Fairytales, Guns and Sanders, Part 1

Once upon a time, when pollution did not choke the land and the only gaping hole in the earth was the Grand Canyon and its like, people with guns did not kill other human beings. These friendly but hungry people went out into the wild with their guns and...and...and shot Bambi’s mother!

Okay, that seems to be another story. However, when talking about gun control, Americans do often slip into some fairytale world. Yes, outrageous things are done with guns, but it is the person or people who are doing the shooting and what brought them to this stage that needs closer investigation. In an era with more and more violence (not all of it gun related), isn’t it about time we took a look at our society as a whole?

Guns do happen to be necessary...for the military, police departments, and the like, and, yes, even sportspeople. The US has gone back and forth over gun laws for centuries now. The first gun law was, of course, the 1791 ratification of the Second Amendment. The second law to be put on the books was in Georgia in 1837 when the state passed a “law banning handguns” which was later “ruled unconstitutional and thrown out.” Hundreds of laws over the years have been proposed, voted on, passed, rejected, amended and repealed.

As a representative government, Americans look to their representatives in their state governments and in the federal Congress and the Senate to look after their interests or at least that is the way it is supposed to work. Given that so few representatives do represent their constituents any more, it is no surprise that many Americans have forgotten. And this is where Sanders comes in.

The Senate voted for the passage of the 2005 bill Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) with the help of 14 Democrats and one Independent, Jim Jeffords of Vermont. The bill then went to the House where it passed 283/144 including 59 Democrats and one Independent, Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Some of those who voted for this law, including Jeffords and Sanders, were doing no more than the job that protected their constituents’ interests.

That bill has been at the center of some controversy in this election season, so it is time to take a closer look at it. The only thing that you will find in all the fine speeches about gun control or in the media is that this law protects gun stores and manufacturers from lawsuits. This is not quite accurate regarding the lawsuits, and it hugely ignores the other provisions of that bill.

Child Safety Locks and Firearms Safety

This is a re-authorization of previous bills of the same name (except year) cited as the Child Safety Lock Act of 2005 which requires:

(a) SHORT TITLE- This section may be cited as the `Child Safety Lock Act of 2005'.
(b) PURPOSES- The purposes of this section are--
(c) FIREARMS SAFETY-
`(z) SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE-
(1) to promote the safe storage and use of handguns by consumers;
(2) to prevent unauthorized persons from gaining access to or use of a handgun, including children who may not be in possession of a handgun; and
(3) to avoid hindering industry from supplying firearms to law abiding citizens for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting.
(1) MANDATORY TRANSFER OF SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:
`(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided under paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun to any person other than any person licensed under this chapter, unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device (as defined in section 921(a)(34)) for that handgun. [Emphasis added]
Source

The exceptions are guns sold to agencies and departments of the United States, and law enforcement and rail police officers. There is another exception for guns have been designated as curios or relics. The last exemption is “the transfer to any person of a handgun for which a secure gun storage or safety device is temporarily unavailable for the reasons described in the exceptions stated in section 923(e)” and a maximum of 10 days is given to supply the required items.

Perspective: From 2010 to 2/2016, there have been 37 fatalities from shootings (not including the shooter) at K-12 schools, including 20 from Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, CT.

Note: The following statistics are for one year versus over five years of school shootings which garner all of the media's attention.

From Innocents Lost:

From December 2012 to December 2013, at least 100 children were killed in unintentional shootings
...

About two-thirds of these unintended deaths — 65 percent — took place in a home or vehicle that belonged to the victim’s family, most often with guns that were legally owned but not secured. Another 19 percent took place in the home of a relative or friend of the victim.

More than two-thirds of these tragedies could be avoided if gun owners stored their guns responsibly and prevented children from accessing them. Of the child shooting deaths in which there was sufficient information available to make the determination, 70 percent (62 of 89 cases) could have been prevented if the firearm had been stored locked and unloaded.

As this law made it mandatory that storage and locks be supplied by gun dealers, it would pretty safe to say that the majority of shootings involving children occur due to parental negligence regarding firearm storage and locks. Some of the school shootings could have also been averted if the guns that were used had been safely stored, including the guns used at Sandy Hook.

One would think that this part of the law would be something that people would approve of in terms of saving lives. However, does the media ever bring it up? No. In fact, emphatically, no. It is ignored by Hillary Clinton as well as the media even though far more children are killed each year by children getting their hands on guns at home than by school shootings that make the headlines. The media and Hillary Clinton are spinning a fairytale that ignores the facts. One fact that Hillary Clinton particularly wants to avoid is that she voted against this safety measure. While she may try to explain it that she was only voting against the immunity part of the law, it will be shown later that those lawsuits weren't being won anyway, so why throw away a vote for children's safety to deny an immunity that already existed?

Armor Piercing Ammunition

A provision to limit access to armor-piercing ammunition was included in the 2005 bill. The following section was added to the United States Code, making it unlawful:

(7) for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, unless--
(A) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;
(B) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the purpose of exportation; or
(C) the manufacture or importation of such ammunition is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General;
(8) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver armor piercing ammunition, unless such sale or delivery--
(A) is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;
(B) is for the purpose of exportation; or
(C) is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General
Source

This law also provided stricter penalties for those committing crimes with or found in possession of armor-piercing ammunition beyond what the crime itself required. In addition, this bill provided for a study and report on the types of ammunition that could be classified as armor piercing and the weapons that could fire this type of ammunition. A senator from a rural state with little gun violence considered a law that restricted the use of armor-piercing ammunition important enough to vote for, but the senator from New York with far more gun violence did not? One would think that the media would question Hillary Clinton whose state had far more issues with this ammunition why she did not vote for this law. Did she not vote for it simply due to the immunity? An immunity that was already in force if not by law, by court refusals to hear such cases.

Lawsuits

The first thing that this bill (S. 397, 2005) does NOT do is limit in any way lawsuits pertaining to defects.
The second thing the law does NOT do is protect gun shops and manufacturers from lawsuits stemming from the following:

(1) an action brought against someone convicted of “knowingly transfer[ing] a firearm, knowing that such firearm will be used to commit a crime of violence” by someone directly harmed by such unlawful conduct;
(2) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se; [As used in subparagraph (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment' means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.]
(3) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought;3
(4) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product;
(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
(6) an action commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act
From the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence [Emphasis added]

In other words, if the sale or transfer of the weapon is legal and all steps have been taken to ensure the legality of the sale, gun shops and/or manufacturers cannot be held liable for the actions of those who purchase the gun.

Note: The parents of the Sandy Hook students who were murdered may very well bring a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the weapon used under (3) and possibly (2) of this law. In effect, the law itself has safeguards built into it to allow such lawsuits.

Even before this law was enacted, it was extremely difficult to succeed with a law suit against the gun industry as noted in the following:

As a preliminary matter, it will be helpful to distinguish four types of lawsuits against the gun industry.
1) First, and least controversial, are product liability claims against manufacturers for injuries caused by guns that malfunction. Plaintiffs have prevailed in many of these cases.
2) Second are negligent entrustment claims against retail dealers who sell guns that are subsequently used in crimes. These cases have proven more controversial, and plaintiffs have prevailed in only a few instances.
3) Third are claims against wholesale distributors and manufacturers for injuries caused by misuse of a gun that could have been prevented by equipping the gun with a safety device.
4) And fourth are claims against wholesale distributors and manufacturers for injuries caused by the criminal use of a gun that could have been prevented by more restrictive marketing and sales practices.

It is these last two types of cases—involving design modification and marketing restriction claims—that are at the center of the controversy over gun litigation. For the most part, courts have been hostile to these claims. The great majority have been dismissed or abandoned prior to trial, and of the few favorable jury verdicts obtained by plaintiffs, all but one have been overturned on appeal. A handful of claims have been settled prior to trial.
Source (pdf)
[Numbering and spacing added for easier access. Emphasis added.]

The first two types of claims noted in this passage are not touched by S. 397 (2005) and are, in fact, included in the bill to reinforce the ability to sue under them. The fourth one is the legal liability that the 2005 bill addresses. The last paragraph shows how difficult these claims were to prosecute successfully prior to the passage of he bill.

Note: One of the arguments made against granting this immunity is the statement that gun manufacturers are the only ones who have this. Four Pinocchios. The generic drug industry also has this type of immunity.

The third type is addressed in another part of of the bill and is the part that no one is talking about. This third type of claim aims to reduce gun mishaps due to improper storage and/or locks.

There were provisions in it that I think made sense. For example, do I think that a gun shop in the state of Vermont that sells legally a gun to somebody, and that somebody goes out and does something crazy, that that gun shop owner should be held responsible? I don't.

On the other hand, where you have manufacturers and where you have gun shops knowingly giving guns to criminals or aiding and abetting that, of course we should take action. — Bernie Sanders

Over the course of time, Sanders’ voting record shows that he has been consistent in voting for gun control laws that did not hamper the interests of his constituents. Some like to think of guns as the problem and gun control as the solution. Looking at guns as a symptom and the underlying causes of violence in our country has been a major part of Sanders’ platform.

It is time to leave fairytale-world thinking behind and look at what will realistically work to protect all the citizens and their interests in a country that has as many cultural differences as the United States of America has. A big step in achieving that is having someone who represents the many rather than the few. All in all, Sanders’ overall record on guns is mixed--earning him a D minus with the NRA--but as a representative of Vermont, it is consistent with that of his constituents’ interests--which is exactly what a representative is supposed to do.

In a recent town hall debate between Sanders' supporters and HRC supporters, Gale Brewer, Manhattan Borough President, starts by praising HRC for her listening tour and her ability to listen to her constituents. Brewer then turns around and slams Sanders for doing the same thing regarding the PLCAA vote. In a statement (starting around 1:09:40) regarding this vote, she said, "I vote my conscience...He did not do that. He voted the way he thought his political supporters, meaning the people of Vermont, would want. That's not a good thing." Think about that for a minute...a representative who protects constituents’ interests rather than his/her own, and an HRC supporter thinks that is a bad thing.

As President, a person has a larger and more diverse constituency, so decisions will not always be easy, but with a very long history of championing the interests of the middle and working classes, women’s rights, issues affecting people of all races, the needs of the elderly and the poorest of America’s people, and climate issues, a Sanders’ presidency would move policy from protecting only a few small but wealthy constituencies to protecting the rest of us. (With our help, of course.)

I hope this will help with talking points on this issue.

Part 2--coming soon--will address some related gun issues as well as the Brady Bill/Charleston Loophole