Voters Do Not Support Lawsuits Against Firearms Manufacturers, Retailers, Poll Finds

 


NEWTOWN, Conn. – Seven of 10 American voters do not support allowing crime victims to sue firearm manufacturers and retailers when firearms they made or sold lawfully after background checks are used illegally in crime. Instead, voters from across political parties and geographic regions back the defense that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) provides the firearms industry.More than 70 percent of voters disagree with a position one presidential candidate has made a centerpiece of her campaign. Like that candidate, others running for federal office have chosen to run against and misrepresent this decade-old law that prevents crime victims from suing firearm manufacturers and retailers who have not broken any laws.

These findings were among the results of a national scientific poll of 1,000 registered voters conducted in mid-April by Harper Polling and released today by the National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®), the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry.

Some 72 percent of those surveyed agree that the PLCAA “should be kept and we should punish the criminals who commit these acts not the law-abiding manufacturers and retailers of lawful products which get misused” instead of “this law should be repealed because the current protection enables manufacturers and retailers to sell guns to people who shouldn’t have them, because they know they cannot be sued and don’t face any consequences” (26 percent). Only 4 percent were not sure. Read more

Tennessee legislature makes major moves to get rid of gun-free zones at public universities and businesses

From John Lott, Jr.

2000px-Flag_of_Tennessee.svg
By overwhelming votes, the Tennessee legislature passed two bills that get rid of gun-free zones at public universities and provides immunity to businesses if they don’t post ban.  CPRC’s John Lott testified on both bills when they started in the state Senate Judiciary Committee.
The gun-free zones at public universities allows “full-time employees of state public colleges or universities to carry a handgun while on property owned, operated, or used by the employing college or university if the employee has a valid Tennessee handgun carry permit.”  This bill passed by a 28 to 5 vote in the state Senate and 69 to 24 in the state House.  Republican Gov. Bill Haslam might veto the bill because it didn’t give the institutions the power to opt out, but with a 85 to 15 percent vote in the Senate and a 74 to 26 percent in the House, there are more than enough votes to over ride a veto.  It was the Senate version of the bill that was passed.
The other bill “provides immunity to the business/entity if the business doesn’t post” signs banning permitted concealed handguns.  This bill passed by a 26 to 4 vote in the state Senate and by 77 to 12 in the state House.  The governor hasn’t spoken out on this bill, but even if he were to veto it, it looks as if it would be easy to override the veto.
Taken together these two bills will make a major difference in eliminating gun-free zones in the state.  Tennessee will be the 13th state that is ending gun-free zones on college campuses.  The immunity bill appears to be the first one in the country.

The Top 5 Media Misrepresentations Of Gun Ownership (That Are Actually Totally Normal)

GW:  All good information at the link below, but what I never hear about why someone would want particular guns and particular ammo relates to the real reason for the Second Amendment:  It’s there to protect citizens from tyrannical rule, which by the way, we get closer to with each passing day.  Certainly, government officials avoid such talk at any cost.

“Nobody needs thousands of rounds of ammunition in their home.”

“Nobody needs armor-piercing bullets.”

“Nobody needs a stockpile of guns.”

“Nobody needs assault weapons.”

“Nobody needs…”  You finish the statement.

The logical responses to these bogus questions are here…

Should the Capitol Remain “Gun-Free”?

From John Lott, Jr…

Like so many mass public shootings, the gunman who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Monday first tried shooting a uniformed officer.  Fortunately, the lone gunman was quickly subdued and no one other than the attacker was seriously injured. But it raises questions of what would have happened with a more coordinated terrorist attack.

With terror attacks occurring regularly around the world, we can’t ignore the fact that the Capitol would provide a primary target for terrorists.  Indeed, an FBI informant foiled such an attack in January.

Police are crucial – probably the single most important factor in reducing crime. But uniformed police have a tough job stopping terrorists since they are often the first targets in any attack.

In late 2013, Ron Noble, who at the time was secretary-general of Interpol, Europe’s version of the FBI, noted two means of protecting people from mass shootings:

“One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves (should be) so secure that in order to get into the soft target, you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security.”

But with terrorists planning these attacks many months or even years in advance, Noble warned that his experience taught him it was virtually impossible to stop killers from getting weapons.

Read more

SAF: Garland Nomination Should Be Rejected


BELLEVUE, WA – The founder of the Second Amendment Foundation today said that the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Barack Obama should be rejected.

SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, reacting to this morning’s announcement, was blunt: “This is not a good nomination and Judge Garland should not be confirmed.”

President Obama nominated Garland, who is the chief judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to fill the seat left vacant by the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia, author of the landmark 2008 Second Amendment ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. Scalia was considered a giant on the court and one of its finest conservative voices.

On the other hand, “Judge Garland voted to grant an en banc hearing to Heller after the three judge panel struck down the District of Columbia’s gun ban law. The only reason to do so would be to overturn the pro Second Amendment ruling. That was hostile to gun rights.” Read more

Hillary Lies about Gun Lawsuits

NSSF Corrects the Record on Firearms Industry Liability

NEWTOWN, Conn. – The National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®), the trade association for the firearms industry, issued a statement today to correct the record and refute ongoing misrepresentation of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) by Hillary Clinton.

In a Democratic presidential primary debate in Michigan Sunday, Mrs. Clinton again falsely charged that the firearms industry is totally immune from liability due to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and that the law should be repealed. Mrs. Clinton has prevaricated about the law on several occasions. To cite one example, at an Oct. 7, 2015 forum in Iowa, Clinton wrongly claimed, “They are the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability. They can sell a gun to someone they know they shouldn’t, and they won’t be sued.”

Politifact found Mrs. Clinton’s rhetoric about the law to be entirely false. In fact, Congress has passed limitations on liability for other industries, including small aircraft manufacturers, internet service and content providers, and vaccine makers.

The PLCAA was passed by Congress with support from both sides of the aisle in response to dozens of baseless lawsuits filed in the late 1990s orchestrated out of then President Bill Clinton’s White House to put gun companies out of business by seeking to blame them for the actions of criminals who misused firearms. On Sunday, Hillary Clinton described this spurious line of legal reasoning as “promising.” Read more

Anti-Gunners Are ‘Dancing In Blood’ Of Kalamazoo Victims

BELLEVUE, WA – The gun prohibition lobby is “dancing in the blood of the Kalamazoo shooting victims to push their agenda of public disarmament,” the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

“Yesterday, President Barack Obama had the gall to suggest that executive actions that he took in January might have prevented this tragedy,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “and this morning in an email fund raising blast, Shannon Watts, founder of the Moms Demand Action group, intimated that their gun control schemes could also prevent such incidents.

“It’s not true,” he bristled, “and they know it!”

Kalamazoo murder suspect Jason Dalton had no criminal or mental health record, and that has been reported by every responsible news agency in the country, Gottlieb observed. But the co-author of “Dancing in Blood, Exposing the Gun Ban Lobby’s Playbook to Destroy Your Rights” said the remarks from Obama and Watts both follow a key strategy outlined by gun control strategists more than three years ago.

In their booklet ‘Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging” anti-gun activists are told to “Always focus on emotional and value-driven arguments” instead of “wonky statistics.” They are advised to tell the public that America has weak gun laws.

“It is bad enough,” Gottlieb stated, “that the gun ban lobby exploits such a crime, but for a sitting president to also press an anti-Second Amendment agenda that will impact tens of millions of his fellow citizens and not accomplish a whit toward truly reducing violent crime is beyond the pale. Read more

1 2 3 64