Subject:
|
Re: Just 'cause...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 23 Oct 2003 19:55:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
262 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
I would consider the idea that if a gun manufacturer knowingly ships guns to
a retailer known to be in violation of regulations, then the gun
manufacturer may or should be equally culpable.
|
I’d say the ATF has to police this stuff and not that manufacturer, the
reverse seems crazy backwards. If you are going to place the burden of
regulation on the manufacturer, then what do we need the ATF for?
|
I wouldn’t necessarily say ‘police’, but if “Joe’s Gun Shop and Deli” places
orders into ‘Smith and Wesson Gun Manufacturing Co., shouldn’t S&W know to whom
they’re shipping guns? Make sure that the store doesn’t have any outstanding
ATF cites against them? If the shop owner has to verify the “legitimacy” of the
buyer thru background checks and such, doesn’t that also mean the manufacturer
has the same responsibility with regards to the shop owner? This shop, as
mentioned in the article, had numerous cites against them. And yet the shop
still had stock. The ATF should have shut ‘im down, but the manufacturers
shouldn’t have shipped him any new stock, either.
I worked for a trucking company a while back--they were very concerned with a
thing called CVOR. It’s basically the number of points against the company due
to traffic tickets and the like. If the company doesn’t have a valid CVOR, the
company can’t put trucks on the road. If the company doesn’t have a valid CVOR,
it can’t get any new trucks, either.
So a gun store owner would have to show, for example, a valid document that
legally demonstrates no (or lawful amount of) outstanding cites against it.
In this fashion, S&W would be even further removed of any crime--“Hey, we
followed the rules! The shop was valid according to the ATF! Leave us out of
it!”
I’d do it just for that reason alone.
| |
I would say that citing the gun shop is also not enough. They’re a business
like any other and they can and should be regulated. Failure to comply with
what are probably fairly reasonable regulations should trigger a shut down.
Put them out of business.
| |
Another point is what about the legislation in the works granting
‘exemptions’ to a specific manufacturer that no other manufacturers have?
I’m a very big proponent of eliminating frivilous lawsuits, but is this
legislation going to void valid suits as well?
|
Yeah, after I posted I realized that I had skipped that part. I pretty much
don’t believe in protecting anyone from a possible suit -- that’s nuts in my
view. Sometimes the right to sue is all you have as a means of recovery. At
the same time I think the gun industry is being called out continually in an
obnoxious and harrassing way. Still, I think they should have to make their
court appearances, but if the finding of a frivolous lawsuit is made the
costs of the appearance (ALL related costs) should be charged back to the
plaintiff. Hey, it’s not like the gun industry doesn’t have a raft of attys
on it’s side anyway. These guys can make court appearances when necessary.
So “No” on the proposed legislation from me.
-- Hop-Frog
|
On this we agree :)
You and I are both on the same page that ‘money talks’. Hit ‘em where it hurts!
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Just 'cause...
|
| (...) I'd say the ATF has to police this stuff and not that manufacturer, the reverse seems crazy backwards. If you are going to place the burden of regulation on the manufacturer, then what do we need the ATF for? I would say that citing the gun (...) (21 years ago, 23-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
