with the likes of Bill Gates, to destroy 3rd world farming communities and establish a single source of seed supply in the world? Don't hold your breath...she is the perfect political puppet to do the will of the 1% - especially those banksters whose feeding trough she and her husband has swilled from many, many, many times.

[JaneyVee]

25. But, but...everyone on DU defended his previous position and said

He was right.

[PatrickforO]

27. Good! I'm happy to see this.

Perhaps gun shop owners and manufacturers who sell assault weapons should be held liable if someone buys one and then flips out.

[lostnfound]

31. Bernie cares about representing the PEOPLE he represents

I expected his position on guns would evolve when his responsibility to represent includes the whole of the U.S., and not just Vermont.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

32. I call b*llsh*t on linked author.

The Salon article claims Bernie "flips" on gun manufacturer liability at a recent interview on Meet the Press. I see no evidence of that. As to the Congressional bill in question in 2005, it provided some sort of immunity for gun manufacturers and sellers. I do not know the nature of that immunity, despite doing preliminary research just now. Based on Bernie's comments, that immunity was something akin to immunity from strict liability. In other words, if a well made handgun is sold to a lawful purchaser by a gun store and then later that gun is used unlawfully to kill or injure another person, should the gun seller be civilly liable for such sale? Bernie's vote was to say "no." What Bernie suggested on Meet The Press was apparently a different issue: if a gun manufacturer knows it is selling too many guns for a given locale, should that manufacturer be liable for such suspicious sales? Bernie implies he is willing to support liability in such a case.

Caveat: I don't know for a certainty that everything I asserted in the previous paragraph is true because it is hard to get solid info on this particular bill. But the burden is on the Salon author to prove her case and she has come nowhere close to doing so. Bernie does not appear to be changing his position, but rather suggesting an issue outside the scope of the 2005 bill where he would be in favor of gun manufacturer liability. If I am wrong about the facts, I will freely admit it. But the Salon article does not make a prima facie case for "flipping."

[DanTex]

36. No, the author was right. The whole point of the bill that Bernie voted for was to protect

gun manufacturers from lawsuits filed, often by local and state governments, alleging that the companies were knowingly profiting from guns that ended up in criminal hands, and either did this on purpose or knew about it and did nothing in their business practice to prevent it. Usually they were filed under "public nuisance" or other such statutes.

One of the major such lawsuit was against Smith and Wesson, who settled and agreed to change their business practices to reduce criminal misuse of guns. The NRA saw this as caving to gun control, and organized a boycott that almost bankrupted the company. Other similar lawsuits were in the courts at the time that PLCAA was passed, and they were all immediately dismissed as a result.

The frivolous hypothetical examples you've heard, for example, a guy who gets assaulted with the hammer and then decides to sue the hammer company, had no semblance to what the law was really designed to prevent. Those were just NRA talking points. The gun industry didn't need any special law to protect itself from frivolous lawsuits, because frivolous lawsuit protection already existed, for the gun industry as well as everyone else, before PLCAA passed.

It was very clear, at the time that Bernie cast his vote, what kinds of lawsuits the NRA was focused on thwarting. They were in the courts, and in the newspapers. He couldn't possibly have not known about the Smith and Wesson lawsuit and others. Yes, this is a change of opinion for him (whether to call it an evolution or a flip or whatever, I don't care about that).

[Admiral Loinpresser]

40. At least partially false.

The PLCAA did not only apply to manufacturer's. Perhaps you are right about the whole point of the bill, but the legislation was vastly overbroad if you are correct. It also applied to gun shop owners "seller" and "dealer" in the statutory language. Bernie said on MTP he would consider holding ONLY manufacturers for selling guns disproportionately used in crimes. He was voting on a bill that also covered litigation against gun shop owners. He didn't comment on whether that bill change (excluding shop owners) would have changed his vote.

15 USC 7903:

(5) Qualified civil liability action
(A) In generalThe term “qualified civil liability action” means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party,

In conclusion, Bernie stated his objection to the PLCAA: it covers gun shop owners. He gave NO indication he would reverse his vote on the bill as passed. None. He indicated his willingness to support a law ONLY covering manufacturers. That is not "flipping." I maintain my objection to the spinning committed by the link author.

[DanTex]

41. Correct, it applied to the entire gun industry, including dealers.

And, yes, it was vastly overbroad. Gun dealers shouldn't have any special legal immunity either.

I don't know if Bernie's flip-flop was complete, or if he was trying to have it both ways, he didn't really go into details. To the extent that he changed his mind a little, I'm happy. To the extent that he still partially defends the NRA giveaway, I'm still disappointed in him.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

42. Your rhetoric is unjustified.

Please state precisely what Bernie's alleged flip flop is. In doing so, keep in mind my rebuttal, which you conceded. I want an exact statement of where Bernie reversed his position.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

45. Crickets? n/t

[KingCharlemagne]

35. Did Obama flip flop on gay marriage? - nt

[stone space]

43. He flopped somewhere between 1996 and 2008.

There had also been a more recient flip.

[George II]

37. The headline (not yours, salon's) is misleading....

"he told NBC’s Chuck Todd during a “Meet the Press” interview on Sunday that he’d take another look at his past position".

As of now his position is the same.