Saturday, September 11, 2004

WHO WILL PROTECT US FROM THE LAW?


Victims of the sniper shootings in Washington DC and their families have settled a lawsuit they brought against a gun company and a gun dealer. They had sued the two companies for negligent distribution of weapons. Lawyers representing the victims' families described the settlement as historic. They believe it could change practices across the firearms industry.

Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, who sold the rifle used in the shootings, agreed to pay the families $2m. Bushmaster Firearms, who made the gun, settled on a half-a-million dollar payout. The deal with Bushmaster is the first time a gun manufacturer in the United States has agreed to pay damages for negligent distribution of weapons.

The sniper shootings terrorised areas around Washington DC two years ago. Ten people were shot dead with a Bushmaster rifle. John Allen Muhammad and his teenage accomplice, Lee Malvo, have so far been found guilty on one count of murder.

Lawyers representing Bushmaster said they had decided to settle to avoid rising legal costs and stressed there was no admission of liability on their part. But as part of the settlement, the company has agreed to educate its dealers on gun safety.

Source.





"ASSAULT WEAPONS"

Great news: "The fight to renew a favored ban on assault weapons effectively died Tuesday after the lead Senate sponsor of a bill to continue restrictions on the sale and manufacture of some semi-automatic weapons conceded defeat. 'Absent the president twisting arms, it's nil,' said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., of the chances to get a bill passed before midnight Monday, when the law expires. President Bush has indicated he would sign an extension of the 1994 law if Congress got it to his desk. But Bush has not asked the House to pass it, and congressional Republican leaders, including House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, have refused to bring it to the floor for a vote."




Armed Females of America: "It appears that the final bell is going to toll for the so-called 'assault weapons' ban on Monday September 13, and the gun banners are staging a concerted whine fest in their attempts to foist an extension of this unconstitutional legislation. ... And still others claim that not only do we, as a populace not NEED these weapons, but that they are not fit for hunting, which is what the Second Amendment is, after all, right? Wrong! The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, and historical documents specifically show that the Founding Fathers fully intended for the citizens of this nation to be at least as well armed as the government agents to whom the people grant their authority."




Let the gun lie die: "The embarrassing dirty secret is that no government agency dares claim that the ban has produced any reduction in crime. More embarrassingly, no agency predicts benefits from renewing the ban. That's because the banned guns are neither the choice of criminals nor more powerful than common deer rifles. They're functionally identical to guns owned by millions of hunters and shooters across America. Yet most media, including USA TODAY, willingly abandon a professional duty to edify and clarify such a simple issue. Too many propagate the fraud, even to the point of retaining the likes of Michael Moore. ... Gun owners have seen through this lie for a decade. More and more, so do members of Congress, who will represent their home districts rather than the editors of USA TODAY."



No comments: