Alphecca is a member of "the lunatic fringe of the US right"
--Guardian (UK) 6/26/06

*******************


Yeah, so?


Even my cats
have guns!

serbu_sidebar_125.jpg
Me with Serbu BFG-50

Email me at:
gunnut -at-
alphecca -dot- com

Check it out:

My group sci-fi blog novel:

Colony: Alchibah






Featured in
Outdoor Life Magazine:

outdoor_small.jpg

Yes, I coined the term
"stupid-fucking-computer"

Alphecca gets noticed!
Check out these
GLOWING REVIEWS
I've just made up:

"Sparkles like pewter"
-- Collector's World

"Wonderful, terrific, splendid"
-- Roget's Thesaurus

"Really good"
-- Stereo World, Gun World,
Car World, Travel World,
Computer World, Roger Ebert,
Martha Stewart, Barney, etc...

"I am not an idiut"
--Barbra Streisand



Proud to be an American
US Flag
standing with Israel
Flag of Israel

PageSpinner

...but all errors and sloppy code should be blamed on me...

All non-credited writings
and photos on
Alphecca.com are
(C) Copyright
2002-2008
by Jeff Soyer
All rights reserved.



July 28, 2005

CSM Wrong Again

The Christian Science Monitor is wrong. They pretty much always are. I have to presume that their un-named editorial writer doesn't read or doesn't bother to even research a bill he is criticizing:


What the gun bill would do is prevent citizens or local governments from suing the tiny number of unscrupulous gun dealers, only about 1 percent of the industry. These operators have nothing to do with supplying arms to US forces, the reason the administration gives for supporting the bill.

Last year, families of the six victims of snipers who terrorized the Washington D.C. area in 2002 won a modest settlement of just over $2 million from Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Washington State. The gun dealer could not account for how more than 200 weapons mysteriously left his shop, including the assault rifle used by convicted snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo. These families can only be grateful that this ill-advised measure had not yet passed.


Okay, one more time for the photographers -- from the actual proposed legislation:

(5) QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTION-

(A) IN GENERAL- The 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,
but shall not include--

(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;

(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;

(iii) 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, including--

(I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product, or aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or

(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code;

(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product; or

(v) 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.

(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- 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.

(C) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- The exceptions enumerated under clauses (i) through (v) of subparagraph (A) shall be construed so as not to be in conflict, and no provision of this Act shall be construed to create a public or private cause of action or remedy.


The DC Sniper victims' lawsuits against the Bull's Eye Shop COULD have proceeded under this new bill. Why is this concept so hard to understand by liberal newspaper writers? Or are they just ignoring it because it doesn't fit in with their anti-gun agenda? That was a rhetorical question...


Posted by Jeff Soyer at July 28, 2005 07:44 AM
Comments

Today's (spit) New York Times had a very nearly identical op-ed as well.

If they're both upset about this bill, we must be doing something right.

Posted by: dave at July 28, 2005 09:18 AM

oh the link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/opinion/28thu4.html?

Posted by: dave at July 28, 2005 09:19 AM

Lying? Well, that's un-Christian and un-science.

Posted by: SayUncle at July 28, 2005 09:34 AM

It's no surprise on the nearly identical op-ed/"news" stories. They are both parroting a Brady Center press release (see URL).

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=50943

MSM research a story? Understand an issue? Why, that takes effort!

Posted by: Tom Frank at July 28, 2005 11:20 AM

that, and the lie that 200 guns mysteriously left Bullseye. Once again see here: Brian Borgelt

The numbers jumped around wildly during the frenzy of media coverage that followed the sniper arrests in October 2002. The rumors said 340 guns were missing, then 262, then 238, then 160 and finally 78 – a number cited by the ATF.

Posted by: ben at July 29, 2005 12:45 AM

*grumble*

I actually got a response from my House of Reps critter (Olver if it matters) to my request he vote for(!) the "Protection of..." act.

Scumbag's response was right out of VPC literature. To paraphrase: This bill will prevent people from suing if they are REALLY injured. Bull. Sounds to me like he hasn't even bothered to read it. But our congress-critters are KNOWN for that.

*spit*

Peet in WMass...

Posted by: Peet at July 29, 2005 08:45 AM
Note: Comments close down on posts after seven days and then
the comment input form disappears.

Your comments are welcome. You don't need to enter a URL and you don't need a "valid" email address, either. Note though that MT Blacklist is installed to flag suspiciously spam-like strings. Unfortunately, because of the bastard spammers, the strings "google.com" and "yahoo.com" (even in your email address) are currently banned as well. So are strings such as "cialis" (a common spam) which rules out words such as "socialism". Try putting a hyphan in a word like that.

By Golly, you're reading an archived post. Click Here to head to the main page and read current stuff...



Into science fiction? Check out my group blog novel, Colony: Alchibah.
See the reader's guide there for first-timer tips.